Drums of War: Israel and the “Axis of Resistance” – International Crisis Group

04/08/2010 in Current Affairs, EU, International Relations, Iran, Israel, Middle East, Military, Mossad, News, Obama, Saudi Arabia, Terrorism, Turkey, UK, UN, United States
Tags: Current Affairs, EU, Hizbollah, International Relations, Iran, Israel, Lebanon, Middle East, Military, Mossad, News, Obama, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Terrorism, Turkey, UK, UN, United States

The Israeli-Lebanese border is exceptionally calm and uniquely dangerous, both for the same reason: fear that a new round of hostilities would be far more violent and could spill over regionally.

Drums of War: Israel and the “Axis of Resistance”, the latest report from the International Crisis Group, examines developments since the indecisive 2006 confrontation. It focuses on the de facto deterrence regime that has helped keep the peace: all parties now know that a next conflict would not spare civilians and could escalate into broader regional warfare. However, the process this regime perpetuates – mutually reinforcing military preparations; enhanced military cooperation among Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hizbollah; escalating Israeli threats – pulls in the opposite direction and could trigger the very outcome it has averted so far.

Drums of War: Israel and the “Axis of Resistance”

Beirut/Jerusalem/Damascus/Washington/Brussels

MENA Report Nº972 Aug 2010

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Of all the explanations why calm has prevailed in the Israeli-Lebanese arena since the end of the 2006 war, the principal one also should be cause for greatest concern: fear among the parties that the next confrontation would be far more devastating and broader in scope. None of the most directly relevant actors – Israel, Hizbollah, Syria and Iran – relishes this prospect, so all, for now, are intent on keeping their powder dry. But the political roots of the crisis remain unaddressed, the underlying dynamics are still explosive, and miscalculations cannot be ruled out. The only truly effective approach is one that would seek to resume – and conclude – meaningful Israeli-Syrian and Israeli-Lebanese peace talks. There is no other answer to the Hizbollah dilemma and, for now, few better ways to affect Tehran’s calculations. Short of such an initiative, deeper political involvement by the international community is needed to enhance communications between the parties, defuse tensions and avoid costly missteps.

Four years after the last war, the situation in the Levant is paradoxical. It is exceptionally quiet and uniquely dangerous, both for the same reason. The build-up in military forces and threats of an all-out war that would spare neither civilians nor civilian infrastructure, together with the worrisome prospect of its regionalisation, are effectively deterring all sides. Today, none of the parties can soberly contemplate the prospect of a conflict that would be uncontrolled, unprecedented and unscripted.

Should hostilities break out, Israel will want to hit hard and fast to avoid duplicating the 2006 scenario. It will be less likely than in the past to distinguish between Hizbollah and a Lebanese government of which the Shiite movement is an integral part and more likely to take aim at Syria – both because it is the more vulnerable target and because it is Hizbollah’s principal supplier of military and logistical support. Meanwhile, as tensions have risen, the so-called “axis of resistance” – Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hizbollah – has been busy intensifying security ties. Involvement by one in the event of attack against another no longer can be dismissed as idle speculation.

Other restraining elements are at play. UN Security Council Resolution 1701 led to a thickening of the Lebanese and international armed presence in southern Lebanon after the 2006 war, which has constrained Hizbollah’s freedom of action while simultaneously putting the brakes on any potential Israeli military ambition. Even as both sides routinely criticise and violate the resolution – which concurrently called for the end of arms transfers to Lebanon’s non-governmental forces, disarmament of its armed groups and full respect for the country’s sovereignty – they continue to value the framework defined by it as an integral component of the status quo.

Hizbollah’s enhanced political status in Lebanon is an additional inhibiting factor, discouraging it from initiatives that could imperil those gains. Israel’s current government – its reputation notwithstanding – appears less inclined at this point to take the risk twice taken by its more centrist predecessor of initiating hostilities, seeking to prove it can maintain stability and worried about a more hostile international environment. Despite voicing alarm at Hizbollah’s military growth, it has displayed restraint. U.S. President Barack Obama, likewise, far from the one-time dream of a new Middle East harboured by his predecessor, has no appetite for a conflagration that would jeopardise his peace efforts and attempts to restore U.S. credibility in the region. All of which explains why the border area has witnessed fewer violent incidents than at any time in decades.

But that is only the better half of the story. Beneath the surface, tensions are mounting with no obvious safety valve. The deterrence regime has helped keep the peace, but the process it perpetuates – mutually reinforcing military preparations; Hizbollah’s growing and more sophisticated arsenal; escalating Israeli threats – pulls in the opposite direction and could trigger the very outcome it has averted so far. If Israel would not like a war, it does not like what it is seeing either.

It is not clear what would constitute a red line whose crossing by the Shiite movement would prompt Israeli military action, but that lack of clarity provides additional cause for anxiety. Unlike in the 1990s, when the Israel-Lebanon Monitoring Group, operating with U.S., French and Syrian participation, ensured some form of inter-party contacts and minimal adherence to agreed rules of the game, and when Washington and Damascus were involved in intensive dialogue, today there is no effective forum for communication and thus ample room for misunderstanding and misperception.

Meanwhile, an underground war of espionage and assassinations has been raging, for now a substitute for more open confrontation. The parties might not want a full-scale shooting war, but under these circumstances one or the other could provoke an unwanted one. Further contributing to a sense of paralysis has been lack of movement on any 1701-related file, from the seemingly easiest – Israel’s withdrawal from the northern (Lebanese) part of the village of Ghajar – to the most complex, including policing the Lebanese-Syrian border, resolving the status of Shebaa Farms, disarming Hizbollah and ending Israeli over-flights. Such paralysis feeds scepticism that anything can be achieved and, over time, could wear down the commitment of contributors to the UN peacekeeping force (UNIFIL).

The key to unlocking this situation is – without neglecting the central Israeli-Palestinian track – to resume meaningful negotiations between Israel on the one hand and Syria and Lebanon on the other. This is the only realistic way to shift underlying dynamics and, in particular, affect Syria’s calculations. Without that, Damascus will continue to transfer weapons to Hizbollah, the Shiite movement will successfully resist pressure to disarm and Israel will keep on violating Lebanon’s sovereignty.

There is scant reason for optimism on the peace front, however. That means little can be achieved, not that nothing can be done. The most urgent tasks are to restore momentum on 1701 by focusing on the most realistic goals and to establish consultative mechanisms to defuse tensions, clarify red lines and minimise risks of an accidental confrontation. Better channels of communication would help. At present, the U.S. is talking mainly to one side (Israel), keeping another at arm’s length (Syria), ignoring a third (Hizbollah) and confronting the fourth (Iran). The UN might not have that problem, but it has others. It has too many overlapping and uncoordinated missions and offices dealing with Lebanon and the peace process and thus lacks policy coherence. One option would be to empower its mission in Lebanon so that it can play a more effective political role.

Nobody should be under the illusion that solving Ghajar, beefing up the UN’s role or even finding new, creative means of communication between Israel, Syria and, indirectly, Hizbollah, would make a lasting or decisive difference. They undoubtedly would help. But Lebanon’s crises for the most part are derivative of broader regional tensions; until serious efforts are mounted to resolve the latter, the former will persist. In the meantime, the world should cross its fingers that fear of a catastrophic conflict will continue to be reason enough for the parties not to provoke one.

RECOMMENDATIONS

To the U.S. Government:

1. Intensify efforts, including at the presidential level, to re-launch Israeli-Syrian and, as a consequence, Israeli-Lebanese peace negotiations in parallel to Israeli-Palestinian talks, persuading Prime Minister Netanyahu to reiterate the commitment made by past Israeli leaders to a full withdrawal to the lines of 1967 assuming all other Israeli needs are met.

2. Initiate a high-level and sustained dialogue with Syria aimed at defining both a clear and credible pathway toward improved bilateral relations and a compelling regional role for Damascus in the aftermath of a peace agreement.

3. Press, in the context of resumed peace talks, Syria to halt weapons transfers to Hizbollah and Israel to cease actions in violation of Lebanese sovereignty.

To the UN Security Council:

4. Ask the Secretary-General to review the various missions and offices dealing with Lebanon and the Middle East peace process, with the aim of developing a more coherent and comprehensive policy and enhancing coordination among them.

To the UN Secretariat:

5. Consider, in the interim, consolidating implementation of Security Council Resolution 1701 in the office of the Special Coordinator (UNSCOL), with a view to more effective engagement with the various parties.

To the UN and the Governments of Israel and Lebanon:

6. Revive momentum toward implementation of Resolution 1701, focusing on the most immediately achievable goals, by:

a) pursuing discussions toward resolution of the status of Ghajar, under which Israel would withdraw from the northern (Lebanese) part, and UNIFIL would assume control, with a Lebanese army presence; and

b) using such discussions to initiate talks on conditions necessary for attaining a formal ceasefire.

To UNIFIL troop contributing countries, particularly those in Europe:

7. Reaffirm commitments to maintain the current level of troop contributions.

8. Pursue a policy of active patrolling, in order to prevent any overt Hizbollah presence in its area of responsibility, while conducting outreach efforts to the civilian population.

9. Investigate, publicly condemn and take appropriate action against flagrant violations of Resolution 1701, particularly attempts to resupply Hizbollah and Israeli violations of Lebanese sovereignty.

To the UN and the Governments of the U.S., France, Turkey, Israel, Syria and Lebanon:

10. Consider establishing a Contact Group or, alternatively, more informal consultative mechanisms, to discuss implementation of Resolution 1701 and address potential flashpoints, focusing on:

a) a commitment by relevant parties to refrain from provocative statements and actions;

b) an end to implicit or explicit threats to harm civilians or damage civilian infrastructure in any future war;

c) a halt to targeted assassinations; and

d) immediate intervention in the event of a violent incident so as to de-escalate the crisis.

To the Government of Lebanon and Hizbollah:

11. Make every effort to discourage and prevent hostile action by the civilian population against UN personnel and property.

To the Government of Lebanon:

12. Substantially increase the number of troops deployed in the South and provide them with enhanced training and equipment.

Beirut/Jerusalem/Damascus/Washington/Brussels, 2 August 2010

Drums of War: Israel and the “Axis of Resistance” – International Crisis Group

Read it all on The MasterBlog

Obama’s choice of Petraeus a ‘masterstroke’ – CNN.com

29/06/2010 in Afghanistan, Middle East, Military, News, Obama, Politics, UN, United States, War
Tags: Afghanistan, Middle East, Military, News, Obama, Politics, UN, United States, War

Obama’s choice of Petraeus a ‘masterstroke’ STORY HIGHLIGHTS Fareed Zakaria: Real question about McChrystal was whether he was successful in his role He says his comments and those of his team displayed disrespect for civilian authority Zakaria says Petraeus showed in Iraq the importance of working with civilians to carry out strategy He says current strategy needs to be rethought given lack of central government authority in Afghanistan Editor’s note: Fareed Zakaria is an author and foreign affairs analyst who hosts “Fareed Zakaria GPS” on CNN U.S. on Sundays at 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. ET and CNN International at 2 and 10 p.m. Central European Time / 5 p.m. Abu Dhabi / 9 p.m. Hong Kong. New York (CNN) — President Obama’s decision to replace Gen. Stanley McChrystal with Gen. David Petraeus is “a masterstroke,” says analyst Fareed Zakaria. The president announced Wednesday that he had accepted McChrystal’s resignation after the publication of a Rolling Stone article that contained disparaging remarks by the general and his staff about officials in the Obama administration. Obama chose Petraeus, the head of the U.S. Central Command, to replace McChrystal. Zakaria said the controversy over McChrystal’s comments raised questions about how effectively he was doing his job, and Petraeus is superbly equipped for the role of leading the NATO force in Afghanistan. The author and host of CNN’s “Fareed Zakaria GPS” spoke to CNN on Wednesday. Here is an edited transcript: CNN: What do you think of the president’s decision? Fareed Zakaria: This is a masterstroke. Petraeus needs no on-the-job training, knows the theater, and is beloved by the troops. He understands COIN [counter-insurgency strategy], literally wrote the book on it, and most important — knows how to execute it. He has superb political skills and understands that a close working relationship with his civilian counterparts from the State Department, White House, and other agencies is not a bother but at the heart of the mission’s success. CNN: What was at stake in the controversy over Gen. McChrystal? Zakaria: I think there is one issue which has really been focused on by the press, which is the insubordination of Gen. McChrystal and his lack of respect for the civilian chain of command in general and a few of the civilians in particular in this White House, including the vice president, the ambassador to Afghanistan, and that’s an important issue but I think in most cases that was about personality clashes. This is not like [Gen. Douglas] MacArthur, the historical analogy everyone makes. MacArthur basically publicly disagreed with Truman’s policy and in order to assert the supremacy of his policy, President Truman decided to fire Gen. MacArthur. This is more a case of insubordination in terms of showing disrespect to civilian authority, which is serious but doesn’t quite rise to that level. The question I have, which in some ways is greater, is not whether Gen. McChrystal is guilty of insubordination but of incompetence. CNN: In what way? Zakaria: What I mean by that is this — the counterinsurgency strategy depends upon a very close joint implementation of military, political, economic and diplomatic efforts. That is at the heart of it. What you see in Gen. McChrystal is someone who is openly disdainful of and sets himself up almost in opposition to the U.S. ambassador in Afghanistan, the State Department high representative Richard Holbrooke, the national security adviser, the vice president. So you have to ask yourself how would it be possible that they would actually be implementing a counterinsurgency strategy with that level of disconnect and friction between the military and civilian authorities. If McChrystal and his team are so contemptuous of these other people whose support is absolutely critical to the success of the mission, then he’s failing at his mission. This is not about his manners, this is about his ability to effectively execute the task he’s been asked to execute. If you compare McChrystal’s attitude toward his civilian counterparts with that of Gen. Petraeus in Iraq, it’s night and day. Petraeus was extremely respectful of Ryan Crocker, the ambassador, extremely respectful of the State Department, always talking about how he really admired and appreciated their efforts and wanted them more involved, held almost all his briefings along with Crocker. And that clearly was a crucial part of why the surge succeeded, because the whole premise of the surge is that the military part is not by itself going to be enough. You need a great deal of activity on the political, economic, social and diplomatic fronts. CNN: So you don’t agree with those who describe McChrystal as indispensable to executing the strategy? Zakaria: No, I think he may be a great warrior and by all accounts he is, but the heart of the counterinsurgency doctrine is that you need a lot more than being a great warrior. You need to be a great diplomat, a great politician, a great nation builder. And I don’t see much evidence of that. And in fact that has been the major failing of the counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan. There was a kind of facile assumption that if you cleared [territory], you would be able to hold. Gen. McChrystal said his strategy was going to work, because once they defeated Taliban in any area, they would have government in a box that they could roll out. The idea that government in Afghanistan is some kind of technocratic Lego set that you could just put in a box and bring to Marja and open and it’s all ready, is naïve in the extreme. If government in Afghanistan can be put in a box, it’s a jack in the box and you open it, it hits you in the face. CNN: So what needs to be done now? Zakaria: The key here is if you’re going to do counter insurgency, you have to have a hell of a lot more coordination between the military and the civilian, with the allies. The contempt that McChrystal betrayed toward the French is another part of the problem. The idea that these expressions of irritation and condescension are just done privately is probably not true. What you say and think in private ends up coming out and colors the relationship. So my guess is the relationship between McChrystal and his staff and the allied governments is probably not very good. Then there is the broader issue, which is the attempt to implement the counter-insurgency strategy in Afghanistan in the first place. CNN: Why is that in question? Zakaria: Afghanistan is the the third-poorest country in world, it has had 30 years of almost unrelenting civil war. It is a deeply tribal society which lacks any developed government authority. … You’re not trying to rebuild a nation or a state but to build one for the first time in history. I’ve always been more sympathetic to Vice President Joe Biden’s counterinsurgency strategy, which says you should reduce the troop levels down to some significant number which would be able to engage in effective counterinsurgency and deny the Taliban any major territorial advances. But you leave open the possibility that there will be political accommodations worked out at local levels between the Taliban and the government, because in the in long run, that’s the only viable strategy. In the long run, the Pashtuns who make up the Taliban — Pashtuns make up 50 percent of Afghanistan and 100 percent of the insurgency — are not going anywhere. They’re not foreigners, they’re not aliens, so you’re going to have to live with them. So some kind of political deal making needs to start happening. CNN: Do you think McChrystal was standing in the way of that? Zakaria: No, I don’t think he was standing in the way of that. But this [current] counterinsurgency strategy is premised on the idea that you can create a stable nation with loyalty to the central government, and that seems to be a strategy that does not take into account the very low level of political development in Afghanistan in the first place. In Iraq, a crucial phenomenon that took place while COIN was being implemented was the “Sunni Awakening,” the switching of sides by dozens of Sunni tribes, once enemies of the government, who chose to ally with it. This was at the heart of the success of the surge. Something similar has to happen in Afghanistan. Elements of the Taliban have to move over and support the government. The key task for Gen. Petraeus is to figure out what it will take to make that happen.

Links referenced within this article

Find this article at: http://edition.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/06/23/zakaria.mcchrystal.petraeus/index.html?fbid=oN_HhIWRF8T

Obama’s choice of Petraeus a ‘masterstroke’ – CNN.com

____________________________________
The MasterBlog

Read it all on The MasterBlog

Our World: Ending Israel’s losing streak

02/06/2010 in Democracy, Gaza, Iran, Islam, Israel, Middle East, News, Obama, Palestinians, Smuggling, Terrorism, UN
Tags: Democracy, Flotilla, Gaza, Iran, Islam, Israel, Middle East, News, Obama, Palestinians, Smuggling, Terrorism, UN

Our World: Ending Israel’s losing streak 

By CAROLINE B. GLICK

01/06/2010

A straight line runs from the anti-Israel UN resolution passed last Friday and the Hamas flotilla. 
These words are being written before the dust has settled on Monday morning’s naval commando raid on the Gaza-bound Turkish flotilla of terror supporters. The raid’s full range of operational failures still cannot be known. Obviously the fact that the mission ended with at least six soldiers wounded and at least 10 Hamas supporters dead makes clear that there were significant failures in both the IDF’s training for and execution of the mission.

The navy and other relevant bodies will no doubt study these failures. But they point to a larger strategic failure that has crippled the country’s capacity to contend with the information war being waged against it. Until this failure is remedied, no after-action investigation, no enhanced training, no new electronic warfare doodad will make a significant impact on Israel’s ability to contend with the next Hamas flotilla.

IN THE space of four days, the country has suffered two massive defeats. A straight line runs between the anti-Israel resolution passed last Friday at the UN’s Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference and the Hamas flotilla. And in both cases, officials voiced “surprise” at these defeats.

Given the months-long build-up to the NPT review conference, and the weeks-long build-up to the Turkish-Hamas flotilla, that surprise cannot be attributed to a lack of information. What it points to, rather, is a cognitive failure of our leaders to understand the nature of the war being waged against us. And it is this fundamental failure of cognition that has landed six soldiers in the hospital, the nation’s international reputation in tatters and its spokesmen searching for a way to describe a reality they do not understand.

The reality is simple and stark. Israel is the target of a massive information war, unprecedented in scale and scope. This war is being waged primarily by a massive consortium of the international Left and the Arab and Islamic worlds. The staggering scale of the forces aligned against us is demonstrated by two things.

The Hamas abetting Free Gaza Web site published a list of some 222 organizations that endorsed the terror-supporting flotilla. The listed organizations from the four corners of the earth include Jewish anti-Israel groups as well as Christian, Islamic and nonreligious anti-Israel groups. It is hard to think of any cause other than Israel-bashing that could unite such disparate forces.

The second indicator of the scope of the war is far more devastating than the list of groups that endorsed the pro-Hamas flotilla. That indicator is the fact that at the UN on Friday, 189 governments came together as one to savage Israel. There is no other issue that commands such unanimity. The NPT review conference demonstrated that the only way the international community will agree on anything is if its members are agreeing that Israel has no right to defend itself. The conference’s campaign against Israel shows that the 222 organizations supporting Hamas are a reflection of the will of the majority of the nations of the world.

This war is nothing new. It has been going on since the dawn of modern Zionism 150 years ago. In many ways, it is just the current iteration of the eternal war against the Jewish people.

The red-green alliance’s aims are twofold. It seeks to delegitimize Israel’s right to exist and it seeks to make it impossible for Israel to defend itself. If these aims are met, Israel’s destruction will become an inevitability.

UNTIL US President Barack Obama took office, Israel’s one steady asset in this war was the US. Until last year, the US consistently refused to join the red-green alliance because its leaders recognized that the alliance’s campaign was part and parcel of its campaign against US superpower status. Indeed, some US leaders recognized that the alliance’s animus toward Israel stemmed from the same source as its rejection of American exceptionalism.

Dismally, what the US’s vote in favor of the NPT review conference’s final anti-Israel (and by default pro-Iranian) resolution makes clear is that under Obama, the US is no longer Israel’s reliable ally. Indeed, what the US’s vote shows is that the Obama administration’s ideological preferences place it on the side of the red-green alliance. No amount of backpedalling by the Obama administration can make up the damage caused by its act of belligerence.

If Israel’s leaders were better informed, they would have recognized a number of things in the lead-up to the conference. They would have realized that Obama’s anti-nuclear conference in April, his commitment to a nuclear-free world, as well as his general ambivalence – at best – to US global leadership rendered it all but inevitable that he would turn on Israel. The truth is that Egypt’s call for the denuclearization of Israel jibes with Obama’s own repeatedly statedviews both regarding Israel and the US’s own nuclear arsenal. Armed with this basic understanding of Obama’s inclinations, Israel should have taken for granted that the NPT conference would target it. Consequently, in months preceding the conference, it should have stated loudly and consistently that as currently constituted, the NPT serves as the chief enabler of nuclear proliferation rather than the central instrument for preventing nuclear proliferation. North Korea exploited its status as an NPT signatory to develop its nuclear arsenal. Today Iran exploits its status as an NPT signatory to develop nuclear weapons. Unless the NPT is fundamentally revised, it will continue to serve as the primary instrument for nuclear proliferation.

Had this been Israel’s position, it would have been able to undercut US arguments in favor of signing onto the final resolution. So too, such a position would have prepared Israel to cogently explain its rejection of the final resolution.

And that is the thing of it. The red-green alliance’s aim at the NPT conference was to discredit Israel’s deterrent capacity while delegitimizing its right to take preemptive action against Iran. Now, due to Israel’s failure to make its case against the NPT in the months leading up to the conference, as our enemies use the US-supported final resolution to claim that our opposition to Iran’s nuclear weapons program is hypocritical, we lack a cognitive framework for responding.

The fact that the government still doesn’t get the point is made clear by its response to the decision. Its denunciation of the resolution makes no mention of the fact that the NPT regime itself has become the chief enabler of nuclear proliferation. So too, disastrously, in a clear bid to pretend away Obama’s treachery, Israel actually applauded him for emptily criticizing the resolution he voted for. This response compounds the damage and ensures that the assault will continue.

AS TO the flotilla, the challenge it presented was nothing new. Israel has been confronted by suicide protesters for a decade now. The fact that these pro-Hamas activists intended to commit suicide to discredit Israel on camera was made clear by the fact that the Turkish organizers named the lead ship Rachel Corrie.

So too, the fact that IDF forces boarding the ships would be met by trenchant, violent opposition was knowable simply by looking at Turkey’s role in the operation. First of all, the Turkish government-supported NGO behind the operation is IHH. As the US government, the Turkish government in the 1990s, the Investigative Project on Terrorism and countless other sources have proven, IHH is a terrorist organization with direct links to al-Qaida and Hamas. Its members have been involved in terrorist warfare from Chechnya and Bosnia to Iraq and Israel. The notion that IHH organizers would behave like radical leftist anti-Israel demonstrators on university campuses is simply ridiculous.

Moreover, there is Turkey’s behavior to consider. Since Obama took office, Turkey’s gradual slide into the Iranian axis has sped up considerably. Turkey’s leading role in the flotilla, and the Erdogan government’s ostentatious embrace of IHH – which just a decade ago Turkey banned from earthquake relief efforts in light of its violent, jihadist mission – made clear that the Erdogan regime would use any violence on board the ships as a way to strike a strategic blow at Israel’s international standing.

In view of all of this, it is clear that the information strategy for contending with the flotilla was ill-conceived. Rather than attack Turkey for its facilitation of terrorism, and openly prepare charge sheets against the flotilla’s organizers, crew and passengers for their facilitation of terrorism in breach of both domestic law and international law, the information efforts were largely concentrated on irrelevancies. Officials detailed all the humanitarian assistance Israel has provided Hamas-controlled Gaza. They spoke of the navy’s commitment to use nonlethal force to take over the ships.

And now, in the aftermath of the lethal takeover of the flotilla, Israel’s leaders stammer. Rather than demand an apology from the Turkish government for its support for these terrorists, Defense Minister Ehud Barak called his Turkish counterpart to talk over what happened. Rather than demand restitution for the terrorist assault against IDF troops, Israel has defended its troops’ training in nonviolent crowd control.

These efforts are worse than worthless; they
make Israel appear whiny rather than indignant. And more depressingly, they expose a dangerous lack of comprehension about what has just occurred, and a concomitant inability to prepare for what will most certainly follow.

Israel is the target of a massive information war. For it to win this war, it needs to counter its enemies’ lies with the truth.

The NPT has been subverted by the very forces it was created to prevent from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Hamas is a genocidal terrorist organization ideologically indistinguishable from al-Qaida. International law requires all states and non-state actors to take active measures to defeat it.

Israel is the frontline of the free world. Its ability to defend itself and deter its foes is the single most important guarantee of international peace. A strong Israel is also the most potent and reliable guarantor of the US’s continued ability to project its power in the Middle East.

This is the unvarnished truth. It is also the beginning of a successful campaign to defang the massive coalition of nuclear proliferation- and terrorism-abettors aligned against Israel. But until our leaders finally recognize the nature of the war being waged against our country, these basic facts will remain ignored as we move from one stunning defeat to the next.

caroline@carolineglick.com

http://www.CarolineGlick.com

Our World: Ending Israel’s losing streak

________________________The MasterBlog

Read it all on The MasterBlog

NYTimes: Fannie Mae Seeks Another $8.4 Billion in Aid

10/05/2010 in Bailout, bush, Credit, Debt, fannieMae, Finance, Freddie Mac, Housing, News, Obama, United States
Tags: Bailout, bush, Credit, Debt, fannieMae, Finance, Freddie Mac, Housing, News, Obama, United States

Incredible how it just doesn’t stop!

From The New York Times:
Fannie Mae Seeks Another $8.4 Billion in Aid
The mortgage finance giant reported a $13 billion loss in quarter and said it needed help to cover mounting losses.

May 10, 2010

For Administration, an Ill-Timed Request for Aid

By BINYAMIN APPELBAUM

WASHINGTON — Fannie Mae’s request on Monday for another $8.4 billion in federal aid comes at a politically inconvenient time for the Obama administration, which is pressing to pass sweeping financial legislation without resolving the company’s future.

The government has already transfused $137.5 billion into Fannie Mae and its cousin, Freddie Mac, since seizing the two mortgage financing giants in August 2008. The money covers losses on mortgages that the companies bought or guaranteed during the housing boom, allowing them to continue buying new loans.

Democrats want to defer an overhaul of federal housing policy until next year, after the midterm elections. But Republicans have seized on the continuing losses to argue that a plan for the two companies should be a priority of the current legislation.

It is an argument that Democrats have struggled to deflect. “I think it’s a fair claim to make to say we haven’t done enough to address Fannie and Freddie,” Senator Mark Warner, Democrat of Virginia, said in an interview on CNBC Monday. “It is the big elephant in the room.”

Mr. Warner then reiterated his party’s position that that it would be better to return to the issue next year “in a more thoughtful way.”

Republicans, meanwhile, tied up debate on the financial bill last week with speeches in favor of an amendment proposed by Senator John McCain of Arizona requiring the government to sever ties with the companies within five years. Fannie and Freddie would then be left to fend for themselves as private companies.

“The time has come to end Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s taxpayer-backed slush fund and require them to operate on a level playing field,” Mr. McCain said.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were created by Congress to reduce the cost of home ownership. The companies buy mortgage loans from banks and other lenders, freeing up money for another round of loans. By providing a guaranteed return, the companies also allow lenders to charge lower interest rates.

During the housing boom, the companies used their profits to build portfolios of investments in high-risk mortgage loans, which are now losing value.

Fannie Mae said Monday that it lost $11.5 billion in the first quarter compared with a loss of $23.2 billion a year ago.

The company essentially became the world’s largest investor in mortgage loans, and its losses reflect the vast numbers of Americans who continue to default.

One consequence is that Fannie Mae now owns real estate worth $11.4 billion. The company said it acquired 61,929 single-family homes in the first quarter alone.

Freddie Mac said last week that it lost $8 billion in the first quarter. It asked for another $10.6 billion in federal assistance.

For now, the quarterly requests are a formality. The Obama administration committed late last year to cover all losses by the two companies through 2012, replacing an earlier promise to cover losses up to $400 billion over that same period.

The total losses are not expected to cross that threshold, but the companies’ prospects remain grim. Both said in first-quarter filings that they could not foresee any reasonable prospect of a return to profitability.

At the same time, the companies have become more important to the health of the housing market as private sources of mortgage funding evaporated almost completely during the financial crisis. Those sources have yet to make a significant comeback.

The government directly or indirectly provided financing for 96.5 percent of mortgage loans in the first quarter, according to the trade publication Inside Mortgage Finance.

Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, argued in a memo to other leading Democrats last week that it was important to distinguish between the companies’ past mistakes and their present contributions to the health of the housing market.

While the losses that they are experiencing on old loans are unavoidable, Mr. Frank said the companies already had tightened lending standards to reduce future defaults.

“This is an important point that has to be repeated — as Fannie and Freddie operate today, going forward, there is no loss,” Mr. Frank wrote. “The losses are the losses that occurred before we took the first step towards reforming them — we the Democrats — and nothing we could do today will diminish those losses.”

Peter J. Wallison, a fellow in financial policy at the American Enterprise Institute, said it was true that the government could do nothing to stem the losses in the short term, but that it was a mistake not to decide the companies’ future as soon as possible.

“Right now we have a consensus that something needs to be done,” Mr. Wallison said. “The sensible thing to do is to put Congress in a position where they have to act within a certain period of time.”

Pushing the debate into the future, he said, created the risk that Congress would pass the present bill, congratulate itself on addressing the financial crisis, and lose its appetite for the difficult question of what do about Fannie and Freddie.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/11/business/11fannie.html

Sent from my iPad

Read it all on The MasterBlog

The strategic foundations of the US-Israel alliance

21/04/2010 in Current Affairs, Democracy, Demographics, International Relations, Iran, Islam, Israel, Middle East, News, Obama, Palestinians, Politics, Saudi Arabia, United States
Tags: Current Affairs, Democracy, Demographics, International Relations, Iran, Islam, Israel, Middle East, News, Obama, Palestinians, Politics, Saudi Arabia, United States

The strategic foundations of the US-Israel alliance

Caroline Glick

April 19, 2010, 6:27 PM

Comments (12)

In honor of Israel’s 62nd Independence Day, and in light of President Obama’s repeated claims that US interests are best served by distancing itself from Israel, I decided to write the following essay explaining why a strong Israel is essential for US national security.
Yom Ha’atzmuat Sameach.

Israel’s status as the US’s most vital ally in the Middle East has been so widely recognized for so long that over the years, Israeli and American leaders alike have felt it unnecessary to explain what it is about the alliance that makes it so important for the US.

Today, as the Obama administration is openly distancing the US from Israel while giving the impression that Israel is a strategic impediment to the administration’s attempts to strengthen its relations with the Arab world, recalling why Israel is the US’s most important ally in the Middle East has become a matter of some urgency.

Much is made of the fact that Israel is a democracy. But we seldom consider why the fact that Israel is a representative democracy matters. The fact that Israel is a democracy means that its alliance with America reflects the will of the Israeli people. As such, it remains constant regardless of who is power in Jerusalem.

All of the US’s other alliances in the Middle East are with authoritarian regimes whose people do not share the pro-American views of their leaders. The death of leaders or other political developments are liable to bring about rapid and dramatic changes in their relations with the US.

For instance, until 1979, Iran was one of the US’s closest strategic allies in the region. Owing to the gap between the Iranian people and their leadership, the Islamic revolution put an end to the US-Iran alliance.

Egypt flipped from a bitter foe to an ally of the US when Gamal Abdel Nasser died in 1969. Octogenarian President Hosni Mubarak’s encroaching death is liable to cause a similar shift in the opposite direction.

Instability in the Hashemite kingdom in Jordan and the Saudi regime could transform those countries from allies to adversaries.

Only Israel, where the government reflects the will of the people is a reliable, permanent US ally.

America reaps the benefits of its alliance with Israel every day. As the US suffers from chronic intelligence gaps, Israel remains the US’s most reliable source for accurate intelligence on the US’s enemies in the region.

Israel is the US’s only ally in the Middle East that always fights its own battles. Indeed, Israel has never asked the US for direct military assistance in time of war. Since the US and Israel share the same regional foes, when Israel is called upon to fight its enemies, its successes redound to the US’s benefit.

Here it bears recalling Israel’s June 1982 destruction of Syria’s Soviet-made anti-aircraft batteries and the Syrian air force. Those stunning Israeli achievements were the first clear demonstration of the absolute superiority of US military technology over Soviet military technology. Many have argued that it was this Israeli demonstration of Soviet technological inferiority that convinced the Reagan administration it was possible to win the Cold War.

In both military and non-military spheres, Israeli technological achievements – often developed with US support – are shared with America. The benefits the US has gained from Israeli technological advances in everything from medical equipment to microchips to pilotless aircraft are without peer worldwide.

Beyond the daily benefits the US enjoys from its close ties with Israel, the US has three fundamental, permanent, vital national security interests in the Middle East. A strong Israel is a prerequisite for securing all of these interests.

America’s three permanent strategic interests in the Middle East are as follows:

1 – Ensuring the smooth flow of affordable petroleum products from the region to global consumers through the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Aden and the Suez Canal.

2 – Preventing the most radical regimes, sub-state and non-state actors from acquiring the means to cause catastrophic harm.

3 – Maintaining the US’s capacity to project its power to the region.

A strong Israel is the best guarantor of all of these interests. Indeed, the stronger Israel is, the more secure these vital American interests are. Three permanent and unique aspects to Israel’s regional position dictate this state of affairs.

1 – As the first target of the most radical regimes and radical sub-state actors in the region, Israel has a permanent, existential interest in preventing these regimes and sub-state actors from acquiring the means to cause catastrophic harm.

Israel’s 1981 airstrike that destroyed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor prevented Iraq from acquiring nuclear weapons. Despite US condemnation at the time, the US later acknowledged that the strike was a necessary precondition to the success of Operation Desert Storm ten years later. Richard Cheney – who served as secretary of defense during Operation Desert Storm – has stated that if Iraq had been a nuclear power in 1991, the US would have been hard pressed to eject Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi army from Kuwait and so block his regime from asserting control over oil supplies in the Persian Gulf.

2 – Israel is a non-expansionist state and its neighbors know it. In its 62 year history, Israel has only controlled territory vital for its national security and territory that was legally allotted to it in the 1922 League of Nations Mandate which has never been abrogated or superseded.

Israel’s strength, which it has used only in self-defense, is inherently non-threatening. Far from destabilizing the region, a strong Israel stabilizes the Middle East by deterring the most radical actors from attacking.

In 1970, Israel blocked Syria’s bid to use the PLO to overthrow the Hashemite regime in Jordan. Israel’s threat to attack Syria not only saved the Hashemites then, it has deterred Syria from attempting to overthrow the Jordanian regime ever since.

Similarly, Israel’s neighbors understand that its purported nuclear arsenal is a weapon of national survival and hence they view it as non-threatening. This is the reason Israel’s alleged nuclear arsenal has never spurred a regional nuclear arms race.

In stark contrast, if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, a regional nuclear arms race will ensue immediately.

Although they will never admit it, Israel’s non-radical neighbors feel more secure when Israel is strong. On the other hand, the region’s most radical regimes and non-state actors will always seek to emasculate Israel.

3– Since as the Jewish state Israel is the regional bogeyman, no Arab state will agree to form a permanent alliance with it. Hence,Israel will never be in a position to join forces with another nation against a third nation.

In contrast, the Egyptian-Syrian United Arab Republic of the 1960s was formed to attack Israel. Today, the Syrian-Iranian alliance is an inherently aggressive alliance against Israel and the non-radical Arab states in the region. Recognizing the stabilizing force of a strong Israel, the moderate states of the region prefer for Israel to remain strong.

From the US’s perspective, far from impairing its alliance-making capabilities in the region, by providing military assistance to Israel, America isn’t just strengthening the most stabilizing force in the region. It is showing all states and non-state actors in the greater Middle East it is trustworthy.

On the other hand, every time the US seeks to attenuate its ties with Israel, it is viewed as an untrustworthy ally by the nations of the Middle East. US hostility towards Israel causes Israel’s neighbors to hedge their bets by distancing themselves from the US lest America abandon them to their neighboring adversaries.

A strong Israel empowers the relatively moderate actors in the region to stand up to the radical actors in the region because they trust Israel to keep the radicals in check. Today’s regional balance of power in which the moderates have the upper hand over the radicals is predicated on a strong Israel.

On the other hand, when Israel is weakened the radical forces are emboldened to threaten the status quo. Regional stability is thrown asunder. Wars become more likely. Attacks on oil resources increase. The most radical sub-state actors and regimes are emboldened.

To the extent that the two-state solution assumes that Israel must contract itself to within the indefensible 1949 ceasefire lines, and allow a hostile Palestinian state allied with terrorist organizations to take power in the areas it vacates, the two-state solution is predicated on making Israel weak and empowering radicals. In light of this, the two-state solution as presently constituted is antithetical to America’s most vital strategic interests in the Middle East.

When we bear in mind the foundations for the US’s alliance with Israel, it is obvious that US support for Israel over the years has been the most cost-effective national security investment in post-World War II US history.

Posted on April 19, 2010 at 6:27 PM

The strategic foundations of the US-Israel alliance

Read it all on The MasterBlog

Venezuela Oil Minister Makes Rare US Visit, Defends Policies

18/04/2010 in articles, Commodities, Energy, News, Obama, Oil, OPEC, PDVSA, Politics, United States, Venezuela
Tags: articles, Commodities, Energy, News, Obama, Oil, OPEC, PDVSA, Politics, United States, Venezuela

Venezuela Oil Minister Makes Rare US Visit, Defends Policies (Copyright © 2010 Energy Intelligence Group, Inc.) International Oil Daily Monday, April 19, 2010

In a rare visit to Washington, Venezuelan oil minister Rafael Ramirez on Friday defended his country’s foreign investment climate for heavy oil development and lamented that US leaders appear to be “badly informed” about Venezuela’s energy policies.

Ramirez — who is also president of state oil firm Petroleos de Venezuelas (PDV) — said his country is open to working with any foreign investors to develop resources within the country’s Orinoco heavy oil belt. He was addressing reporters at the headquarters of the Organization for American States.

The only two firms Venezuela has clashed with are Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips, he added, arguing that the two US majors were unwilling to respect Venezuela’s sovereignty over its hydrocarbon resources. Exxon and Conoco chose to exit heavy oil operations in Venezuela in 2006 after the government unilaterally changed their contracts to give PDV a majority stake in their projects.

“No one can exclude Venezuela from energy discussions,” Ramirez said, because Venezuela has the largest proven oil reserves in the western hemisphere. “We just ask that they respect our sovereignty, our laws and our social programs,” he added.

Unable to shoulder the costs of heavy oil development alone, Venezuela made some minor concessions to oil companies to improve the fiscal terms and encourage foreign investment in the Orinoco region. But it restricted foreign firms to holding minority stakes in heavy oil projects.

Ramirez said the primary purpose of his trip to Washington was to increase awareness of Venezuela’s energy policies at the “Energy and Climate Partnership for the Americas” summit last week. Many observers were surprised at Venezuela’s attendance.

“We are not going to sign any agreement. We are not going to sign any partnership. We are here to inform the US about what we have been doing,” Ramirez told reporters.

Venezuela is the fourth largest foreign supplier of crude to the US, but political disagreements have added a new layer of strain to US-Venezuela relations in recent years.

US politicians have blamed Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez for the discord, which arguably reached its peak when Chavez compared former President George W. Bush to a demon at an international gathering several years ago.

In a statement distributed to reporters, the Venezuelan embassy said Ramirez’s attendance at the summit marks a new phase in US-Venezuela relations.

“It is his first visit to the city since 2004, when the Bush Administration, due to political reasons, began limiting communications between the energy institutions of the two countries and eventually put on hold the energy agreement that had been active between the two countries since the 1980s,” the embassy said.

Ramirez drew attention to the fact that US major Chevron was part of one consortium that recently bid for acreage in the Carabobo area in the eastern part of the Orinoco region.

Aside from highlighting Chevron’s involvement in Venezuela, Ramirez pointed out the efforts of PDV’s US refining subsidiary Citgo, which has supplied heating oil at low cost to low-income Americans.

However, Ramirez said he thinks some Bush-era resentments toward Venezuela still linger.

US state department officials claim that they have tried to reach out to Venezuela, but that senior Venezuelan officials have not been responsive.

“In the US we still find people linked to the prior administration — and this has created a situation where even people who are genuinely interested in working with us are badly informed,” Ramirez added. “So we have been talking about how Venezuela has been diversifying our energy markets, to give authorities first-hand information from us.”

Lauren O’Neil, Washington

(Copyright © 2001-2010 Energy Intelligence Group, Inc. / Energy Intelligence Group (UK) Limited)

Venezuela Oil Minister Makes Rare US Visit, Defends Policies

Read it all on The MasterBlog

Venezuela oil minister seeks U.S. investment | Reuters

16/04/2010 in articles, Chavez, Commodities, Economics, EU, Iran, Latin America, Middle East, News, Obama, Oil, OPEC, PDVSA, Shell, Stocks, United States, Venezuela
Tags: articles, Chavez, Commodities, Economics, EU, Iran, Latin America, Middle East, News, Obama, Oil, OPEC, PDVSA, Pemex, Shell, Stocks, United States, Venezuela

Venezuela oil minister seeks U.S. investment

Stocks

Exxon Mobil Corporation

XOM.N

$68.26

-0.35-0.51%

12:00am GMT+0200

ConocoPhillips

COP.N

$57.06

+0.17+0.30%

9:00pm GMT+0200

* In overture to US, Ramirez has 1st talks in DC in 6 yrs

STOCKS | GLOBAL MARKETS

* More OPEC output would end up in inventories-oilmin

* Oil market speculation causing current oil price-oilmin (adds comments from Latin America analyst)

By Timothy Gardner and Tom Doggett

WASHINGTON, April 15 (Reuters) – Venezuelan Oil Minister Rafael Ramirez on Thursday welcomed investment by U.S. oil companies to help develop his country’s vast crude reserves, as he held energy talks in Washington for the first time in six years.

Ramirez said Venezuela is signing agreements with companies in Russia, China, Europe and Japan to develop its reserves and U.S. companies should be there as well.

“This United States cannot miss this opportunity,” he told reporters on the sidelines of a two-day conference of Western Hemisphere countries meeting to address energy and climate change issues.

Relations between the United States and Venezuela have long been strained, hitting a particularly low point in 2006 when visiting Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez took on then-President George W. Bush at the United Nations, calling him a “devil.”

Ramirez said foreign oil companies wanting to do business in Venezuela would have to “respect” the country’s energy laws and policies.

Venezuela has an estimated 99.4 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, with last year’s oil production averaging 2.2 million barrels per day, down 190,000 bpd from the year before. It is the world’s eighth largest oil exporter and the fourth biggest foreign oil supplier to the U.S. market.

MONEY NEEDED TO TAP “HEAVY OIL”

To boost its sagging output from traditional wells, Venezuela needs foreign investment and technology to tap the heavy oil of the Orinoco belt that requires much upgrading to turn into lighter crude.

Venezuela was criticized several years ago when it forced foreign companies to renegotiate their oil development contracts, reducing their profits. Several companies, including those U.S.-based, sold their stakes instead of following the Venezuelan government’s new terms.

Leading U.S. oil companies Exxon Mobil (XOM.N) and ConocoPhillips (COP.N), left Venezuela in 2007 after being pushed out of multibillion-dollar Orinoco projects.

Before Thursday, Ramirez had not held energy talks in Washington since 2004. He said Venezuelan-U.S. relations had been hurt by the Bush administration, which he said had been “hostile” to his country.

“There’s no reason whatsoever for this relationship to have been halted,” he said. Ramirez said he expected to have a private meeting with his U.S. counterpart, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, during the conference.

Patrick Esteruelas, Latin America analyst at Eurasia Group in New York, said he did not think Ramirez’s comments about U.S. firms was significant because Venezuela has not discriminated against companies from specific countries.

“It has just demanded an equally aggressive share of the (oilfield) rent from all willing investors…very few U.S. companies have shown much willingness to go in and swallow that pill,” he said.

MORE OPEC OIL NOT NEEDED

On oil market issues, Ramirez said OPEC will not increase petroleum output to bring down oil costs, even though crude prices have been hovering near 18-month highs.

Global oil inventories are “very high” because demand is low, Ramirez said. Any additional output from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries would end up in inventories rather than satisfying consumer demand, he said.

“As long as there is no robust increase in demand there will be no increase in supply,” said Ramirez.

Oil prices settled near $86 a barrel on Thursday on strong economic data from China, a weaker dollar, and an unexpected drop in U.S. crude inventories. [O/R]

Ramirez side-stepped questions about whether oil prices above $80 to $90 per barrel would hurt global economic growth, saying that high prices were caused by market players betting on the price.

“The current price is result of speculation in oil markets,” said Ramirez.

Current prices are stronger than the $70 to $80 range that OPEC ministers said last month is good for both producers and consumers.

(Reporting by Timothy Gardner and Tom Doggett; Editing by Lisa Shumaker and Bob Burgdorfer)

STOCKS

GLOBAL MAR

UPDATE 3-Venezuela oil minister seeks U.S. investment
| Reuters

The MasterBlog

Read it all on The MasterBlog