Rolling MENA 2014 (Middle East)

things going well in Yemen today eh. Another proxy war front for the Saudis and Iran, I assume. and only 20 years after the last civil war.

Is American hostage Mueller still alive?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/07/this-is-isis-s-cruelest-move-yet.html#

http://cdn.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/articles/2015/01/14/the-widow-of-a-paris-terrorist-and-other-real-wives-of-islamic-state/jcr:content/image.crop.800.500.jpg/1421252153250.cached.jpg

this is a bit like that newsweek oj simpson cover

The overture gets the attention, while the closing is just there

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/world/middleeast/overture-by-houthis-to-ousted-officials.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Mr. Houthi refrained from criticizing the United States or its drone strikes, as he always did in major speeches before the Houthi takeover in January. He said international and regional powers had nothing to fear from the government the Houthis had proposed. He also appealed several times for all of Yemen’s political parties to join with the Houthis in forming the government.

“Our hands are outstretched to you, and there’s still a chance to be included in the presidential commission and the national council,” he said.

Mr. Houthi’s speech was greeted by chants of the Houthi slogan, including “Death to America, death to Israel, damnation to the Jews.”

there's a nice bit in one of the vice episodes in houthi country in northern yemen where the filmmaker finds a fragment of an ex saudi air force missile casing with made in america written on it (as much as america is more directly concerned with their rivals aqap)

quite a complicated overlay of ethnic and sectarian elements, i would be interested in any recommendations for writing about yemen and the houthis in particular

Dunno how much is new to seasoned MENA watchers but I learned a lot from this:
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/2/what-do-the-leaders-of-yemens-houthis-want.html

Third, the state outlawed classical Zaidi theological views, especially those pertaining to the imamate. For example, the Zaidi endorsement of armed rebellion against an oppressive state was considered outside the scope of acceptable discourse and deemed treasonous. Finally, the new government kept Zaidis marginalized, severely underfinancing and often shutting down their educational centers for their alleged spread of subversive ideas.

Zaidism declined steadily through the republican period, exemplified by the rise of scholars from Zaidi backgrounds who adopted Sunni theological and legal views. This development has contributed to a popular but mistaken belief that Zaidism closely resembles Sunni Islam.

that is a lot better than the guardian piece last week

The Zaidis emerged from Shia Islam but of all the Shia they are the most similar to Sunnis in terms of religious practice.

this represents a serious attempt to differentiate isis from their predecessors

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/08/isis-islamic-state-ideology-sharia-syria-iraq-jordan-pilot

the three other articles by the author are worth reading and there is a book forthcoming

http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/book-review-isis-inside-army-terror/

30 Zamalek fans killed in clashes with police - mostly crushed into fences - prior to their match with ENPPI.

The players were ordered to continue with the match anyway and the only one who refused, Omar Gaber, has been suspended indefinitely.

http://www.kingfut.com/2015/02/09/least-30-zamalek-fans-killed-confrontation-police/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/10/drought-helped-caused-syrias-war-will-climate-change-bring-more-like-it/

http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-02-04/meet-average-mohamed-gas-station-owner-whos-using-cartoons-fight-isis-recruitment

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vJ-SlxjRrQ

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/02/09/remarks-president-obama-and-chancellor-merkel-joint-press-conference

Q Thank you, Mr. President. The Iran nuclear negotiators have now missed two deadlines. Should the upcoming March deadline for talks be the final one? And what are the circumstances in which you think it would be wise to extend those talks? Also, sir, some have suggested that you are outraged by the Israeli Prime Minister’s decision to address Congress. Is that so? And how would you advise Democrats who are considering a boycott?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: First of all, we understood I think from the start, when we set up the interim agreement with Iran, that it would take some time to work through incredibly complex issues and a huge trust deficit between the United States and Iran, and the world and Iran, when it comes to their nuclear program. So I think there was always the assumption that, although the interim agreement lasted a certain period of time, that we would probably need more time to move forward.

The good news is, is that there have been very serious discussions. That time has been well spent. During this period of time, issues have been clarified; gaps have been narrowed; the Iranians have abided by the agreement. So this is not a circumstance in which, by talking, they’ve been stalling and meanwhile advancing their program. To the contrary. What we know is the program has not only been frozen, but with respect to, for example, 20 percent enriched uranium, they’ve reversed it. And so we’re in a better position than we were before the interim program was set up.

Having said all that, the issues now are sufficiently narrowed and sufficiently clarified where we’re at point where they need to make a decision. We are presenting to them, in a unified fashion -- the P5-plus-1, supported by a coalition of countries around the world, are presenting to them a deal that allows them to have peaceful nuclear power but gives us the absolute assurance that is verifiable that they are not pursuing a nuclear weapon.

And if, in fact, what they claim in true -- which is they have no aspiration to get a nuclear weapon, that, in fact, according to their Supreme Leader, it would be contrary to their faith to obtain a nuclear weapon -- if that is true, there should be the possibility of getting a deal. They should be able to get to yes. But we don’t know if that’s going to happen. They have their hardliners; they have their politics.

And the point, I guess is, Christi, at this juncture, I don’t see a further extension being useful if they have not agreed to the basic formulation and the bottom line that the world requires to have confidence that they’re not pursuing a nuclear weapon.

Now, if a framework for a deal is done, if people have a clear sense of what is required and there’s some drafting and t’s to cross and i’s to dot, that’s a different issue. But my view -- and I’ve presented this to members of Congress -- is that we now know enough that the issues are no longer technical. The issues now are, does Iran have the political will and the desire to get a deal done?

And we could not be doing this were it not for the incredible cohesion and unity that’s been shown by Germany, by the other members of the P5-plus-1 -- which, I should acknowledge, includes Russia. I mean, this is an area where they’ve actually served a constructive role. And China has served a constructive role. And there has been no cracks in this on the P5-plus-1 side of the table. And I think that’s a testament to the degree to which we are acting reasonably in trying to actually solve a problem.

With respect to Prime Minister Netanyahu, as I’ve said before, I talk to him all the time, our teams constantly coordinate. We have a practice of not meeting with leaders right before their elections, two weeks before their elections. As much as I love Angela, if she was two weeks away from an election she probably would not have received an invitation to the White House -- (laughter) -- and I suspect she wouldn’t have asked for one. (Laughter.)

So this is just -- some of this just has to do with how we do business. And I think it’s important for us to maintain these protocols -- because the U.S.-Israeli relationship is not about a particular party. This isn’t a relationship founded on affinity between the Labor Party and the Democratic Party, or Likud and the Republican Party. This is the U.S.-Israeli relationship that extends beyond parties, and has to do with that unbreakable bond that we feel and our commitment to Israel’s security, and the shared values that we have.

And the way to preserve that is to make sure that it doesn’t get clouded with what could be perceived as partisan politics. Whether that’s accurate or not, that is a potential perception, and that’s something that we have to guard against.

Now, I don’t want to be coy. The Prime Minister and I have a very real difference around Iran, Iran sanctions. I have been very clear -- and Angela agrees with me, and David Cameron agrees with me, and the others who are a member of the negotiations agree -- that it does not make sense to sour the negotiations a month or two before they’re about to be completed. And we should play that out. If, in fact, we can get a deal, then we should embrace that. If we can’t get a deal, then we’ll have to make a set of decisions, and, as I’ve said to Congress, I’ll be the first one to work with them to apply even stronger measures against Iran.

But what’s the rush -- unless your view is that it’s not possible to get a deal with Iran and it shouldn’t even be tested? And that I cannot agree with because, as the President of the United States, I’m looking at what the options are if we don't get a diplomatic resolution. And those options are narrow and they're not attractive. And from the perspective of U.S. interests -- and I believe from the perspective of Israel’s interests, although I can't speak for, obviously, the Israeli government -- it is far better if we can get a diplomatic solution.

So there are real differences substantively, but that's separate and apart from the whole issue of Mr. Netanyahu coming to Washington. All right?

Not sure what your point is...

ISIS provided the family with "information," including photographic evidence that convinced the U.S. intelligence community that Mueller had been killed, according to a senior U.S. official. U.S. officials said it has not been possible to determine when or how Mueller actually died.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/officials-kayla-mueller-isis-commander/story?id=28870880

xp I think there are a few interesting things O says there

http://mosaicmagazine.com/essay/2015/02/obamas-secret-iran-strategy/
http://ottomansandzionists.com/2015/02/10/losing-the-forest-of-iran-policy-for-the-trees-of-a-nuclear-deal/

^ highly recommend reading both. i think there's room to disagree about obama's policy vis-a-vis iran (both its potential success and, more pointedly, exactly what it is), but i think these are very persuasive

most interesting to me is the question of whether the leader of the US can create a relationship w/ Iran (clandestinely?) despite misgivings from the american public, the congress, etc, and have it mean something. after all, obama is gone in 2 years - how can Iran at this point believe that any of his assurances will outlast his presidency? in that sense obama is trying to be an independent actor when really the office of POTUS continues to be a surrogate agent for american interests.

like i guess the idea is that he'll secure a dramatic enough deal w/ iran that he'll sell the US on rapprochement, but if the deal is "iran gets to keep its centrifuges, we are lifting sanctions and in exchange iran will keep regional stability" there is no way that survives into the next presidency.

He, I don't really agree with those links you've posted, but I like that your conclusion seems to be that America can never negotiate a deal with Iran, since you guys aren't trustworthy enough...

the US /can/ negotiate a deal w/ Iran (tho for a number of reasons I think it's very unlikely). i don't think they will though, and i don't think it has anything to do w/ them being trustworthy or not. iran has stated numerous times that they're not willing to compromise anything on their nuclear program, and that they don't believe they should have to. i'm just saying that i don't think obama can sell a deal to the US where Iran doesn't actually do any dealing.

what in those links do you disagree w/? do you think obama doesn't have a strategy to create some form of alliance w/ iran? (i think the evidence is pretty persuasive on that front.) is it that you don't think his strategy is misguided? (obv reasonable ppl can disagree.)

i just realized you thought i was saying that the US isn't trustworthy enough to keep a deal. that was not my point - my point was that the head of a State negotiates on behalf of that State. if the State doesn't give the head legitimacy to make a deal (what's FP ppl like to call 'selling the deal' to their constituents) there is literally no deal.

Well, it would probably be more correct to say that I disagree with you saying they are 'persuasive'. I find them tendentious and poorly argumented. I think the word 'alliance' is way too strong. I do think it's correct that Obama wants a less confrontational relationship with Iran, which I find perfectly reasonable, if the nuclear problem could come under control. And I agree that the warmer relationship with Iran would come at the expense of the US' 'allies' in the region, though I think it's mainly about realizing the folly in being allies with the extremist wahhabist regime in Saudi Arabia.

The problem, of course, comes with other ally, Israel, which has a very very reasonable distrust of Iran, but also (imo) a very unreasonable guy leading the country at the moment.

even if the US could bring Iran into some sort of alliance/partnership/whatever word you want to use, i fail to see what it gains from doing so if it ends up alienated the saudis and the israelis. a rapprochement w/ iran won't mollify wahhabists or ISIS or really anyone in the Sunni world. and the iranians are not exactly sitting on any strategic resources - maybe the US could lean on them a little to conduct military operations in Iraq + Syria, but even that is a recipe for conflict as they antagonize Sunnis in those places and Israelis by sitting on their border in Golan. it all seems very wrongheaded & naive to me.

also i think to believe that obama's main strategic objective is not creating a partnership w/ iran opens up a lot of questions about his middle east policies (esp vis-a-vis assad)

the sad part of all this to me is apparently iran was willing to accept some rapprochement and to help out with the campaign in afghanistan after 9/11 and we blew them off and followed up with blowing their next door neighbor and destabilizing the entire region.

"apparently" i don't think it's clear that this is true

also iran is thrilled that we blew up their neighbor and destabilized the region. they're now on the threshold of possessing the 4th largest oil deposits in the world.

in fact, i think many ppl would argue that the main driver of ISIS success has been the shiite government's alienation of sunnis in baghdad

you're welcome middle east

signed,
usa

Alienating the saudis is close to a good thing in and of itself, they are problem-makers not -solvers, who should be held in check rather than supported. And Netanyahu is doing plenty to alienate the US as well, so I don't think his voice carries so much importance as well. At the moment.

Basically, a multipolar relationship is needed in the middleeast. Supporting Sunni fanatics because they have the oil, while attacking the Shia-regime in Iran for being too radical, just undermines the status of US and the west, and creates more and more combatants in the asymmetric war we've kinda been in for decades, whether we admit it or not.

if O just wants to cool off the relationship w/ the persians, and he can end up making some kind of deal (like ottomons wrote in his post - some kind of inspections regime) i think that'll be a victory. i think giving up the henhouse to the iranians out of the hope that they --- idk --- will magically stabilize the middle east as a favor to us (as they arm assad, hezbollah, hamas, etc) is super naive.

The relations with the Saudis are gonna take a hit publicly if the 9/11 lawsuit picks up more steam and people might realize that the saudis actually did 9/11.

then again we already know this more or less and nobody cares/ =(

That mosaic article does a little too much mind-reading without factual support for me regarding Obama's intentions regarding Iran.

create some form of alliance w/ iran?

alliance seems like much too strong a word. the most I can envision would be a cautious and limited cooperation against ISIS, since ISIS is totally unfit for either the usa or iran to use as a tool to its own benefit and therefore represents a danger to the interests of both.

http://newpol.org/content/syria-and-left

Besides, what prevents them from seeing the victims of Bashar, when they see perfectly well ordinary people in Kobanê? Why wasn’t there the slightest interest in the slaughter of 700 people at the hands of ISIS thugs themselves in Deir Ezzor last August? One is forced to ask: Do victims have different values based on who their murderers are? Why, as the regime is bombing many regions in the country every day, killing dozens of people every day, are the leftists in the West as silent as the rightists? Could the reason be that the public killer Bashar and his elegant wife are symbols of the First World inside Syria, a couple with whom those in the First World identify easily?

I think this high-politics, Western-centered worldview is better suited for the right and the ultra-right fascists. But honestly I’ve failed to discern who is right and who is left in the West from a leftist Syrian point of view. And I tend to think that these are the poisonous effects of the Soviet experience, fascist in its own way. Many Western leftists are the orphans of the late father, the USSR.

http://pando.com/2015/02/12/the-war-nerd-islamic-state-and-american-narcissism/

Moyers’ sermon on how a guy burned in Syria is nothing compared to our American sins is actually worse than Chauncey’s, because at least Chauncey doesn’t imagine he’s some kind of prose-meister. Moyers, as you can see from that title “The Fiery Cage and the Lynching Tree,” actually imagines he’s a great writer, as he pulls the same lame move, wrenching the topic back to America in the early 20th century, away from Syria in the 21st in a flood of maudlin drivel about a Deep South Baptist college where Moyers once interviewed for a job.

Try imagining Chauncey or Bill minimizing an IDF phosphorus bombing in Gaza the way they trivialize this IS pyro video. Phosphorus burns people alive just as horrifically as kerosene, but would Moyers or de Vega trivialize Palestinian kids burnt alive with phosphorus by saying, “Remember the KKK! We’re just as bad!” Never. Because everyone would scream, quite rightly, that they were trivializing the IDF’s atrocity.

But both these fools spend thousands of words trivializing IS snuff movies, because…ah, it’s too stupid to paraphrase, but it goes something like this: “The US is the root of all evil, so IS is only acting out because it’s a victim. We did something bad to it somehow.”

and darling of way too many idiot Western Leftists

i keep seeing this accusation floating around. admittedly i stay away from your counterpunches etc but i've never encountered even a vaguely pro-ISIS individual in the wild.

moyers doesn't write for counterpunch

I don't think Brecher's criticism is about pro-ISIS attitudes, it strikes me as more a criticism of the "who are we to judge?" mentality, which is a different thing imo

that said, I don't agree with his paraphrased conclusion, I don't see any "poor ISIS victims" rhetoric in that Moyer article at all.

i don't think his argument about "recently imperialistic" european countries infecting their muslim populations with more will to kill makes much sense. if anything his analysis that it's a class thing does tho. australia and belgium are doing ok in the age of austerity; spain and italy are fucking broke.

i think his broader point is that it's such a small group no matter what the explanation is

i think i heard/read a lot more "poor little jihadis" pieces after charlie hebdo than re IS

I've never seen anyone lefty express sympathy for ISIS although I have seen a lot of ill founded theories that we somehow created ISIS

We being the US

i've read many many comments on news stories about how mossad funds ISIS

you read comments