Rolling MENA 2014 (Middle East)

re relations with other countries, thinking more of things which may not be prima facie apparent or openly expressed. e.g. reluctance to share sensitive intelligence with US, or not informing/ consulting with US before deciding on military strikes, or seeking closer ties with putin, etc. those seem serious consequences (actual & potential) of obama fp, not bush's

I think most of his impact probably came from day one- just that he was such a change from gwb and talked a good game

and talked a good game

well he got a nobel prize for that

Curious if France consulted at all w US on Mali

which may not be prima facie apparent or openly expressed. e.g. reluctance to share sensitive intelligence with US, or not informing/ consulting with US before deciding on military strikes, or seeking closer ties with putin, etc.

soooo ... things we can't verify iow

there are indications for all those things; though of course as always depends whether the sources are to be trusted. i maintain skepticism but it seems plausible to me

fine but imo it's p hard to paint what you suspect as being demonstrably *worse* than how things were with Dubya, where there were numerous and public spats with our allies

Allies def are more reluctant to share intelligence with US, but prob has most to do with all the leaks. Ie something that Obama has been quite draconian in cracking down on. Don't think anyone in europe is seeking closer ties with putin, he's quite willing to threaten to nuke us. But I wonder what France said about Mali as well.

fine but imo it's p hard to paint what you suspect as being demonstrably *worse* than how things were with Dubya, where there were numerous and public spats with our allies

fair point. and reference to bush (introduced by me) prob more distracting than illuminating.

Allies def are more reluctant to share intelligence with US, but prob has most to do with all the leaks.

but might have less to do with history of involuntary leaks than history of voluntary ones. for example, victory lap leaks made after killing bin laden on counterrorism methods (possibly resulting e.g. in pakistani physician informant’s arrest for treason); or the declassification in late february of hundreds of pages of hitherto secret information on israel’s nuclear program (in response to an FOIA request from 3 years ago; but timing of decision to release that info, right before netanyahu speech, seems not accidental to me). According to reports, arab allies apparently suspect obama admin would leak intelligence to iran, hence withheld info re military strikes in yemen: one way or another, seems obama admin has given allies serious reason to distrust US with intelligence.

x-post-Curious if France consulted at all w US on Mali

― Mordy, Friday, March 27, 2015 11:03

Not sure what you are trying to get at it here, but I think they did. Not seeing the article I recall about consultation, but once France went into Mali:

“We’ve provided information in support of the French since their operations began in Mali, … and we continue to consult with the French on further steps that we may take as U.S. government to support their efforts in Mali,” he said.
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=119077

Plus

France's foreign minister also said the 3-day-old intervention is gaining international support, with communications and transport help from the United States and backing from Britain, Denmark and other European countries

U.S. officials have said they had offered to send drones to Mali and were considering a broad range of options for assistance, including information-sharing and possibly allowing limited use of refueling tankers. British Prime Minister David Cameron also agreed to send aircraft to help transport troops.

http://news.yahoo.com/france-us-helping-support-mali-operation-181909624.html

i wasn't trying to "get at" anything specific - i was just curious what level of participation a french operation in mali would invite from the US.

re yemen, i saw war nerd has a piece about it:
http://pando.com/2015/03/28/the-war-nerd-a-brief-history-of-the-yemen-clusterfck/

i haven't read it yet but i'm sure it's entertaining

It's a whole bunch of jokes about the ottomans, and then at the end it's all the fault of israel and the west, and i guess he's pro-baathist?

It's entertaining, alright. I have no idea what else to think about it, really.

Yemen history I did not know (if CNN is correct):

In 2009 the Saudis took military action against the Houthis in support of then President Ali Abdullah Saleh, using airstrikes and special forces, but were unable to subdue them....

...In the 1960s Egypt intervened in Yemen's civil war on behalf of the anti-royalists -- an operation that sapped the Egyptian army and contributed to its failure against the Israelis in the 1967 war.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/30/middleeast/yemen-freefall-lister/

Oh, just looked at that War nerd thing--guy wants you to believe he's independent or contrarian or something and has been in the area and studied it, but then he says overly broad dumb things like "Leftists demand respect for fascist thugs like Islamic State, as if they were the voice of the Muslim people."

The Saudi Arabia-led coalition of Arab countries that conducted airstrikes in Yemen on March 26 and 27, 2015, killed at least 11 and possibly as many as 34 civilians during the first day of bombings in Sanaa, the capital, Human Rights Watch said today. The 11 dead included 2 children and 2 women. Saudi and other warplanes also carried out strikes on apparent targets in the cities of Saada, Hodaida, Taiz, and Aden....

Human Rights Watch has not been able to determine whether specific attacks complied with the laws of war, which apply to the armed conflict in Yemen. The laws of war prohibit attacks that target civilians or civilian property, or that do not or cannot discriminate between civilians and fighters. Attacks that cause casualties or damage disproportionate to any anticipated military advantage are also prohibited. All parties to the conflict have an obligation to take all feasible precautions to spare civilians from harm, and not to deploy forces in densely populated areas.

Saudi Arabia’s past use of cluster bombs, which are indiscriminate weapons, raises concerns that they will be used in the current fighting, Human Rights Watch said. There is credible evidence that in November 2009 Saudi Arabia dropped cluster bombs in Yemen’s northern Saada governorate during fighting between the Houthis and the Yemeni and Saudi militaries.

http://www.juancole.com/2015/03/saudi-airstrikes-civilian.html

In some article it said that Saudis were trying to bomb the Houthis to to the negotiating table. Not so sure about that negotiating part, so far. Do Saudis really believe they can simply win the war and then reinstate the old guard and everything will be fine?

re France/USA/Mali, my understanding is that the USA was taken aback by the rapidness with which France acted---they'd been talking about France's plans, the USA thought France should think bigger in terms of ground forces, France didn't agree but rather than negotiate, just acted. partly it was to show off France's ability to use a light but not secret force, which the USA has struggled to do because of institutional forces in the US Army strongly favoring big actions

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/03/30/how-france-became-an-iran-hawk/

program, the United States and France, two strong allies, have found themselves increasingly at odds, at times quite publicly.

While the White House has been pushing hard for consensus on the framework for a deal ahead of the deadline, Paris has been pushing back. “Repeating that an agreement has to be reached by the end of March is a bad tactic. Pressure on ourselves to conclude at any price,” Gérard Araud, France’s ambassador in Washington, tweeted on March 20. On Tuesday, François Delattre, France’s ambassador to the United Nations, said that Iran’s progress was “insufficient.”

The word from Paris has been equally unsupportive of the U.S. push for a deal. “France wants an agreement, but a robust one that really guarantees that Iran can have access to civilian nuclear power, but not the atomic bomb,” French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius declared on March 21.

[...]

Numerous French diplomats suspect that the United States, now that it is less dependent on Gulf oil, “pivoting” to Asia, and focused on fighting the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, is on the verge of profoundly reshaping its traditional alliance system in the Middle East, moving from a system where Iran replaces Saudi Arabia as the central pillar of regional stability. This especially concerns the French because they have built strong political and defense relationships with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates in recent years.

The nuclear talks, French diplomats suspect, are just one part of a strategic rapprochement with Iran. Washington has practically subcontracted the war against the Islamic State’s forces in Iraq to Iranian special forces and Tehran’s Iraqi militia proxies. The French view this as a potentially counterproductive move, one more part of Washington’s turn away from its Sunni allies and toward Tehran.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-militia-chief-destroying-israel-nonnegotiable

The commander of the Basij militia of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards said that “erasing Israel off the map” is “nonnegotiable,” according to an Israel Radio report Tuesday.

Militia chief Mohammad Reza Naqdi also threatened Saudi Arabia, saying that the offensive it is leading in Yemen “will have a fate like the fate of Saddam Hussein.”

good news everybody, etc

those could be just astutely strategic words, like "no Palestinian state on my watch"

I don't know about astute but they could very well be strategic!

One of the writers of that foreignpolicy.com article you quoted Mordy, is from the conservative Hudson Institute. Thus it does not surprise me that he would ignore the US's support for Saudia Arabia in Yemen and in general, and then quote unnamed France officials regarding their alleged belief that the US is on the verge of profoundly reshaping its traditional alliance system in the Middle East, moving to a system where Iran replaces Saudi Arabia as the central pillar of regional stability.

remain vigilant! obv i don't know how true it is or isn't. i'm sure the french have officials to say nonsense just like we do in the US.

at the same time it's not news that the french have been pushing for a stronger deal and that there has been [maybe only a little] daylight between them and the US on this:
http://news.yahoo.com/kerry-seeks-boost-french-support-iran-deal-081130014.html

or In a sign of France’s determination, Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius called his negotiating team in Lausanne on Thursday to insist no deal could be forged that allowed for the rapid easing of U.N. Security Council measures, according to European officials.

their alleged belief that the US is on the verge of profoundly reshaping its traditional alliance system in the Middle East, moving to a system where Iran replaces Saudi Arabia as the central pillar of regional stability.

I dunno about replacing Saudi Arabia, but it has long seemed that US-Iran hostility is mostly frontin, and they are actually pretty tight where it matters.

"where it matters" hmmm

Iran Nuclear Talks Are Extended for Another Day
By MICHAEL R. GORDON 4:15 PM ET
Negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program were extended again after they were beset by competing claims and recriminations.

yep sounds like just one more day will do it

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/heavily-armed-rebels-battle-for-control-of-yemens-second-largest-city/2015/04/02/b37aa150-d8b2-11e4-bf0b-f648b95a6488_story.html?hpid=z4

Houthis keep advancing. Are the Saudis and others in their alliance gonna send in troops or not, I wonder?

press conference right now re iran

Saudis would hate to send troops, but they'd hate a Shiite state allied with Iran on their border even worse. I'd give odds they'll at least send in some troops, if it looks like a Houthi sweep.

esp bc http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/02/us-yemen-security-saudi-death-idUSKBN0MT18G20150402

i'll have to see details but it sounds like IAEA inspections (including at Arak), conversion of Fordow, and all sanctions immediately lifted?

obama speaking in 15 minutes

some of these details sound great if true - removing ability of arak facility to produce fissile material, sanctions dependent on compliance w/ snap-back provisions, anytime anywhere inspections, no more enrichment at fordow, limiting enrichment levels, natanz centrifuges cut in half. the really important bit is whether this stuff is true, agreed upon in iran (ie that they agree these are mutual understandings), but i mean -- i really couldn't expect much more.

human rights, ballistic program, terror support sanctions will not be lifted acc to obama

Iran and world powers have agreed on parameters of a deal to be reached by June 30.

http://www.vox.com/2015/4/2/8337347/iran-deal-good

yeah honestly, w/ the caveat that this isn't a final deal and there are a lot of missing details, i'm super impressed w/ the admin job on this. they did really well at managing expectations, over delivering, extracting what seems to be a ton of agreements -- i never thought iran would agree to anytime/anywhere inspections but, if the state fact sheet is right, they essentially did. if this is the way the final deal looks - esp if they agree on exporting nuclear materials by June - it'll be pretty good i think.

i'm somewhat skeptical (in the neutral sense of the term), but do hope for the best

we heard a few days ago from the british foreign secretary that the goal was to "deliver a narrative" (and of course both sides of the deal have narratives to sell, iran as much as US)

so at this point i'll take what we're hearing as "a narrative" (with significant areas of vagueness and de facto unclarity) and reserve judgment until learning more-- about the details and actual (de facto, not theoretical) implications

i think that's true. i definitely heard some things from zarif that contradicted things that the state dpt were claiming (like whether they can build a new core in arak)

What on earth did Bibi want from a nuclear deal?

this is going to sound callow but I've been reading Longerich's history of the Holocaust and it has been clarifying for my understanding, in broad ways, of Israeli policies. those things are so recent...

What on earth did Bibi want from a nuclear deal?

he didn't want a deal

it's hard to say what Bibi really wants re: Iran - I imagine his ultimate fantasy is being handed a pretext for Israel/US to invade and destroy the Iranian state

i think he probably would be happy w/ iran declaring an end to its proxy wars against israel

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel introduced a new demand Friday for the final phase of negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, saying the completed deal must include an “unambiguous Iranian recognition of Israel’s right to exist.”....

....Mr. Netanyahu’s statement on the Iran deal was his lengthiest and most detailed of the past week.

It criticized the framework agreement, saying it leaves “Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure,” since it does not call for shutting facilities, destroying centrifuges or halting research and development. The prime minister also criticized the promise to “lift sanctions immediately,” saying it “would greatly bolster Iran’s economy” and “give Iran thereby tremendous means to propel its aggression and terrorism throughout the Middle East.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/04/world/middleeast/benjamin-netanyahu-says-final-nuclear-deal-must-include-irans-recognition-of-israel.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

i don't think he'll get it, but i think it makes sense that the PM of Israel wants Iran to stop funding Hamas, and doesn't want any deal if it doesn't include that. how can you trust a deal from an enemy that is still dedicated to destroying yr country? (the P5+1 obv don't have this problem.)

Iran will surrender almost 15,000 centrifuges and will have none but the most basic centrifuges left. I understand Netanyahu's point but it's easier to ignore a declawed country's nattering about Israel.

yes, for sure. i think there's a lot in this deal that israel will benefit from. unfortunately it won't stop iranian missile transports to hezbollah but i'd rather deal w/ conventional missiles (esp in the age of the iron dome) than nuclear powered iran.