I Never MENA Hurt You; I Never MENA Make You Cry 2017 (Middle East, North Africa, and Other Geopolitical Hotspots)

You're glossing over a lot like the fact that they run a totalitarian dictatorship within Gaza and engage in numerous crimes against their citizens including torture, religious enforcement, etc, not to mention the war crimes they commit - firing at Israeli civilian targets is not even the worst of it since now there's the Iron Dome, but it seems clear to me that there's firm evidence that they do use hospitals, schools, children, civilian apartment buildings, etc as shields against counter strikes on missile sites. Which is to say that they are legitimate as much as any theologic authoritarian gov that has led its people into poverty and misery can be. More important I think is that they see themselves as the military vanguard against Israel and it would deconstruct their entire identity to disarm (not to mention would injure their legitimacy among even more radical splinter groups in Gaza like Islamic Jihad and ISIS-offshoots and would likely lead to their demise either through a coup or a people's revolution).

as any theologic authoritarian gov that has led its people into poverty and misery can be

I'll freely grant they are theologic and authoritarian. iirc, the poverty and misery predate their creation, let alone their assuming the government of gaza.

it would deconstruct their entire identity to disarm

you agree with me, then: so not gonna happen.

lead to their demise either through a coup or a people's revolution

it seems internally contradictory to me to imply they do not represent a legitimate government because they have not held elections recently, yet think that their most central policy is so popular with the governed that changing it would lead to their overthrow by the general population. that's kind of a weird compartmentalization.

Maybe I spoke poorly because I think you misunderstood me. Hamas is not popular afaict in Gaza. However they have many weapons which can be useful for staying in control. Without those weapons they will leave themselves open to a coup or a people's revolution that they might otherwise be able to fend off through their [pseudo]-monopoly on armed resistance. With regard to these splinter groups, I think a combination of Hamas' militant superiority and at least some tolerance of Hamas' level of antagonism keeps them in check. But only just barely - they are constantly threatening Hamas (normally by firing weapons at Israel and daring the IDF to strike back at Hamas as punishment) and pushing for even more militant strategies. So I think Hamas is not popular, and that if they were put in a weaker position there are both other militant groups as well as the general populace who would be interested in pushing them out. In terms of their identity, I see this more as an existential issue relating primarily to their self-conception. Is this a clearer explanation? I see no compartmentalization at all in this diagnosis.

However they have many weapons which can be useful for staying in control.

Since you seem to be saying this in the context of a discussion of why hamas won't even begin to consider disarming itself in return for a big airport (which is what both of us are saying, but from different perspectives), I can only read "weapons" in that context as referring to literal armaments, since those would be the only weapons they would be divesting themselves of, not the apparatus of governance.

I do not imagine any government anywhere on earth would agree to disarming to the extent they could no longer police their population, or prevent an armed "splinter" from overthrowing them, nor disarming to the point where they would be defenseless against an invasion by their larger, more powerful neighbor, without a comprehensive, detailed and internationally enforced peace treaty with that neighbor. An airport is a piddling bribe and a dismally stupid offer.

We got into this little tussle because you lolled at the idea that hamas was a legitimate government and by extension lolled at my posting that included that statement. You seem to have stopped lolling. You want to sign an armistice?

Yeah, I wasn't trying to be cruel - I just thought it was a somewhat funny way of putting things since from my perspective their need for weapons comes directly from their essential illegitimacy. Maybe I'm revealing a tad naiveté but of course as a Western I like to believe that my government's legitimacy comes from the people and from the consent granted by the ruled. Hamas, like many dictatorships, rules through might and oppression. When you wrote that no legitimate government would give up their weapons my mind immediately went to the legitimacy of representative governments in maintaining weaponry in order to protect their citizenship. Even with a comprehensive peace with Israel (something that ending the blockade would suggest at least an opening towards) Hamas cannot afford to disarm, and it has nothing to do with their neighbors. In the end I was just quibbling and I'm sorry if you were annoyed.

If Hamas did have a sincere interest in ending the blockade perhaps they could make a counter offer to disarm their rocket arsenals and other weapons clearly intended for waging war against Israel, but get to keep their more conventional arms that they need to suppress internal dissent. I suspect they will not, though, for the first reason I gave. Their entire raison d'etre is refusing to compromise with Israel. (On a least overt level I believe this existential reason is responsible for much of the conflict between Israel and Palestinian nationalism but that's a huge conversation I'm not really interested in getting into atm.)

Remember Aleppo. Curious about what's happening there lately I googled and just found this--

Less than 20 hours after water supply was fully restored in the eastern Aleppo countryside, ISIS shut it down once more after a month-long outage in the Al-Khafseh area.

This region represents an area which has seen the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) capture over a dozen villages from ISIS in the past month; effectively, the water shutdown can be seen as a infrastructural way for the Islamic State to retaliate.

https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/islamic-state-cuts-off-water-supply-aleppo/

http://www.timesofisrael.com/praising-trump-saudi-fm-urges-progress-toward-israeli-arab-peace/

The Saudis have obviously figured out that flattery is essential when approaching trump.

The U.S. military commander in Iraq has said he believes

U.S.-backed forces will retake both of IS's urban bastions - Mosul and Raqqa in neighboring Syria - within the next six months, which would end the jihadists' ambitions to territorial rule three years after they declared a "caliphate".

...

"This is the grim choice for children in western Mosul right now: bombs, crossfire and hunger if they stay – or execution and snipers if they try to run," the Save the Children humanitarian agency said in a statement. It added that children comprise about half the population in the city's western sector.

Up to 400,000 civilians could be displaced by the offensive, with western Mosul suffering food and fuel shortages and markets closed, according to the United Nations.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-iraq-mosul-idUSKBN1601VT

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/new-houthi-weapon-emerges-a-drone-boat

ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates — The Houthi boat that attacked and hit a Saudi frigate Jan. 30 in the Red Sea, reported earlier as a suicide boat, was instead carried out by an unmanned, remote-controlled craft filled with explosives, the US Navy’s top officer in the Mideast said.

“Our assessment is that it was an unmanned, remote-controlled boat of some kind,” Vice Adm. Kevin Donegan, commander of the Bahrain-based US Fifth Fleet and head of US Naval Forces Central Command, told Defense News in an interview here Saturday.

The attack on the frigate Al Madinah appears to be the first confirmed use of the weapon which, Donegan said, represents a wider threat than that posed by suicide boats and shows foreign interests are aiding the Houthis.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/20/rockets-fired-into-southern-israel-from-egypts-sinai

Isis being driven up north, this seems a 'logical' attack from their side. I don't believe ISIS can do any real damage in Israel, luckily, but I do wonder if stuff like this will get Bibi (even) more on board with Trumps supposed plans to "fight ISIS" more? Stingy for Israel to get involved with ISIS imho.

If Bibi dedicates resources to fighting ISIS I don't think it'll be bc of rockets from Sinai but because he thinks it'll curry favor with either Trump, Saudis or both.

Yeah, that's what I am thinking. Even Bibi would not act on this threat without an outspoken, full support of Israel's allies imho. Hitching the wagon to allies seems the best option for Israel, instead of reacting solo.

koplow on how the republican congress is more hawkish on PA aid than the Israeli ministry of defense, AIPAC, and the IDF:
http://www.matzavblog.com/2017/03/perplexing-problem-propping-pa/

The US religious right enjoys the position of being ultra-hawkish about wars they wish to be fought, by others, somewhere far from their own homes.

also there are american zionist orgs that are more hawkish than aipac and the idf, like the ZOA which supports the taylor force act.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/mounting-claims-of-civilian-deaths-after-us-targetsal-qaeda-in-syria/2017/03/17/350d5838-0ae9-11e7-8884-96e6a6713f4b_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_syria-920a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.a02e803c7f2b

trump administration wants to give the cia back its droning powers (currently only with DOJ) so we can expect more of this and less accountability in the future

Frankly, the inability to ensure that there was more legal oversight over drone warfare in undeclared wars was one of my biggest objections to Obama administration foreign policy.

I think its possibly morally acceptable for the US to make drone strikes against persons that don't present an immanent threat to US territory (and really, no one in the target countries really does), but the extension of presidential powers to wage undeclared war doesn't make a whole lot of sense outside of the context of strategic/nuclear threats, and *immanent* threats. Its just a recipe for long-term blowback.

I think it was a huge mistake to not to encourage some legislative restrictions on this in 2012-, considering our electorate is only 4 for 6 in picking non-demented commanders-in-chief over the past 36 years.

Meanwhile, Israel went on an excursion into Syria in search of Hezbollah from Lebanon

Syria fired missiles at Israeli warplanes on a mission to destroy a weapons convoy destined for the Iranian-backed Lebanese militant group Hezbollah prompting it to deploy its missile defense system, Israeli officials said Friday, in a rare military exchange between the two hostile neighbors. ...

"Our policy is very consistent. When we identify attempts to transfer advanced weapons to the Hezbollah, and we have the intelligence and the operational capability, we act to prevent that. That is what was and that is what will be," Netanyahu said.

Hezbollah is fighting alongside President Bashar Assad in the brutal Syrian civil war. The Iran-backed group is sworn to Israel's destruction and fought a month-long war with the Jewish state in 2006.

The firing of missiles from Syria toward Israeli aircraft is rare, though Israeli military officials reported a shoulder-fired missile attack a few months ago.

Israeli Channel 10 TV reported that Israel deployed its Arrow defense system for the first time against a real threat and hit an incoming missile, intercepting it before it exploded in Israel.

...

The pan-Arab Al-Mayadeen TV, which has good sources within the militant group, dismissed reports by other Arab media outlets that a Hezbollah commander, Badee Hamiyeh, was killed in one of the airstrikes. It said Hamiyeh was killed Thursday in the southern Syrian region of Quneitra, near the Israeli-held Golan Heights.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-syria-israel-airstrikes-20170317-story.html

If you want to help with creation of an online Arabic dictionary app that references formal written Arabic and geographic dialectshttps://www.kickstarter.com/projects/675665171/mobile-apps-for-the-living-arabic-project/description

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/675665171/mobile-apps-for-the-living-arabic-project/description

Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman has warned Syria that Israel will destroy its air defense system if Syria fires an anti-aircraft missile at Israeli aircraft again.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/19/middleeast/israel-syria-air-defenses-liberman/

Well good luck with that. If it was that easy, it would probably have been done.

done by whom? FSA or ISIS? i don't doubt israel could do it but the considerations would obviously be what kind of reaction it would invite from hezbollah, iran, or even russia.

Wasn't the whole reason the US wouldn't do a no-fly zone that the cost of destroying the Syrian air defense system was too high? Obama didn't hold back out of care for the Syrians.

Maintaining ongoing control of air space seems a bit more ambitious to me than bombing air facilities once.

Well, yes, but one bombing raid wouldn't 'destroy' it's air defence system.

I seem to recall there were ongoing negotiations with the Russians as to where they and US air would operate. The situation is vastly more complicated than Iraq, Bosnia, and Libya.

Both ruling Kurdistan (KRG) parties KDP and PUK have agreed today to hold the referendum for independence this year.

Now they've been saying this for years and years, but it seems it's really going to happen this time. An overwhelming pro-independence vote is to be expected. It will be interesting to see how Baghdad, but especially Erdogan will respond to this.

they won't like it. seems like tillerson's pow-wow with erdogan has the kurds believing the usa will risk much erdogan unhappiness to keep the kurds fighting isis.

Baghdad is at least willing to play ball and negotiate. And Barzani, KRG's president is on relative good terms with Erdo (which leads to Kurds from Syria and Iran criticizing him a lot). He has to, in a way, but they'll have some leverage. Baghdad knows independence is on the cards. I don't think the Kurds see the US as a strong reliable partner any more, they've been disappointed too much in the past. But the fighting Isis argument is a strong one no one can deny tbh.

https://theintercept.com/2017/04/03/white-house-meeting-with-egypts-tyrant-highlights-key-trump-effect-unmasking-u-s-policy/

Greenwald take on the longstanding US support of Egypt and Bahrain, and how now its just more out in the open as Sisi is at the White House today I think

pretty otm i can't disagree w/ anything he writes there

i do wonder how long we're going to have to wait into the new administration tho before glenn just frames his critiques as being against the administration as opposed to using trump to make a point about how bad the democrats are

Can we poll this question with him and Morbs?

Ha ha. I think one option has to be "Greenwald will always just use T administration as a foil to make a point about how bad the Democratic party is"

There are ten thousand journalists pointing out why Trump is bad, I think the world can cope with a handful pointing out that Trump is bad and the Democrats should be substantially better on major issues than they have been.

Ya soglasen, comrade.

Of course we can cope. That's what the poll is for.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/05/un-security-council-holds-emergency-meeting-syria-chemical-attack/

Russia has threatened to veto any resolution by the UN security council on a suspected chemical attack in Syria which is feared to have killed dozens of civilians, including children, claiming it is based on "false information."

Meanwhile

"No one — not even President Obama, as far as I could tell — was satisfied with the Obama administration’s approach to the conflict in Syria," Andrew Exum, who was an Obama appointee at the Pentagon, writes for The Atlantic. "But if you assembled all of the Obama administration’s critics in one room, they would not agree on an obvious alternative. The problem is wicked enough to confound easy solutions, and each policy alternative had strategic and moral deficiencies."

45's tweet versus-

After Syria attack, US Ambassador to UN Nikki Haley asks, "How many more children have to die before Russia cares?"

Has Trump really changed his mind re Syria?

fwiw i think the conspiracy theorizing is asinine but i'm not convinced assad ordered this strike. it really doesn't make much sense considering the course of the war so far and how it almost demands a response from trump. nb that doesn't mean that it was a false flag. it could've been ordered by someone lower down in the hierarchy of command. i've seen some ppl speculating that it could've been an airstrike hitting a chemical storage site and releasing the material (nb nb nb i have no idea how plausible this scenario is).

That is the speculation Russia initially put forward but it's apparently thought that most nerve agents would combust if hit by a direct strike.

the Russian explanation looks like serious ass-covering, shifting blame to the *rebels* since it was their warehouse full of chemical weapons etc.

I don't find it v plausible but what do I know.

All I know is that an order from Assad to drop chemicals at this point would be completely illogical and would gain him no advantages in his attempt to regain control of Syria and only jeopardize his hold on power which, for the first time in years, looks like it might be reestablished.

Actually, I think the US technically claims to arm SDF divisions under YPG command rather than the YPG directly. The $500m figure seems familiar - it might be the total cost of supporting the SDF and aligned groups.

Have any writers critiqued the Politico allegation re the Obama White House allegedly derailing an in investigation into alleged drug dealing by Hezbollah, in order to ensure that the Iran Nuclear Treaty would be reached?

https://www.npr.org/2017/12/20/572195727/politico-reporter-says-obama-administration-derailed-hezbollah-investigation

http://www.jpost.com/International/Hezbollah-scandal-perfect-timing-for-Trump-administration-520038

https://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/obama-hezbollah-drug-trafficking-investigation/

In its determination to secure a nuclear deal with Iran, the Obama administration derailed an ambitious law enforcement campaign targeting drug trafficking by the Iranian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah, even as it was funneling cocaine into the United States, according to a POLITICO investigation.

The campaign, dubbed Project Cassandra, was launched in 2008 after the Drug Enforcement Administration amassed evidence that Hezbollah had transformed itself from a Middle East-focused military and political organization into an international crime syndicate that some investigators believed was collecting $1 billion a year from drug and weapons trafficking, money laundering and other criminal activities.

saw some references to the CIA/FBI not giving a fuck about whatever the DEA is up to because of the pecking order in these sorts of things..

The obvious critique is- who cares? If you consider the threat of Iran obtaining nuclear capability to be a serious one, you'd obviously prioritise that over aome drug trafficking by an Iranian proxy.

Sounds like US done played itself, letting the drug trafficking continue for the sake of halting a fictional weapons programme.

Idk if Purdue pharma pretended to have a nuclear weapons programme lol

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-usa/mattis-sees-larger-u-s-civilian-presence-in-syria-idUSKBN1EN1H8

U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said on Friday that he expected to see a larger U.S. civilian presence in Syria, including contractors and diplomats, as the fight against Islamic State militants nears its end and the focus turns toward rebuilding and ensuring the militants do not return.

Hmmm, wonder who will decide on the contractors...

no-bid contracts, here we come!

Thread on Iran protests from yesterday

Thread: Iran’s protests--including in traditional cities like Qom and Mashhad--are a reminder of the country’s deep political, social, and above all economic frustrations https://t.co/PRT1RUTdNX

— Karim Sadjadpour (@ksadjadpour) December 29, 2017

Trump tweeting about Iran being an “oppressive regime “ after he has been selling military ware to Saudi Arabia and sucking up to China, Philippines, and Russia is well typical. Plus Trumpies tweeting that CNN is ignoring the protests is wrong . If Glen Greenwald tweets about Iran it will probably just be a mention of the CIA’s history in Iran.

Any 2018 thread name ideas?

MENA, MENA, Tekel, Parsin 2018

Confess that I had to google that, but it works

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belshazzar%27s_feast

Seems legit.

I took Mordy's suggestion and started a 2018 thread

MENA, MENA, Tekel, Parsin (Middle East, North Africa & other Geopolitical Hotspots) 2018