FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS IN THE NEAR EAST, by Pier Francesco Zarcone

IN DUE LINGUE (Inglese, Italiano)
IN TWO LANGUAGES (English, Italian)

Raqqa, October 21, 2017 © Bülent Kiliç

The military breakthrough in the Syrian war appears to be definitive … at least according to Robert S. Ford, former US ambassador in Damascus, known for his collusion with local radical Islamists.

Even though the conflict has not yet come to an end, in a recent article published in Foreign Affairs Ford wrote that the Syrian army has now won the war and “the United States will have to abandon any hopes of supporting a separate Kurdish region”, having “no good options in Syria” anymore, so that “hopes of getting rid of Assad … are far-fetched fantasies”.

The reason for this situation was Russian intervention. An obvious question comes to mind: why and in what way did the Russians succeed? In this regard, it is necessary to clarify a number of points.

First, it must be remembered that one must never enter into a conflict without having a well-defined and delimited political objective: in this case it was solely rescuing the current Syrian government. Secondly, the Kremlin clearly understood that many of the players in the Syrian conflict – moreover fragmented – were the long arm, or substitutes, of external entities such as the United States, Turkey, the Syrian Kurdish opposition Democratic Union Party (PYD, Partiya Yekîtiya Demokrat), Jordan and also Israel. Russia dealt diplomatically with all these subjects, provoking fallout also on the battlefield.

In addition, in order not to be trapped in a swamp with no way out, Moscow used very limited resources wisely and effectively: 4-5,000 soldiers and from 50 to 70 aircrafts, for a cost of about 3 million euros per day (in practice no more than one-fifth of US military spending in the Near East). And the losses suffered were more than contained.

From the ratio between means employed and practical results, some have concluded that Russian “military productivity” was greater than that of the United States, also because there was absolutely no lack of achievements in the field. On the other hand, Russia immediately and in its entirety used the presence destined for Syria – in fact without unnecessary warnings – and, unlike what happened in the so-called “US-led coalition”, did not need to implement it significantly.

From a political point of view, Russia intervened itself, that is, without pretending that the further phase of the war effort be supported by the Syrian Armed Forces – which in the Arab world can give good returns. So, no fake “advisers” who officially do not fight, but presence and commitment directly alongside the ally.

It has been said that Moscow was able to adopt the so-called “strategy of the reckless pedestrian”, that is of the person who, in crossing a very busy road with extreme boldness, manages to stop the cars rather than be run over.

A very calculated risk strategy, because currently neither the United States nor Russia seek direct confrontation; consequently, the first of the two that succeeds in “placing itself” on a certain “ground” de facto prevents the other from taking the same initiative.

Instead, the United States – threats aside – hesitated too much. In addition, with the deployment of S-300 missiles – and later S-400s –, the Russians imposed a sort of no-fly zone on Washington: perhaps not absolute, if it is taken into account that, in violation of an agreement concluded a few hours earlier with the Russians, the United States bombed Syrian troops besieged by ISIS at Deir ez-Zor, killing 62 soldiers of Damascus and acting in real terms as support – albeit in vain – for the concomitant ground offensive of the militia of al-Baghdadi’s “caliphate” (the enemy of the United States, in theory). The missile attack on Syria’s Shayrat base ordered by Trump came, however, from the sea.

In military terms, the conclusion is that if, on the one hand, Russian power of blocking air space is not total, on the other, US recourse to prudence attests that Syrian skies are substantially controlled by the Russians. Putin certainly took a risk, but the United States did not; and so it did not provide its Syrian allies, pseudo-democrat or “moderate Islamic” allies, with the modern armaments – anti-aircraft and air-ground missiles – they asked for nor did it engage on the ground with its own soldiers.

Finally, the Russians showed the possibility of a negotiation to the non-hardcore enemy sectors; down this road, in agreement with the Syrian government, it created the Reconciliation Center, which guarantees protected transport for declared defeated enemies and their families – and aid to the civilian population.

IN IRAQ

In the context of the current confrontation between the Iraqi government and the autonomous one of Erbil following the Kurdish referendum on independence in September, the Iraqi Armed Forces aim to take back the Assyrian city of Faysh Khabur, the border crossing with Turkey. This would mean denying the United States free passage to northern Syria, which instead is guaranteed by the Kurds.

UNNOTICED CHANGES OF EQUILIBRIUM IN THE NEAR EAST, by Pier Francesco Zarcone

IN DUE LINGUE (Inglese, Italiano)
IN TWO LANGUAGES (English, Italian)

© Neil Hester

The occurrence of events and related “media bombardment” very often distract attention from the most profound – or wider – meaning of what has happened and is happening … and the necessary help in understanding does not always come from professional commentators. This is particularly true of the Near East, theatre of a centuries-old conflict between Sunni Islam and Shiite Islam.

Generally speaking, a defeat of significant proportions of the first of these two Islams, with the consequent opening up of significant areas for the Shiites, is overlooked. The Sunni countries have lost all three wars against Israel, and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq (more or less secular, but Sunni) has in turn lost as many – the war with Iran and the two against the United States. In addition to that regime, domination of the Sunni minority over the rest of the Iraqi people has disappeared.

On the battlefield, ISIS has been reduced to a flicker and the dream/nightmare of the “caliphate” has dissolved. In Yemen, Saudi Arabia is paying a high price for its aggression, essentially at the hands of local Shiites; not to mention Arab and/or pan-Arab nationalism which has long since gone bankrupt (never mind the problem of who bears the greatest responsibility).

By contrast, Shiite Islam (of which Iran is still the fulcrum) has rung up a number of local and strategic successes, a result largely due to the US “satan”, which has so far failed to get anything right – through ignorance, carelessness and inability concerning tactics and strategies worthy of the name.

Worthy of note is the manoeuvring ability of the post-Khomeini Iranian leadership, which has abandoned Khomeini’s original and clumsy revolutionary aura (moreover harmless in concrete terms) and opted for cold political pragmatism, acting under the cover of local intermediaries, patient long-term operations and, of course, ready to take advantage of the colossal mistakes of others.

In Lebanon, the US flattening of Israeli policy has created the preconditions for the expansion of Hezbollāh, promptly armed and organised by Tehran, with the result that the only Israeli military defeat so far occurred in Lebanon in May 2000 at the hands of Lebanese Shiites, with Israeli troops forced to retreat from that country.

Today Hezbollāh has a full-fledged military force, not as a conventional army but as a guerrilla force that is no less enviable than that of the Viet Cong, besides having the most up-to-date technologies which the Israeli Armed Forces have borne the brunt of.

In Iraq the picture has been even worse: having never understood that it was not at all a nation, and that the post-Great War British-designed artificial construction only stood on its feet thanks to its army, the United States then had the bright idea of dissolving the Iraqi Armed Forces immediately after the second Gulf War, automatically creating a base vacuum immediately used by Iran – above all politically.

And now, for the first time since the Fatimid Caliphate of Cairo (from the 9th to the 12th century), we have two Shiite-led Arab states: Syria (which it was already) and Iraq.

This brings us to Syria. Doubts now outweigh certainty about the spontaneity of the so-called “Arab Springs” as a coagulation of undeniable local disquiet; and in any case the fact is that US manoeuvres in the attack on the government of Damascus – with fatal support for the most dangerous and cruel forms of Islamist extremism (Sunni) – were thwarted by Russian intervention alongside Iran and Hezbollāh.

The conclusion is that today there is a “Shia corridor” from Damascus and Beirut to Tehran, passing through Baghdad. The blatant attempt by Washington to interrupt it using the Kurds of Syria is destined to fail because of both the foreseeable opposition of Turkey and the poor military solidity of the Kurds, despite claims by Western media linked to the “single thought” notion, as well as the demonstrated ability of Iran (Khomeini’s spirit has long died) to manoeuvre for its own ends also with Sunni Kurds, from Turkish PKK to Iraqi Kurdistan.

Moreover, Iran’s remarkable military consolidation, albeit at present only in terms of conventional armaments, means that this country is an important regional power in the Persian Gulf, such that, in the hypothetical case of a withdrawal of the United States from the area, it would soon fall under Iranian hegemony.

In this regard we should understand one another. For Tehran, the experience of the previous war with Iraq was absolutely precious in terms of equipping itself in order not to fall back militarily into the same situation and of finding war alternatives. It is out of the question that if the United States were to attack Iran (as Trump sometimes threatens to do), it would be defeated in the first round, but by virtue of the experience of the “asymmetrical” war gained in Lebanon and in Iraq occupied by the United States, it would already certainly be capable of causing substantial damage to the aggressor even at this stage, including economic damage if it managed to block the Strait of Hormuz, where a massive amount of oil transits every day.

In the second round then, the real problems would start for the Americans: controlling the immense territory of Iran would be virtually impossible, even for of its war power, and unless it decided to embark on indiscriminate destruction of towns (and of the civilian populations that inhabit them), the guerrilla and terrorist techniques well known by the Iranians would mean that the daily arrival in the United States of transport planes loaded with the coffins of dead soldiers would upset the not very spartan psychology of the average American. Not to mention the economic costs.

It is well known that the United States continues to privilege relations with the Sunni countries and that establishing better relations with the Shiite countries is considered a kind of betrayal. In this regard, Western foreign policy “experts” – including also officially appreciated “Orientalists” – generally consider Shiite Islam a kind of mediaeval relict. This leads to an overvaluation of Sunni Islam’s capacity for constructive purposes in the Near East … understanding that it is Sunni Islam that is really mediaeval.

YEMEN: A HUSHED UP IMPERIALIST WAR, by Pier Francesco Zarcone

This article was translated from Italian into English by Phil Harris for IDN-InDepthNews, flagship agency of the International Press Syndicate. We thank Phil Harris and Roberto Savio for the friendly concern. [Red Utopia]

IN DUE LINGUE (Inglese, Italiano)
IN TWO LANGUAGES (English, Italian)

The US government intends to increase military aid to Saudi Arabia in its war against Yemen, according to recent reports. For the vast majority of the general public the news may be surprising, given that the ongoing conflict in Yemen is almost “non-news” as a result of the almost complete silence of the mainstream media. More importantly, most people probably do not know the causes.

FROM MONARCHY TO REPUBLIC

A summary reconstruction of the troubled and bloody history of Yemen can start in 1962, when a military coup backed by Egypt deposed the last monarch, Zaydi Shiite Muhammad al-Badr, and the Republic was proclaimed.

However, mountain tribes - supplied by Saudi Arabia - continued to support the king, leading to a bloody civil war in which Egyptian troops intervened directly (it was Nasser’s “small Vietnam”).

The civil war ended in the late 1960s (partly because of Egypt’s disengagement as a result of defeat in the Six-Day War against Israel) thanks to agreements between Egypt and Saudi Arabia, which essentially “dropped” al-Badr. Victory went to the Republicans. So much for the north of Yemen.

In the south, controlled by Britain, which had set up the Federation of South Arabia, the National Liberation Front (Marxist) started a guerrilla war in 1963 against the British, finally forcing London to grant independence to South Yemen, where the People’s Republic of Yemen (which became the People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen in 1970) was established in 1967 with Aden as its capital, and with the distinction of being the only communist state in the Arab world.

Attempts at unification between the two Yemeni Republics date back to the early 1970s, but to no avail until the collapse of the Soviet Union.

In 1990, North and South Yemen reunited. It was an unhappy union, because the communists in the south soon realised their error and in 1994 tried to secede. The army remaining loyal to the unity government, much stronger than the secessionist army and also supported by elements in the south, subdued the rebellion during the same year.

It is interesting to note that the rebels had received help from Saudi Arabia which, regardless of the profound ideological difference with them, did not look kindly on Yemeni unification, which it considered could become a dangerous pole of attraction for the hegemonic pretensions of Riyadh over the Arabian Peninsula.

At this point we jump to the present century.

SYRIA: ISLAMIC SUNNIS AND SHIITES ARE RENDERING THEIR ACCOUNTS, by Pier Francesco Zarcone

Preliminary remarks

Actually Syria is an important part of a great imperialist game, which goes beyond the problem of Bashar al-Assad’s dictatorship supported by religious minorities. Active subjects in this game are fundamental members of the Sunni Islamic majority. They carry on an uninterrupted war against the Shiite Islamism. After a long time this Islamic minority (10-12%) began again a strategy of counter-attacks after the Khomeinist revolution in Iran, and now the Sunni intentions aim at subjugating again the Shiite communities out of Iran (to eliminate them would be the best), if necessary through bloody actions from Iraq to Syria, from Qatar to Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, from Afghanistan to Pakistan. In this manner Shiism would be a purely Iranian phenomenon (it is almost impossible to extirpate it from Iran).

Once more, unfortunately, we must regret the inadequacy of the information provided by the whole of Italian mass-media, excessively prone to United States propaganda; so that a common reader understands next to nothing about the present events in the Islamic world. We find a typical example in the manner of representing the Islamic radicalism: it is always impossible to understand its ideological and religious dimension; moreover we notice that if the public opinion is kept on the alert (being really dangerous this form of radicalism), never in the alarm it is underlined the role of Saudi Arabia. Nevertheless this country (but it’s allied of the United States is the most important financing and supporter of the Islamic radicalism. A very dangerous game, because sooner or later the “monster” will turn its actions against the Saudi monarchy; but it will be another history.

When also important media spoke about the Islamic radicalism hardly ever they underline its Sunni ideological and religious roots; and in the exceptional contrary cases this reality is only mentioned. It is easy to saw the tares with the wheat, but in this manner we have only political propaganda, not information: so that it became “normal” to present Iran as part of the Islamic radicalism. A practical and theoretical great error.

Statistics show that the sanguinary terroristic praxis of the Islamic radicalism is of Sunni groups (99,9%), and not Shiite ones. Unless we consider terrorism the military action of Hezbollah against the Zionist entity, not considering the character of liberation and defensive struggle. Appearing news about attempts in Iraq or Pakistan generally it is not stressed that the slaughterers are Sunni groups and the victims are Shiite. The liberation struggle of the Shiites in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia becomes a political problem changed into matter of public order, and Hezbollah’s obvious support to Assad appears expression of a shared evil, and not cohesion against a common and deadly enemy.

On the theoretic plane the media avoid to underline the important aspect distinguishing a Shiite society from the typical models wanted by the radical Sunnis. We could cut down the description saying “Shiites and Talibans or Salafis are not the same thing”, but it would not be sufficient. Obviously, nobody of us would like to live in Teheran or Baghdad today, but on the other side we must consider the differences with the Taliban Kabul, for example. The Iranian revolution created an Islamic Republic based on the Western constitutionalism, and really its Costitution proclames the popular sovereignty (although under the superiority of the Islamic religion); besides in Iran we have elections, juridical protection of minority rights and so on. It is important that are studying in the Iranian University more women than men (on the contrary under the Sunni radicalism not even little girls would go to school). Too easy to write books on the negative elements of such a society, but it is true that Shiism is engaged in the effort to build an Islamic society for the XXI century, and the Sunni radicalism has the purpose of moulding every Islamic society according to its vision of the first Islamic centuries. It is possible to add that this particular vision of a return to the past is a nasty trick, because the historical studies on that period disclose a past completely different: so that we find the myth of a never existed past. Unfortunately the radical groups want to realize this invention by all means, also against Muslim opponents: they are considered apostates and may be killed light-heartedly. The sinister slogan today recurring in the Syrian territories occupied by the “freedom fighters” against Assad – “the Alawites to the coffin, and the Christians to Beirut” – is Sunni, but an inverse one on the Shiite side does not exist.

Shiism extremely synthetized

In front of Islam common people in Europe are rather culturally disarmed, because at school do not learn anything useful, and in the predominant information stereotyped images and banalities are privileged. On the other side the situation is not better: if in the centre of Western fantasies there is the image of a Moore with a scimitar in his hand, sensual and pillager, on the Muslim side a Crusader eager for gain, blood and Islamic women or the more modern version of an exploiting colonialist are the ordinary images.