Category Archives: Syria

Britain, Government, Islamic State, National Security, Politics, Society, Syria, United States

Victory against ISIL can’t mask the incoherent approach in Syria

THE DEFEAT OF ISIL

Intro: The defeat of ISIL has become a cause for celebration, but there are hard security lessons to be learnt as well

FOR those who have participated in the challenging mission to destroy Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) deserve richly awarded plaudits. In the summer of 2014, when ISIL seized control of vast swathes of territory in northern Syria and Iraq to establish its so-called caliphate, removing the fanatical zealots from well-entrenched positions in places like Mosul and Raqqa looked to be a nigh impossible task. At its zenith, ISIL’s caliphate occupied an area approximately the same size as Portugal and controlled the fate of around 10 million people.

Thanks to the relentless efforts of the US-led coalition, ISIL’s empire now consists of little more than a square kilometre of desert scrub on the Syria-Iraq border. ISIL’s barbarous reign of terror is effectively over.

In strictly military terms, the coalition has achieved its stated objectives. With ISIL no longer able to terrorise those living under its control, nor in a position to spread the twisted propaganda that persuaded so many young impressionable Muslims (in Britain and elsewhere) to join the jihadi cause, there is genuine cause for celebration that this brutal death cult is on the verge of annihilation.

It can even be argued, as the former defence secretary Sir Michael Fallon has said, that in prosecuting the ISIL campaign the Western powers have finally found a workable paradigm for implementing military interventions in the Muslim world.

In this instance, the coalition has relied more on the judicious use of air power and special forces to achieve its goal, rather than resorting to the deployment of large-scale, and politically controversial, ground forces, as was the case in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yet, before becoming too carried away with the success of the anti-ISIL mission, it is worth remembering that our initial involvement in the Syrian conflict was aimed at destroying an entirely different foe.

Back in 2011, the primary aim of the US and Britain, the two Western powers that have been most heavily invested in the Syrian tragedy, was the overthrow of tyrant and dictator President Bashar al-Assad, whose minority Alawite clan has run the country since 1971.

It is hard to believe now, but former prime minister David Cameron even signed a joint declaration with the then US president Barack Obama in the summer of 2011 calling for Assad to step aside, arguing that he should “face the reality of the complete rejection of his regime by the Syrian people”.

Mr Cameron’s briefly held enthusiasm for securing regime change in Damascus ended when he lost the 2013 Commons vote to launch military action against Assad over accusations the regime has used chemical weapons on civilians.

And, pertinently, given the way the conflict subsequently developed, Cameron and his anti-Assad acolytes had a fortuitous and lucky escape. For, had they succeeded in overthrowing Assad, the fall of the Syrian government might well have resulted in ISIL taking control of the entire country, rather than confining their Islamo-fascist creed to the less populous northern districts.

It was, after all, the very real prospect of ISIL and its Islamist allies seizing control of Syria in the summer of 2014 that persuaded Iran and Russia to come to the aid of the Assad regime, thereby helping to turn the tide of the war decisively in the dictator’s favour.

So much so that these days the British and American governments accept Assad’s survival as a fait accompli, to the extent that neither country has shown the slightest interest in attending the talks aimed at deciding Syria’s post-conflict future.

Hence, the lesson of the West’s inchoate handling of the Syrian conflict is that, rather than celebrating the demise of ISIL’s caliphate, politicians would be better advised to reflect on their incoherent and muddled approach over the past decade, one that, had events taken a different course, could easily have resulted in the establishment of an uncompromising Islamist regime in Damascus.

That is certainly not the outcome Britain and its allies imagined at the start of the conflict, when they manged to convince themselves that the overthrow of Assad’s regime would result in its replacement by a secular-orientated, Western-style democracy.

Given that Islamist extremists have been Assad’s most committed opponents since the early 1980s, this was wishful thinking in the extreme, and the reason why, when considering any future military intervention in the Middle East (or anywhere else for that matter), it is vital that our parliamentarians properly examine the likely consequences of their actions.

All too often in the recent past we have got ourselves involved in conflicts without fully grasping the possible outcomes. A good benchmark would be to give priority to those threats that directly impinge on our own national security.

On that basis, destroying ISIL – a movement committed to carrying out terror attacks in Britain – always made much more sense than seeking to overthrow the Assad regime.

Standard
Iran, Israel, Middle East, Russia, Syria, United States

On the brink of a cataclysmic Middle East war?

MIDDLE EAST

Israel Iran

The Middle East is on the brink of a major conflagration. The situation is complex but Russia’s Vladimir Putin could play a significant role in calming tensions. Israeli airstrikes on Iranian targets in Syria has raised the stakes, precipitated some say by Donald Trump’s decision to reverse the 2015 nuclear agreement.

FOR much of 2018 so far, the world has been fixated by fears of nuclear Armageddon erupting in North Korea.

But over the last few days, alarming developments in the Middle East remind us of the even greater likelihood of conventional warfare on a cataclysmic scale in the region.

Now that its heavyweights – Israel and Iran – have traded blows for the very first time, we ignore that threat at our peril.

After 20 Iranian rockets were fired from Syria at military positions held by the Jewish state on the Golan Heights, Israel immediately responded by launching dozens of missiles at Iranian forces in Syria.

They hit a radar station, air defences and an ammunition dump – killing at least 23 people, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights which is based in the UK.

Iran’s rockets – fired by the Quds Force, a wing of the Revolutionary Guards – either fell short of their targets or were knocked out by Israel’s ‘Iron Dome’ defence system. Whilst not all out war, these events certainly take us to the brink.

In the Middle East, two major conflicts have been simmering side by side for years – the Arabs versus the Israelis, and the Shi’ite Muslims against the Sunni Muslims.

Last week’s events seem about to drag them into convergence and into a gigantic and highly unstable flash point.

Iran, which is not an Arab nation, is the chief Shi’ite power. Since the revolution of 1979 which overthrew the pro-Western, modernising Shah and imposed the harsh religious rule of the Ayatollahs, it has been spreading radicalism. The regime detests the West, with America its biggest adversary followed by Britain.

Iraq is dominated by Shi’ites, as indeed is Lebanon after Hezbollah, the paramilitary party aligned to Iran and which loathes Israel, won this month’s general election.

The Ayatollahs in Iran back the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad. Surrounded by hostile pro-Western nations, Iran needs all the allies it can find to help protect its regional interests. Support for Syria also allows it to station forces far to the West of its own borders – closer to the Mediterranean, in fact, than it has been since the days of the Persian empire 1,400 years ago.

Those forces, as we are now seeing, are within an easy striking distance of Israel. But that’s only half the story. Tensions are also at breaking point between Shi’ite Iran and Saudi Arabia, the leading Sunni country. The two nations have been fighting a proxy war in Yemen, with the Iranian-backed forces enjoying most of the success.

However, it is Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states which control a majority of the region’s colossal oil resources. Now, many hardliners in Tehran are saying that, with Iran’s superior military power, it could seize those oilfields if they wanted.

And the ultra-hardliners in Tehran, who are even more numerous, welcome that plan because it would inevitably bring America and its allies (including Britain) into a war they know we wouldn’t have the stomach to fight. With such immense conventional forces arrayed on both sides, Iranian military planners believe the result would, in all probability, be a stalemate. While Iran would be prepared to take hundreds of thousands of casualties, they are betting that the Western allies would not.

That, bizarrely, would be seen in the Middle East as a win for Iran. If America cannot overcome its enemy, its enemy is victorious. No matter how much Europe would want to stay out of another Gulf war, it’s naïve to imagine for one moment that it could do so. For one thing, the Americans would expect the support of Britain and NATO. For another, we are heavily dependent on the Middle East’s oil.

And Britain is already deeply involved, for economic reasons as far as Saudi is concerned, and for moral reasons when it comes to its long-term ally, Israel.

Small wonder, then, that Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson argued so vehemently against President Donald Trump’s decision last week to tear up the 2015 agreement which reduced economic sanctions on Iran in return for a freeze on nuclear development.

The idea of provoking more conflict and giving Tehran an excuse to restart its experiments with enriched uranium, seems wilfully reckless.

 

TRUMP, though, has a rationale for his action. He argues that his aggressive tactics over North Korea has forced dictator Kim Jong-un to the negotiating table, and kickstarted a process which might even bring about the reunification of the two Koreas.

Absurd as it may seem, suggestions that he is a candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize should not be dismissed lightly.

When President Obama began talks with Iran to persuade them to abandon their nuclear programme, much was made of an ‘Axis of Evil’ – a loose alliance of Iran, North Korea and other rogue states, intent on global mayhem.

But what Trump has proved in his face-off with ‘Little Rocket Man’ Kim is that Obama’s evil axis is an illusion. North Korea isn’t interested in Iran. Dictators don’t do solidarity.

Trump hopes that by reimposing sanctions, he will force the Ayatollahs back to the table – and this time they will agree not only to cancel their nuclear weapons programme but also to cut back their conventional military forces and to withdraw from Syria.

That’s the goal, but the difficulties with the plan are twofold. Firstly, with America ending the trade deal, in economic terms Iran has nothing left to lose.

In theory, it can still deal with Europe (which continues to support the 2015 deal): In practice, it can’t buy any items that rely on US digital technology, such as the Airbus plane it dearly desires, and it can’t borrow from international banks that have dealings with America (which means all international banks).

Secondly, Iran is not a one-man dictatorship. Power is shared between religious, political and military leaders, all of whom are competing to prove they are more hardline than the next, all of them convinced America isn’t prepared for a ground war fought to the last man.

It’s true that the US does not want to commit ground troops. Israel, too, is anxious to avoid fighting with tanks and assault rifles against an enemy with long experience of guerrilla warfare.

That’s why the Israeli response to Iran’s failed missile attack was so swift and emphatic. ‘If it rains on us, it will storm on them,’ warned Israel’s defence minister Avigdor Lieberman. Iran is promising to respond, though this does not necessarily mean an all-out missile attack. Reprisals could take the form of terrorist attacks, whether in the Middle East or further afield.

Whatever happens, we are closer to open war between Iran and Israel, with the Saudis and US potentially being drawn in from the start, than we have ever been.

Is there are chink of hope? Curiously, there is, and it comes from an improbable source. Russia, which has been so belligerent over Ukraine and Syria, does not want to see Iran dominate the Middle East where it now has significant interests.

So, President Vladimir Putin may hold the balance of power here. It’s worth remembering that the monstrous Russian dictator Josef Stalin was the West’s vital ally in World War II. Significantly, the Israeli PM was in Moscow to mark the Russian victory over the Nazis last Wednesday.

Strange as it may seem, because he can talk to all sides, Putin could be the leader who can avert a Third World War.

Overview of events: how Iran and Israel traded blows for the first time

1.      20 rockets were fired from Syria at Israeli positions in the Golan Heights on May 10, 2018.

. Four rockets were intercepted by the Israeli Iron Dome aerial defence system, while 16 others fell short of their targets;

. No injuries or damage have been reported.

2.      Israeli fighter jets responded by striking 70 military targets belonging to Iran inside Syria, including:

. A logistics HQ belonging to the Quds (insignia right), the Iranian special forces; 

. A military compound in Kiswah, south of Damascus;

. A military compound north of Damascus; 

. Quds Force munition storage warehouses at Damascus International airport; 

. Intelligence systems and posts associated with the Quds Force;

. Observation and military posts and munitions in the Golan demilitarised zone;

. Syrian military air defence systems;

. 23 people were killed in the strikes, including five Syrian soldiers and 19 other allied fighters.

Appendage: 

Iran's presence in Syria

Mapping of Iran’s presence in Syria.

Standard
Iran, Israel, Middle East, Russia, Syria, United Nations, United States

Israel, Iran and the tinderbox of the Middle East

ISRAEL-IRAN

Israel is prepared for a direct conflict with Iran if the threat of the regime’s terrorist proxies increases, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has warned.

TENSIONS between arch-enemies Israel and Iran have once again threatened to plunge the two countries into direct military conflict – one which could lead to a new and terrifying regional war.

Any escalation would drag in other regional major powers such as Saudi Arabia and the Lebanese-backed Shia militia Hezbollah. These proxies are aligned militarily with the Middle East’s two main opposing power brokers, the United States and Russia.

A ferocious Israeli missile strike on alleged Iranian military bases in Syria on Sunday reportedly killed dozens of soldiers. It is certainly true that Israel has launched more than 100 such strikes inside Syria since the bloody and brutal civil war broke out in that country seven years ago. Those strikes have targeted both Iranian and Hezbollah forces sent to the country to help prop up the regime of President Assad. The latest attacks are the most brazen and deadly yet.

Those attacks were then followed by a dramatic claim from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that he has proof the mullahs in Tehran have secretly been developing nuclear weapons, in blatant contravention of an internationally brokered deal – secured by Barack Obama in 2015 – aimed at curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

It saw the lifting of crippling economic sanctions on Iran, in return for strictly imposed limitations to the country’s controversial nuclear energy programme.

Mr Netanyahu accused Iran of having a secret plan called ‘Project Amad’, whose primary objective and aim is to produce five ten-kiloton nuclear weapons.

This unverified claim will have been music to the ears of Donald Trump and the anti-Iran hawks the President has surrounded himself with in the White House.

Even before this dramatically theatrical display from Israel, Mr Trump has appeared stubbornly determined to scrap the controversial nuclear deal, because he sees it as being fatally flawed. The deal is still strongly backed by Britain, the EU, Russia, China and the UN-sponsored watchdog the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). All remain adamant that inspections show Iran has and continues to abide by its principles.

During a visit to the White House last week, French president Emmanuel Macron similarly urged Mr Trump to stick to the agreement. This echoed earlier pleas by Theresa May and Angela Merkel.

But it is apt to ask whether Mr Trump is listening more closely to his old friend Mr Netanyahu?

What we do know is that, as the deadline nears for Mr Trump’s decision on whether to ratify the nuclear deal – due next month – unprecedented threats and counter-threats of death and destruction are being routinely hurled between Tehran and Tel Aviv.

In the past few weeks, each has promised to destroy the other’s major cities if threatened, raising fears that the proxy war they have been waging in Syria may soon explode into a direct military confrontation.

We should remember, too, that over the past few decades Mr Netanyahu has repeatedly, but erroneously, suggested that Iran is just months away from declaring it has developed a nuclear weapon. Still, it is easy to see why he is so paranoid. Since the revolution in 1979 brought the Shia Islam mullahs to power, the Tehran regime has proudly promoted the destruction of Israel as its top foreign policy objective.

Worse for Israel, the civil war in Syria has resulted in thousands of Iranian fighters joining thousands more militia men from Hezbollah, Iran’s main regional Shia ally, which has already fought numerous wars with Israel.

Their ostensible aim was to help Assad fight Islamic State and other Islamist rebel groups, but that brutal experience means they are now battle-hardened. They are armed to the hilt and firmly entrenched right on the Jewish state’s border.

 

UNTIL now, Russia – which is allied with Assad, Iran and Hezbollah, but which has warm relations with Israel – has played a delicate diplomatic balancing act, backing Israel’s enemies while turning a blind eye to the Jewish state attacks against them in Syria.

Russian leader Vladimir Putin recently signalled, however, that his patience with Mr Netanyahu had run out, and he has promised to deliver the advanced S-300 air defence missile system to Assad to help him defend against such aerial attacks. Israel responded by saying that any such system would be destroyed before it could become operational.

It is easy to see, then, why the price of oil is soaring on the back of Mr Netanyahu’s claims. It’s a sign that the international markets are concerned that supply will be disrupted by strife and conflict in the region.

The great fear for diplomats around the world is that, if Mr Trump does decide to withdraw from the nuclear deal and reimposes sanctions, Israel will launch unilateral air strikes against what it says are Iranian nuclear facilities. That would almost certainly provoke a devastating military response – not just from Tehran, but also its allies in Syria and Lebanon.

And if that does happen, it will take a massive effort of will to stop the US and Russia coming to the aid of their allies – at which point the risks of a global conflict will rise sharply. The tinderbox of the Middle East is once again threatening to drag two of the world’s great powers to the edge of the abyss.

How the UN sanctions were lifted in 2015

The 2015 nuclear deal was signed by Iran, Britain, the US, Russia, France, China and Germany.

It lifted crippling economic sanctions on Iran in return for limitations to the country’s nuclear energy programme.

Under the deal, Iran agreed to keep its uranium enrichment levels at no more than 3.67 per cent, down from almost 20 per cent. The country’s uranium stockpile was also to be kept at under 300kg (660lbs), which then US President Barack Obama said would see a reduction of 98 per cent.

Tehran also agreed to redesign a heavy-water nuclear facility it had been building that was capable of producing plutonium suitable for a nuclear bomb. In return, the lifting of UN sanctions meant Iran stood to gain access to more than $100billion in assets frozen overseas.

It was also able to resume selling oil on international markets.

But if the country violated any part of the deal, the sanctions would ‘snap back’ into place for ten years.

Appendage:

Iran Nuclear Deal

Standard