The misery in Gaza could end in the next day

 So US Vice President Kamala Harris is doing what she does best - indulging in self-congratulatory moral preening - with a call for a 6-week ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, and also chastising Israel for not doing enough to get aid into southern Gaza for good measure. 

Here's the hangup, Madame Veep: Hamas won't specify release numbers - either of the Israeli hostages it's holding captive or the number of its terrorists it wants released from Israeli prisons:

Israeli officials said on Sunday that Hamas responded to the proposal agreed with mediating countries in Paris last week, but still refuses to provide the names of Israeli hostages who are still alive and state how many Palestinian prisoners they demand would be released from Israeli prison, for each hostage freed.

"There is no Israeli delegation in Cairo," the officials said in reaction to Arab and American media reports that a delegation was making its way from Israel. "Hamas refuses to provide clear answers and therefore there is no reason to dispatch the Israeli delegation to the talks in Cairo," they said adding that position was agreed to by all relevant professional teams and was not exclusively the position of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Oh, and Hamas is insisting one one other little thing, which really makes the brokered talks for a ceasefire a non-starter:

A Hamas official said that the terror group has not backed down from its demand that a hostage release deal would include an end to the war. According to a report in the Qatari newspaper Al-Araby al Jadeed, Hamas rejects Israel's demand for names unless there is an agreement on the full withdrawal of IDF forces from Gaza.

No, that's the mirror opposite of what needs to happen.

Our hearts understandably go out when we see Gazan hospitals trying to treat injured and malnourished children with inadequate resources, but what doesn't get nearly enough mention is that Hamas has extensive tunnels underneath those hospitals as well as putting its jihadists working as UNRWA staff in schools, mosques and churches.

No, there could be not just a ceasefire, but an end to this entire conflict if Hamas would do two things: release all Israeli hostages and dismantle itself.

Only those without a functioning moral compass would deny this, a position that is pregnant with the implication that Hamas has some kind of valid point. 

It doesn't. It wants the state of Israel obliterated and Jews killed.

So here we are. 

 

 

In a Mideast already brimming with malevolent players, ISIS returns to the mix

 Katherine Zimmerman of the American Enterprise Institute says the recent bombings at the memorial service for General Suleiman in Iran should be a bracing heads up for the West:

The Islamic State claimed the Kerman bombings as part of a new campaign dubbed, “Kill Them Wherever You Find Them,” launched in support of Palestinian Muslims. Within a 24-hour period, the Islamic State had claimed more than 30 different operations globally—from the Middle East to Africa to the Philippines—as part of this campaign, reanimating a seemingly dormant network. Few of the arguments made in the announcement itself are new. Pointing to the events in Gaza, the Islamic State called for supporters to target “Jews, Christians, and their allies” in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere. 

One of the key distinctions between the Islamic State and other major jihadist groups is its focus on Iran. Unlike al-Qaeda, the Islamic State has actively targeted Iran and Shiites worldwide as perfidious enemies of Islam and ruthlessly condemned Sunni collaborators such as Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. This announcement was no different, emphasizing again the danger of the Shiites and their threat to Sunni Muslims. No doubt, the Kerman bombings were aimed in part at driving a wedge of suspicion between Shiite Iran and the Sunni jihadists it backs. As it has previously, the Islamic State is seeking to exploit regional tensions and moments of instability to create opportunities to advance its own cause, still pursuing reestablishing the Caliphate.

These bombings are simply another notch in the belt of Islamic State-Khorasan (IS-K). What senior U.S. officials warned of in the aftermath of the catastrophic withdrawal from Afghanistan—IS-K’s development of external attack capabilities to match its intent—has sadly been realized. And while the Kerman bombings are shocking given the terrorist outfit’s penetration of the tightly controlled Iranian society, they are part of a concerning trend. The group now threatens states neighboring Afghanistan and has extended its reach to include Bangladesh, India, the Maldives, Myanmar, and Sri Lanka. Reports from Kyrgyzstan of a foiled terror attack in late December reveal the outward progression of the Islamic State’s threat from Afghanistan.

Western states, particularly European ones, have felt much-needed relief from the Islamic State terror threat in recent years, especially after the collapse of the founding group in Iraq and Syria. But that lull in activity seems to be ending. Most  concerning is how IS-K has transformed into its primary operational node using tradecraft developed to support terrorism attacks as far afield as Europe. Like al-Qaeda, which experienced significant counterterrorism pressure in Afghanistan and focused instead on developing a threat node based in Yemen, the Islamic State has adapted. The difference is that the Islamic State seems to be mastering a remote management of its cells, including online recruitment, guidance, and training. It’s not clear yet from Iranian statements regarding the detained individuals whether the network behind the Kerman bombings was built remotely or not.

And this is occurring as other Mideast players are weighing in - and not supportively - on US and British airstrikes on, per the US Air Force's Mideast command, "command and control nodes, munitions depots, production facilities and air defense radar systems" of the Houthis in Yemen:

Russia . . .  requested an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council on the strikes. France, the current council president, said it will take place Friday afternoon.

Rather rich in irony that Russia would be concerned about the use of force. 

Saudi Arabia is likewise voicing such a view:

Saudi Arabia is following US and British air strikes on neighbouring Yemen with "great concern", a foreign ministry statement said on Friday, urging against escalation.

"The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is following with great concern the military operations taking place in the Red Sea region and the air strikes on a number of sites in the Republic of Yemen," the statement said, calling for "self-restraint and avoiding escalation".

You may notice the I haven't done any posting of a follow-the-horse-race-in-granular-detail nature about stuff like how Haley and DeSantis are positioned going into Iowa. For one thing, the Very Stable Genius still looks poised to run the table on the entire primary season - a prospect with bad enough implications for Mideast policy - but also, the lay of the land in that region is likely to look even more volatile by November. The current US administration has its hands full right now, what with the mysterious way Lloyd Austin's prostate cancer has been handled, and the implications for the functionality of the chain of command. 

So the most immediate demand on US focus is not in Des Moines, but a bit further away. 

This is a pretty important piece of information about that Gaza hospital

 I doubt it will change the time-is-up message coming from Iran and Syria, but let the record show that this documentation is out there:

Israel's Defence Forces have released a slew of evidence they claim proves an overnight explosion at a Gaza hospital that killed hundreds of people was caused by a misfiring rocket launched by Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

In an audio clip procured by Israeli military intelligence, two alleged Hamasterrorists can be heard discussing the explosion and confirming the rocket came from Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) - an independent jihadist group.

'They are saying (the rocket) belongs to Palestinian Islamic Jihad. It's from us?' one alleged Hamas member asks in the clip provided by Israel's military intelligence. 

'This is the tragic result of firing rockets from densely populated neighborhoods,' the IDF said.

And finally, IDF spokesperson Daniel Hagari showed a series of infrared images, satellite photos and intelligence documents he said proved the damage caused at the hospital could not possibly have come from an Israeli strike.

He explained the images showed there was no structural damage to buildings around the Al-Ahli hospital, no craters in the adjacent car park, and no debris consistent with an air strike, implying a direct hit from an Israeli missile would have caused far more destruction.

'The walls stay intact. There are no craters in the parking lot. These are the characteristics that show it was not an aerial munition that hit the parking lot,' he concluded.  

He also pointed out images of what he claimed was shrapnel on the roof of nearby buildings, suggesting the rocket fell apart in the air and sprayed its detritus across a larger area.  

Hagari said Hamas knew the hospital blast was caused by an Islamic Jihad rocket but launched a 'global media campaign' to blame Israel.

The evidence was published amid a torrent of fury from Hamas, the Arab world and Israel's foes over the explosion, with Iran declaring last night that Israel's 'time is up' and Tehran-backed terror group Hezbollah calling for a 'day of rage' after Gaza's Health Ministry said some 500 people died in the blast.

Alas, in a war the momentum of which is still gathering, the incident started shaping events even before proof of the cause was disseminated. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman snubbed Antony Blinken in Riyadh, and Jordan cancelled its summit of Arab leaders, which Biden was planning to attend.

Churchill's quip about the different speeds a which lies and truth make their way around the world comes to mind here.

 

Some key architects of the softening of the US stance toward Iran

 Talk about a must-read.

This is one I'll be excerpting generously from, both for the facts and for Atlantic staff writer Graeme Wood's understanding of their significance.

It's a story, like so many modern investigative pieces are, of emails and meetings:

. . . a handful of Americans and Europeans . . . were, by the looks of their emails, groomed by the Iranian government to promote conciliatory policies toward Tehran. According to reports by Semafor and Iran International, Iranian foreign-policy bigwigs such as Mohammad Javad Zarif identified think-tank staffers of Iranian origin, sponsored meetings with them, and used the group to coordinate and spread messages helpful to Iran. The emails, which date from 2014, suggest that those in their group—the “Iran Experts Initiative”—reacted to Iranian outreach in a range of ways, including cautious engagement and active coordination. The Iranian government then paid expenses related to this group’s internal meetings; cultivated its members with “access to high-ranking officials and extended invitations to visit Tehran,” according to Iran International; and later gloated over how effectively it had used its experts to propagate the Islamic Republic’s positions.

It would be interesting to know why Mr. Malley lost his security clearance:

The government had reason to gloat. It picked excellent prospects, some of whom sucked up to Tehran over email and echoed its negotiating positions publicly. A few of them ended up in and near positions of prominence in the U.S. government through connections to Robert Malley, a veteran Middle East hand in Democratic administrations. Malley, who led Obama teams focusing on the Islamic State, Syria, and Iraq, is known to favor negotiation with unfriendly governments in the region and to scorn the “maximum pressure” approach that replaced nuclear negotiation when Donald Trump entered office. Earlier this year, Malley lost his security clearance for reasons still not explained, and he is on leave from government service. (He did not reply to a request for comment.)

Wood then introduces us to two key figures, Ariane Tabatabai and Ali Vaez:

One of Tehran’s targets, Ariane M. Tabatabai, joined the Biden administration’s Iran team with Malley and is now the chief of staff for the assistant secretary of defense for special operations. Another, Ali Vaez, formerly worked as an aide to Malley on Iran issues. That is the disturbing upshot to the reports: Witting participants in an Iranian influence operation have been close colleagues with those setting the Biden administration’s Iran policy, or have even served in government and set it themselves.

Wood has a few choice words for the Biden administration's attempt to soft-pedal this:

On Tuesday, President Joe Biden’s State Department spokesperson, Matthew Miller, dismissed the reports as “an account of things that happened almost a decade ago, most of which involved people that do not currently work for the government.” I assume he meant the U.S. government. Anyway, the accusations are serious and can’t be batted away by the suggestion that 2014 was a long time ago.

One sign of the gravity of these accusations is the unconvincing attempts to minimize them. The commentator Esfandyar Batmanghelidj said opponents of Tehran had smeared the analysts merely because they “maintained dialogue and exchanged views with Iranian officials.” He went on to note Semafor’s links to Qatar and Iran International’s to Iran’s archenemy, Saudi Arabia. The journalist Laura Rozen tweeted that the stories were “McCarthyistic” and targeted blameless analysts “because they try to talk to everybody and because of their Iranian heritage.”

Defending the emails as maintaining “dialogue” so ludicrously misrepresents the accusation that I am forced to conclude that these defenders find the actual accusation indefensible. No one is alarmed that Americans of Iranian descent are talking with Iranian-government officials. What’s alarming is the servile tone of the Iranian American side of that dialogue, and the apparent lack of concern that the Iranian government views them as tools for its political ends. Rozen and Batmanghelidj don’t dispute the emails’ authenticity. Comparing the Iranian influence operation to supposed Qatari and Saudi ones is, in turn, tacit admission that the emails are probably real.

Cultivating a source is fine. But any self-respecting analyst, journalist, or politician wants to be the one cultivating, not the one being cultivated. And mutual back-scratching can erode one’s integrity and independence. That is why the Iranians do it: to turn influential and otherwise smart people into their pets, and eventually condition them to salivate at the issuance of a visa, or an email from Javad Zarif. Responding to these overtures is fine, too. You can butter up an official (“Your Excellency”), maybe grovel a little for a visa. But the writing itself, and the analysis behind it, must be independent to the point that even the most cynical observer could not accuse you of altering your views to please a subject.

By this standard, some of the reported exchanges between the Iran Experts and their convenor are mortifying. After the report, Vaez, a deputy to Malley, admitted on X (formerly Twitter) that he’d sent a full draft of an op-ed to the Iranian government. “I look forward to your comments and feedback,” his email to the Iranians read. If I sent a source a draft of a story, I would be fired. (I asked The National Interest, where the article appeared, if its policy also forbids sharing drafts. The editor, Jacob Heilbrunn, did not reply.) Sending questions is laudable. Checking facts is standard practice. But a magazine article is not a Wiki whose contributors are also its subjects. Sharing a full draft of an article, whether for approval or just improvement, makes the recipient an unacknowledged co-author.

It keeps getting smellier:

Vaez later pledged to the Iranian foreign minister to “help you in any way,” by proposing “a public campaign” to promote Iran’s views on its nuclear program. He offered these services “as an Iranian, based on my national and patriotic duty.” Vaez, like his former boss Malley, has written widely about Iran and U.S.-Iran relations, for magazines including this one. (Attempts to reach Vaez through his employer to verify the authenticity of the emails and their context were not answered by the time of publication.)

According to the same reports, Adnan Tabatabai, CEO and founder of the German think tank CARPO, “offered to prepare articles for Iran’s foreign ministry.” “We as a group [could] work on an essay,” he suggested. “It could, for example, be published under a former official’s name.” Tabatabai, the report says, worked as a contractor for Malley’s International Crisis Group. (He did not respond to a request for comment.)

Ariane Tabatabai (who is not related to Adnan) wrote to her contact at the Iranian foreign ministry and asked his advice on whether to work with officials in Saudi Arabia and attend a meeting in Israel. “I would like to ask your opinion too and see if you think I should accept the invitation and go,” she asked Mostafa Zahrani of the foreign ministry. She made clear that she personally “had no inclination to go” to a workshop at Ben-Gurion University, but she thought it might be better if she went, rather than “some Israeli,” such as Emily Landau of Tel Aviv University. Zahrani told Tabatabai to look into Saudi Arabia and avoid Israel. She thanked him for the guidance, and she went to Tehran herself in 2014. In another email to the Iranians, she noted that she had recently published an article arguing that Tehran should be given more leeway to spin up centrifuges for uranium enrichment.

Better me than "some Israeli," she was thinking. And now she works at the Defense Department. 

As Wood notes, we must bet careful not to wax hyperbolic about just how close Tabatabai and Malley are to the Iranian government. But as Lee Smith notes at Tablet, she should at least have to answer some questions under oath:

Congress needs to demand the Biden White House make Malley and Tabatabai available to testify immediately. It must also press to interview the security officials who buried evidence of Tabatabai’s covert activities, putting her in a position to endanger the lives of American civilians and special forces operators. It’s time to find out why the interests—and now the personnel—of the Iranian “death to America” regime intersect so frequently with those of America’s own ruling party.

Especially given the fact that Iran, at a meeting a week ago in Beirut, was the party that gave the go-ahead to Hamas to unleash hell on Israel.  

 

 

 

 

 

China's badly sagging internally, but that doesn't mean it doesn't pose a threat on the world stage

 Michael Schuman, a Beijing-based writer for The Atlantic, says that years of trying to mix free-market activity (private companies) with heavy-handed statism (industrial policy, regulation) has taken the wind out of China's sails:

China’s jobless college graduates have become an embarrassment to Chinese leader Xi Jinping. The unemployment rate among the country’s youth has reached an all-time high, putting the country’s severe economic troubles on display at home and abroad. In August, Xi’s administration decided to act: Its statistics bureau stopped releasing the data.

But Xi can’t hide China’s economic woes—or hide from them. The problems are not just a post-pandemic malaise, or some soon-to-be-forgotten detour in China’s march to superpower stature. The vaunted China model—the mix of liberalization and state control that generated the country’s hypersonic growth—has entered its death throes.

The news should not come as a surprise. Economists and even Chinese policy makers have warned for years that the China model was fundamentally flawed and would inevitably break down. But Xi was too consumed with shoring up his own power to undertake the necessary reforms to fix it. Now the problems run so deep, and the repairs would be so costly, that the time for a turnaround may have passed.

Contrary to the assumptions of many commentators in recent years, China may never overtake the United States as the world’s dominant economy if current trends continue. In fact, it’s already falling behind. 

Once again, we're seeing that central planning is a poor way to gauge what a country is going to need, Over-investing in housing, factory capacity, railways, etc. has resulted in a debt level three times that of the size of the country's economy.

Xi once talked a good game about moving in a sensible direction, but the initiatives he talked about never got off the ground:

Early in his tenure, Xi seemed to accept these imperatives. In 2013, he signed off on a Communist Party reform blueprint that pledged to give the market a “decisive” role in the economy. But the reforms never happened. Enacting them would have diminished the power of the state—and thus Xi’s own power. China’s leader was unwilling to trade political control for economic growth.

The more power Xi has commanded, the heavier the state’s hand in the economy has become. Xi has relied on state industrial policy to drive innovation, and he has imposed intrusive regulations on important sectors, such as technology and education. As a result, China’s private sector is in retreat. Two years ago, private companies accounted for 55 percent of the collective value of China’s 100 largest publicly traded firms, according to the Peterson Institute for International Economics; in mid-2023, that share fell to 39 percent.

People's incomes are going in the wrong direction for domestic consumption to take up the slack.

So the way to project an image of continuing power, it seems, is to act like a menace in the western Pacific:

China’s navy has launched its largest-ever manoeuvres with an aircraft carrier in the western Pacific, according to foreign defence officials and analysts, as Beijing flexes its military muscle to push back against the US and its allies.

 

The Shandong, the People’s Liberation Army Navy’s second aircraft carrier, was on course on Tuesday to converge with more than 20 other Chinese warships in waters between Taiwan, the Philippines and the US Pacific territory of Guam, said two Asian security officials.

 

“This is by far the largest number of ships we have seen training with any Chinese carrier so far,” said Su Tzu-yun, an analyst at the Institute for National Defense and Security Research, a defence-ministry backed think-tank in Taipei. “They are expressing their displeasure with the various military exercises that have been under way in their periphery.”

 

Taiwan’s defence ministry counted 20 PLA warships in the waters around the island in the 24 hours to early Tuesday morning. It did not give any detail, but the disclosure followed its announcement on Monday that the Shandong had sailed through the Bashi Channel, which separates Taiwan from the Philippines, into the Pacific. Japan’s military also reported the passage of eight PLA naval vessels into the Pacific via the Miyako Strait, south of Okinawa.

 

One east Asian national security official said the vessels spotted by Japan — six missile destroyers and two frigates — were continuing in a direction that indicated they would meet up with the Shandong. A separate Asian military official said some of the PLA vessels operating near Taiwan were also following the carrier.

When Marxist-Leninists with big egos reach this stage in their fortunes, they aren't too concerned with what international organizations and multinational corporations think. 

This situation is going to continue to get more raw and real for all of us. 

 

Ukrainian grain

 The Russians have kidnapped Ukrainian children and shipped them off to assimilation camps. They've raped mothers in front of their children. They've bombed hospitals and historic theaters.

Is it any surprise that they're pulling this stunt?

Russia warned that from Thursday any ships traveling to Ukraine's Black Sea ports will be seen as possibly carrying military cargoes, after Ukraine said it was setting up a temporary shipping route to try and continue its grain exports.

The moves by both countries on Wednesday came just days after Russia quit a deal - brokered by the United Nations and Turkey - that allowed the safe Black Sea export of Ukraine grain for the past year, and revoked guarantees of safe navigation.

Ukraine has made clear that it wants to try and continue its Black Sea grain shipments and told the U.N. shipping agency, the International Maritime Organization (IMO), that it had "decided to establish on a temporary basis a recommended maritime route."

But Russia's Defence Ministry then said it would deem all ships travelling to Ukraine to be potentially carrying military cargo and "the flag countries of such ships will be considered parties to the Ukrainian conflict".

To emphasize its position, Russia did this:

Ukraine accused Russia on Wednesday of damaging grain export infrastructure in "hellish" overnight strikes focused on two of its Black Sea ports.

"In the ports that were attacked today, there was about a million tonnes of food stored. It is precisely that amount that should already have been delivered to consumer countries in Africa and Asia," Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said in his nightly video address on Wednesday.

He said the terminal damaged the most held 60,000 tonnes of agricultural products intended for shipment to China.

The consequences have begun:

Insurers were already reviewing their appetite for covering ships into Ukraine.

A cargo insurance facility providing cover for Ukraine grain shipments traveling under the Black Sea deal has been suspended, the policy's broker told Reuters on Tuesday. The marine cargo and war facility provided cover of up to $50 million per cargo.

Norwegian shipping insurance group DNK, which provides war risk policies, told Reuters on Wednesday it was currently unable to provide cover for Ukraine.

And:

Wheat futures soared by nearly 9% on Wednesday and are on track to hit their highest level in three weeks as tensions in Europe rise following Russia’s surprise decision to pull out of a crucial deal allowing the export of grain from Ukraine.

This is probably the main sticking point I have with working up any kind of enthusiasm for Ron DeSantis in his bid for the presidency. (Well, and I can't forget his endorsements of Mastriano and Lake last year.) I have no problem with him wading into the culture wars. Public education has indeed turned into a sewer of indoctrination, and Disney started the dustup with Florida state government buy weighing in on the parental-rights bill. 

But a major presidential candidate who would characterize Russia's unprovoked stone-cold invasion of Ukraine as a "territorial dispute" causes me to have gargantuan reservations.  

I really have no use for anybody who doesn't bring moral clarity to this situation.

 

 

 

Which is it?

 Talk about mixed signals. 

This is an eye-opening move, is it not?

RUSSIA has started deploying nuclear missiles toward its border with Finland in wake of the nation's bold NATO bid.

Menacing mobile Iskander missiles were spotted being transported towards the dividing line as desperate Putin throws a troubling tantrum.

The video documentation is accompanied by some taunting narration:

Chilling dashcam footage appears to show a fleet of the deadly Iskander missiles en route to Vyborg - just 24 miles from the Finnish border - on Monday.

The commentary in the clip suggested a "new military unit is about to be formed" - in the immediate aftermath of the Nordic nation's NATO application. 

The person behind the lens explained: "As soon as the president of Finland said they were joining NATO, a whole division of Iskanders, seven of them…  is moving towards Vyborg.

“Looks like a new military unit is about to be formed in Vyborg or the region.

 “All the equipment is new, Ural trucks are driving it. So get ready Finns, to join NATO.

“New Urals, seven Iskanders, looks like a new military unit is being formed - well done.”

But then there's this:

[T]hree months into a Ukraine invasion that’s not going according to plan, and after two other countries close to Russia announced that they are joining NATO, Putin appears to be softening his tone, and resigning himself to the fact that NATO’s eastward expansion is happening anyway.

On Sunday, Finland—which shares an 800-mile border with Russia and was part of the Russian Empire for over a century—said it had applied to join NATO to ensure that its own national security would not be threatened by Russia in the future. On Monday, Sweden followed suit after a meeting amongst ruling party officials over the weekend, who voted to end the country’s 200-year neutrality policy.

“The issue at hand is whether military nonalignment will keep serving us well?” Swedish Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson said on Sunday. “We’re facing a fundamentally changed security environment in Europe.”

For months, Russian officials have warned against the two countries taking this decisive step, but now that it has actually happened, Putin appears to be doing his best to diminish the significance of the act.

"As for the expansion of NATO, including through new members of the alliance which are Finland, Sweden — Russia has no problems with these states,” Putin said Monday at a summit of the Collective Security Treaty Organization, a military alliance composed of several post-Soviet states.

This juxtaposition of developments bears watching. 

 

 

 

 

Ascertaining Putin's aims

 The notion that he's bluffing is a soothing balm. It would indeed be comforting to think that some kind of deal can be worked out whereby some kind of language vaguely approximating an assurance that Ukraine wouldn't be joining NATO any time soon would be sufficient for Russia to climb down from the present brink.

That doesn't square with facts on the ground, however:

Russian mechanized forces now rolling into Belarus directly threaten NATO, not just Ukraine. The U.S. and its allies are rightly focused on obvious Russian preparations to invade Ukraine and on trying to deter Moscow. Russian troops moving into positions in southeastern Belarus could be preparing to invade, and the West must respond in that context. But Russian forces are also taking up positions on and near the Polish borderwithin about 100 miles of Warsaw and near the Lithuanian border as well. Deployments to these locations serve little purpose as part of a plan to invade Ukraine. They dramatically increase the Russian threat to Poland, however, and to NATO’s ability to defend its Baltic members even more. The U.S. and its Western European allies must respond to this threat to the alliance — whether or not the Russians attack Ukraine.

Seven to 10 mechanized battalions (equivalent to two-to-three brigades with 4,200-9,000 troops) have travelled from Russia’s Far East to Belarus. Two battalions of advanced Russian S-400 air defense systems as well as 12 Su-35 advanced fighters have also deployed to Belarus. Russia’s Defense Ministry claims these forces will remain in Belarus until mid-February for exercises. The exercises will supposedly occur primarily at training areas near Brest (on the Polish border), Baranovichi (northeast of Brest), Grodno (near the Lithuanian-Polish border), and Minsk. These are not the optimal locations from which to invade Ukraine, although Baranovichi is a good rear base from which Russian forces could stage for an attack. Some Russian troops, however, have already appeared in southeastern Belarus, far from any announced training area, and in one of the ideal locations from which to launch an invasion against Ukraine. The new Russian forces therefore threaten both Ukraine and NATO simultaneously.

The Russian move into Belarus is no spur-of-the-moment or opportunistic action. It is part of a long-term plan Vladimir Putin has been pursuing for years, which is why we have been forecasting it for many months. Putin has expressed his intent to open a military air base in Belarus since at least 2015. Russia has been preparing to project forces into Belarus since at least September 2020 through intensified combined exercises with Belarus. Russian troops have also been rehearsing logistics and command-and-control tasks necessary to deploy Russian forces into Belarus, including supplying fuel, ammunition, and other essentials closer to Belarus.

It sure looks like Poland and the Baltics are in Putin's crosshairs as well as Ukraine. 

And he's shoring up his support from a geographically close neighbor of the United States:

Following recent threats of a potential military deployment to Cuba earlier this month, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin discussed the “strategic partnership” and further coordination of “actions in the international arena” with Cuban leader Miguel Díaz-Canel in a call disclosed Monday by the Kremlin.

In a tweet, Díaz-Canel said the two leaders held a “cordial and fruitful telephone conversation” about “the current international situation” and the development of “future links in different spheres.”

I realize that the US has sent Ukraine lethal munitions lately, and that Ukraine is determined to defend its sovereignty, but is 8,500 US troops being placed on "higher alert" for the time being sufficient US participation in that effort?  

Putin's a pretty astute cat. He saw that Germany was, in many ways, a wobbly member of the Western alliance, what with its rush to hobble its own energy independence and sign up for the Nordstream pipeline. That natural-gas delivery system is serving Putin's designs quite well at present:

An undersea pipeline set to deliver gas from Russia to Germany has become exactly what the two countries have always insisted it would never be: A weapon in a geopolitical crisis.

The United States, United Kingdom, Ukraine and several European Union member states have fiercely opposed the pipeline ever since it was first announced in 2015, warning the project would boost Moscow's influence in Europe.

The 1,200-km (750-mile) pipeline was completed in September and is now awaiting final certification. But even though the pipeline isn't operational yet, it has already acted as a huge wedge between the traditional allies at a time of huge tensions between Russia and the West.

According to experts, that on its own is a win for Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Kristine Berzina, a senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, a nonpartisan research center, said Moscow has benefited from the drama around the pipeline. "Everything about the Nord Stream 2 pipeline has been a victory for Russia," she told CNN.

"Given that Russia's aim is to split everybody, if they're seeking to break apart unity in the European Union and in NATO, this pipeline has been a wonderful vessel."

What this adds up to is not a mystery. Putin is not inscrutable. He's perfectly upfront in demonstrating his desire to see the US removed as a military, economic and cultural influence in Europe, and he's willing to risk conflagration on a level not seen since the 1940s to achieve it.  

 

 

 

The zapping of Fakhrizadeh

 First off, it's important to state that as of this writing, we do not know who is responsible. All signs point to Israel and a green light from the US, but we must not get ahead of ourselves. In tense situations like this, it's important to deal in facts.

Who was he? Why would he be targeted?

Fakhrizadeh was a senior Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) officer and headed Iran’s nuclear weapons project. He was a professor of physics at the Imam Hussein University in Tehran and was former head of Iran’s Physics Research Center (PHRC). He was the only Iranian scientist named in the IAEA’s 2015 “final assessment” of open questions about Iran’s nuclear program. It said he oversaw activities “in support of a possible military dimension to (Iran’s) nuclear program.”

In other words, he was definitely on board with Iran's foreign policy and its general outlook on the world, and he was also an expert in atomic-level matters. He was a very valuable asset for the regime. 

 

Fakhrizadeh has been a target of interest for Israeli intelligence agencies for the last 15 years.

In 2018, at the unveiling of Iran’s secret nuclear archive acquired by the Mossad, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu mentioned Fakhrizadeh and said: “remember that name, Fakhrizadeh.”

The files retrieved by the Mossad focused on Iran’s weapons program known as “Project Amad,” which was led by Fakhrizadeh. When Iran entered the 2015 nuclear deal, it denied that such a program existed.

In 2003, Iran was forced to shelve Project Amad, but not its nuclear ambitions. It split its program into an overt program and a covert one that continued the nuclear work under the title of scientific knowhow development, Netanyahu said at the time.

It continued this work in a series of organizations, which in 2018 were led by SPND, an organization inside Iran’s Defense Ministry led by the same person who led Project Amad – Dr. Fakhrizadeh, Netanyahu said.

Now, consider the timing of some recent events. 

In January of this year, the US took out Qasem Soleimani in a drone strike. Soleimani was, like Fakhrizadeh, an officer in the IRGC - in fact, a major general - and, since 1998, had been commander of its Quds Force. He was the prime architect of Iran's misdeeds in the Middle East.

Then came the September peace agreements between Israel and the UAE and Bahrain. These had the effect of confirming that Palestinian animosity toward Israel was no longer the centerpiece of the region's dynamics. An Israeli-Sunni Arab bloc was shaping up to form a counter-force to Iran's designs. 

Then came last weekend's clandestine meeting between Netanyahu, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. 

These events don't look unrelated. Just sayin'.

Now, there had been speculation that the incoming Biden administration would go to work trying to revive the JCPOA. That looks less likely now. 

The JCPOA was a bad "agreement" from the get-go. John Kerry and Wendy Sherman allowed themselves to be humiliated and yelled at by Iranian foreign minister Zarif at an interminable string of meetings as it was cobbled together. Much hay was made over a very narrow presumption of achievement: that Iran would not try to build a nuclear arsenal for at least ten years. It did nothing to change the Iranian regime's fundamental stance toward the West - and I'm including Israel in that formulation. Shortily after the deal was inked, on the day of Obama's State of the Union address that year, Iran stopped two US Navy patrol boats, took their crews captive and broadcast to the world photographs of the crew members on their knees with their hands behind their heads. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini, as well as top IRGC officers, continue their very public characterizations of the US as Iran's enemy. Iran continued to foment trouble in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and elsewhere. 

So whoever executed Fakhrizadeh seems to have done the world a favor. He was the point man for Iran's determination to become a nuclear power, something that must not happen. 

 

Three major situations going on in the Middle East / Mediterranean - one encouraging, two that are jitters-worthy

 The recent peace agreements between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain are laudable and fraught with possibilities for long-term regional stability and comity. 

Some aspects of the background leading up to these deals are noteworthy. One, the process of the groundwork being laid had been ongoing for some time. In each case, each party knew that trade and technology interests - and, at least as importantly, a common interest in seeing that Iran cannot establish its Tehran-to-the-Mediterranean crescent - provided the impetus for focusing on commonalities rather than differences. Two, these two Arab nations have a much different history than a lot of their neighbors. They have evolved out of a distillation of a national identity based on many ethnicities, for reasons of their locations along trade routes, participating in their development. They are smaller by comparison to, say, Iraq or Syria or Saudi Arabia. And, say what one will about strong monarchical forms of government, that element has shaped them differently that how things have evolved in countries that have earnestly tried to adopt, or at least ape, Western-style representative democracy. 

These factors make possible a considerable degree of confidence that the dynamic is shifting in the Middle East, at least to some degree, that the relative influence of various players of even fairly recent times is giving way to something new. 

A glaring obstacle to this path forward is Lebanon. Lebanon is one of the great tragedies of history. It's well-known that Beirut was, for many years, called the Paris of the Middle East. Broad boulevards, fashionable shops, a vital banking industry, a rich culture the ingredients of which included such influences as a few types of Christianity, Druze culture, the presence of both Sunni and Shiite Islam, and natural beauty gave it a global reputation as a desirable place to visit. Then came the 1975 - 1990 civil war, with its complex web of players and carnage and intrigue that would permanently impact the country's identity. 

It's now a failed state. The shell of its government is pretty much just a vehicle for Hezbollah to take the reins of power:

Lebanon, trapped in a constitutional vise evolved to ensure representation for its many sectarian communities while impeding the rise of cross-sectarian or secular parties, is hurtling toward full-scale breakdown. It is one of the most heavily indebted countries in the world, owing to entrenched patronage networks run by sectarian fiefs. The governing class plays each tribe against the other, Sunni against Shia against Christian against Druze, to enrich themselves while immiserating the nation. Woeful economic mismanagement has proceeded for many long years without respite. Combined with the arrival of the pandemic, rising unemployment has now plunged more than half the country—pushing upwards to three-quarters—into poverty.

To make matters worse, the power behind the throne in Lebanon resides with a vicious militia-cum-political party that is resistant to change and that refuses to treat Lebanese as fellow citizens. Hezbollah is the most conspicuous legacy of Syria’s long occupation of the country, and it has increasingly disfigured the proper operations of the government. Facilitated by Persian power and largesse, the Shia terrorist organization has risen to become the primus inter pares of Lebanese affairs. In concert with its domestic allies, the Party of God holds the majority in Parliament and dominates the government’s security and foreign policies.

This has global implications, and that doesn't just mean Iran. China sees a juicy opportunity to exert its influence:

If the people of Lebanon were pushed up against a wall of destitution and despair, they would lose hope, so the diabolical reasoning goes. Hopelessness would prepare them to accept anything, including a new overseer in the form of China offering a lifeline of billions of dollars in “aid” and pledging to rebuild vital infrastructure like the hammered Beirut port. This would effectively sever ailing Lebanon from its traditional Western and Arab strategic, political, and cultural moorings, taking it eastward toward Iran and China. It is no secret that Hezbollah is the designated agent entrusted with engineering such a shift, premised on compounding the misery of the already exhausted Lebanese as a quick way to oust the West permanently from the Arab Levant. Hassan Nasrallah, secretary-general of Hezbollah, even came on television several weeks ago to declare that he had secured a commitment from Beijing to “help,” if only the Lebanese would jump on this opportunity. Among other hidden benefits, China would gain a naval foothold for the first time on the Mediterranean Sea, close to Israel, and decisive economic influence in a vital gateway linking Europe through the Levant to the rest of the Middle East. Lebanon would thus become another feather in the cap of China’s expanding Belt and Road scheme with its not-so-concealed military dimension.

French president Emmanuel Macron has been to Lebanon twice since the gargantuan ammonium nitrate explosion last month, offering aid and signaling that the West is aware of the stakes. 

Europe has reason to be concerned about another situation in that region. Two NATO members, Greece and Turkey, are squaring off over gas and oil interests in the eastern Mediterranean:

The crisis has been deepening in recent months with the French president, Emmanuel Macron, leading those inside the EU opposing Turkey’s increasingly military foreign policy and saying Turkey can no longer be seen as partner in the Mediterranean. He has offered French military support to the Greek prime minister, Kyriakos Mitsotakis, including the possible sale of 18 Rafale jets.

The issue was on the agenda of a meeting of the Med7 group of southern Mediterranean leaders on the French island of Corsica on Thursday and again at an EU council meeting on 23 September that will discuss imposing severe sanctions on the already struggling Turkish banking sector over its demand for access to large swaths of the eastern Mediterranean.

Germany, the lead mediator between Turkey and Greece, is exploring an enhanced customs union between Turkey and the EU to calm the dispute, which has been exacerbated by vast hydrocarbon discoveries over the past decade in the eastern Mediterranean.

Turkey has long sought a broader customs union with the EU, and although Greece might see any such offer as a reward for bullying, Germany believes both carrots and sticks are needed to persuade Turkey to change its strategy..

But Germany is also warning Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, that his current unilateral strategy is a commercial dead end, since no private gas company is going to touch cooperation with Turkey if it is trying to exploit illegal claims on gas reserves.

The stakes are getting higher. Once again, Macron is very much involved:

Macron has already increased the French naval presence in the sea, and called for withdrawal of the Turkish reconnaissance ship Oruç Reis, accompanied by Turkish naval ships. The ship is undertaking seismic surveys in Greek waters south of Cyprus. A key moment may come on 12 September, when the Turkish Navtex warning for Oruç Reis is due to end. If it is extended, the risk of a naval clash between Greece and Turkey two Natopartners either by accident or design rises.

Advertisement

The fear that the conflict could spiral out of control has led to an urgent search for a neutral arbitrator and an agreed agenda for talks. An effort by Nato to start technical naval deconfliction talks was delayed after Greece objected to Nato’s involvement. The Greek foreign minister, Nikos Dendias, insisted that the talks would start only when the threats stopped. He then flew to New York to enlist the help of the UN secretary general, António Guterres.

So the current situation is a mixture of hopeful signs and increasingly heated tensions. 

Western nations interested in seeing stability and a tilt toward Western alliance will have to base their participation in this confluence of events on an understanding that assumptions about regional dynamics from even fairly recently are giving way to new realities.