The forthcoming inevitable battle for Middle-East Peace By Ghassan Kadi 5 May 2021

 Ghassan Kadi's thoughts on the latest power games in the region

The forthcoming inevitable battle for Middle-East Peace | The Vineyard of the Saker

The forthcoming inevitable battle for Middle-East Peace

17566 ViewsMay 05, 2021 34 Comments

by Ghassan Kadi for the Saker Blog

The alleged stray ground-to-air Syrian missile that landed near the nuclear reactor in Dimona Israel carried many messages; both overt and covert.

And, as if the fact that this missile managed to penetrate Israel’s formidable ‘Iron Dome’ was not embarrassing enough for Israel, the official Israeli report alleged that the missile was actually Iranian-made; not Russian as initially perceived by the world.

In other words, the Israeli report is saying that its ‘Iron Dome’ has been easily penetrated by a missile that is 1) not meant to hit ground targets, 2) had already spent its fuel and maneuverability and was literally on a free fall trajectory by gravitation and not propulsion, 3) yet it penetrated the allegedly most advance air defense system in the world, and 4) above all, it was made in Iran; a nation ‘crippled by sanctions and governed by ‘fundamentalist Mullas’.

Seriously, Israel has never before admitted a defense failure that is even close to such similar proportions.

Ironically, almost simultaneously, Iran revealed photos of an American aircraft carrier taken by a drone; not to forget mentioning that Iran also revealed that it has developed kamikaze drones ready to attack any target within their range in the Gulf.

But the Dimona incident alone cannot be seen in isolation of the recent Russian ‘diplomacy’ initiatives in the Middle East. I have deliberately put the word diplomacy under inverted comas, because that Russian version of diplomacy has a side that proves its worth in both traditional diplomatic ways as well as ones that are unorthodox.

Russia has thus far been very tight-lipped about its objectives in the Middle East. My own analysis of it has landed me in hot water with Russian friends and media allies, and I accept their stand. Perhaps they do not want me to ‘spoil the hidden agenda’, but my role as an analyst is not going to stop, and their views, directives, and concerns will not make me feel guilty for expressing my analyses and predictions.

In this portrayal of recent regional political events in the Middle east, I am relying on bits of pieces of information from here and there, but the analysis of it all is based on my own understanding of what makes sense in combining all what is currently taking place. My analysis does not represent the views of any blog, news agency or government. I have expressed similar views earlier, but events keep progressing, and in every step of the way, it seems that my initial prediction about the Russian initiative in the Middle East was accurate. So here is an updated summary of it all with a bit repetition of earlier material for the benefit of first-time readers.

Ever since Russia responded to Syria’s request to offer military aid, Russia responded with accepting the request under certain conditions; conditions that stipulate a Syrian-Israeli peace settlement agreement.

But this wasn’t all. Putin’s Russia is trying to reverse what Kissinger did to Russia some forty years ago when he catapulted the USSR out of Middle East politics and conned Egypt into accepting a unilateral peace deal with Israel in the so-called Camp David Accords.

Ever since then, Russia has been deprived of a role to play in the Middle East, none at all, until Putin sent troops into Syria and thereby changing the status quo not only in the Middle East, but also heralding the end of the single global superpower status of the post USSR USA.

The post-USSR world has seen Russia suffering from huge American-based NATO encroachments in Eastern Europe, and the current impasse in Ukraine is only one aspect of it. Former Warsaw Pact nations have gone full dipole away from Russia and in cahoots with their new-found Western ‘allies’. The Stalin era might have left a bitter taste in the palate of some East European countries, but this was a long time ago, and nations like Poland and Ukraine surely must understand and know who are their historic regional and global allies. With the era of Nazism and Fascism in the dust bin of history that Europe would like to forget, even Germany and France ought to realize that today’s Russia cannot be associated with Stalin’s-USSR any more than today’s Germany and France can be associated with Hitler and Petain.

And, if Poland wants to remained mentally entrenched in the Stalin era and forget about who liberated it from Nazi occupation, it should look further back in history and remember that the partition of Poland in the 19th Century was not only orchestrated by the Russian Czars, but also in collaboration with Prussia and Austria.

As discussed in the previous article, the current animosity of Eastern European nations towards Russia is not something that can be rationally explained and justified.

Back to the Middle East.

Only Russia can broker a peace deal in the Middle East, a deal that includes not only Syria and Israel, but also Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

The main sticking elements in any such deal are Israel and Turkey, and to a lesser extent Iran.

In the same previous article mentioned above, I predicted a win-win scenario that Russia will broker between Iran and Saudi Arabia; one that guarantees the mutual withdrawal of Iran from Syria and Saudi Arabia from Yemen. As a matter of fact, a few days ago Saudi Crown Prince MBS announced that he wants to have a good relationship with Iran. Is this a sign that this deal is closer than we think? Perhaps not, but I cannot think of any other reason.

Turkey will undoubtedly want a bite of the cherry, and I not sure how will Russia be able to diplomatically appease Erdogan without giving him too much more than what he has taken already. However, his recent stand on Ukraine has put him in deep hot water with Russia and in any future bargains, he will find that his Ukraine venture will be used against him. He has deliberately introduced a bargaining chip that can be used only against himself.

This leaves Israel; how to bring Israel to the negotiating table for a deal that is unlike all previous American-brokered deals.

All American-brokered deals have thus far been based on providing Israel with the lion’s share and the Arab party with very little; especially when it came to making deals with the Palestinian Authority. Furthermore, on top of the political and strategic gains that America delivered to Israel in all of those deals, America ensured that Israel continued to have military superiority and that Arabs would never be able to score a major military victory, even if united.

Despite the October 1973 (ie Yom Kippur War) and what followed it, all the way up to the July 2006 war with Hezbollah, and the humiliations that Israel suffered from all of those military engagements, Israel remains mentally entrenched in the euphoria of the huge Six-Day War win of June 1967 and what ensued afterwards, resulting in what can best be described as the invincible army complex.

Israel will not be prepared to sign a peace agreement with Syria while it believes that it continues to have this military superiority; the power to shape events in its favour. For Israel to change course and become more realistic, it needs either a new generation of political leaders who are more rational, or a reality check; a punishment if you wish.

This is why it is that, inasmuch as the corridors of negotiations are opening up and the tables are being prepared, so are the drums of war.

It is worthy to note here that major reconstructions have not begun in Syria yet. The underlying message here is that perhaps Syria is expecting more carnage, and that reconstruction will have to wait. Why reconstruct twice? In its current state of devastation, Syria has little to lose.

Israel, on the other hand, is in a very vulnerable situation, and the Dimona incident has exposed this gaping hole.

Syria has exercised great restraint in the face of the ongoing Israeli airstrikes. Even though an Israeli jet was downed a few years ago, by-and-large, Syria has remained non-respondent. We do not know exactly what is happening behind the scenes, but it seems that Israel is misreading Syria’s lack of response and seeing weakness, despite information from Russia that such is not the case. Israel will continue to act like the regional bully, refusing to sit at the negotiating table as an equal partner, unless it receives a significant hit.

This hit is not necessarily one that will cause much carnage in Israel such as civilian and military loss of life. Putin will not accept or allow such a level of devastation to be inflicted on Israel. After all, a significant fraction of Israel’s population is originally Russian. Putin, furthermore, is intent on convincing Israel that it is Russia, and not America, that can give Israel real peace with its Arab neighbours.

To this effect, Israel only needs to lose a few fighter-jets, ten, maybe twenty, finding itself unable to defend key military and strategic land targets in order for it to realize that the days of military superiority are gone.

The Dimona incident is a forewarning, but only if Israel wants to read in between the lines. Otherwise, there will be a war in the Middle East, a war that will be intended to be contained and limited to be a punch, a powerful punch, but not a knockout.

With this said, this is the Middle East, a very volatile region, with many volatile heads. A limited war aimed at showing who has muscle may end up spiraling out of control and into something very large. With experience of such unpredictability, Syria is presenting to Israel that a long war will bring more destruction upon Israel than it will on an already destroyed Syria.

What seems certain is that peace initiatives are on the table, but not all parties are yet convinced that they will attend such talks as equal partners before some arms are twisted and statures rattled.

https://thesaker.is/the-forthcoming-inevitable-battle-for-middle-east-peace/?fbclid=IwAR1qG2PCIzDIW0PCBYzQNOsWT4q4oOJkWzSPHb32UN0VPWPTGOlmpG_YSQ0

MBS Diplomacy: Saudi Arabia's Alleged Detente With Syria is Part of Bigger Plan, Mideast Expert Says 19 May 2021

 

Ghassan Kadi's latest interview on Sputnik. MBS Diplomacy: Saudi Arabia's Alleged Detente With Syria is Part of Bigger Plan, Mideast Expert Says - 19.05.2021, Sputnik International (sputniknews.com)

MBS Diplomacy: Saudi Arabia's Alleged Detente With Syria is Part of Bigger Plan, Mideast Expert Says

04:00 GMT 19.05.2021 (Updated: 13:17 GMT 06.08.2022)

Ekaterina Blinova

All materialsWrite to the author

Since the beginning of this year Saudi Arabia has been involved in talks with regional players, including Qatar, Turkey, Iran, and Syria. What's behind Riyadh's diplomatic initiatives and could it help Syria overcome decade-long isolation in the Arab world?

While tensions are swirling around the Gaza Strip, in other parts of the Middle East longtime rivals are trying to reach détente. Last week, Iran officially confirmed that it had held talks with Saudi Arabia in Baghdad. Prior to this announcement it was reported that on 3 May a high-level Saudi delegation headed by the intelligence service chief Khalid al-Humaidan had met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Damascus.

The potential détente between Saudi Arabia and Syria has been in the making for some time. When on 16 December 2018 Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir met with his Syrian counterpart, some observers interpreted this as an olive branch from Riyadh, given Khartoum's close ties with Saudi Arabia. In January 2021, Moscow and Riyadh agreed on the "importance of Syria returning to the Arab League as soon as possible".

Saudi Arabia's alleged détente with Syria and preparations to reopen the Saudi Embassy in the country could open the doors to Damascus' readmission to the Arab League as well as reconciliations between Syria and other Arab states, according to Ghassan Kadi, a Middle East expert, blogger, and political analyst.

"The Arab World is divided as you know, but the economic power of the Saudis certainly gives them political clout", he notes, adding that Qatar is still opposed to the move. "So unless the Saudi and the Qataris are united on this front, the manner in which other Arab states choose to deal with Syria will depend on their financial support base".

Outside the Arab world, Qatar's ally Turkey is unlikely to follow Arab nations in shifting positions over Syria, according to Turkish commentators.

"Although Turkey's main opposition party, the Republican People's Party (CHP), argues that establishing direct dialogue with Damascus would be the easiest way to reach a peaceful settlement to the conflict in Syria, it seems unlikely Ankara will make a major shift in its Syria policy for now, despite the changing conditions in the region and internationally", Sinem Cengiz, a Turkish political analyst, wrote for Arab News.

Riyadh is Building Bridges in the Region

Still, "there is more to the Syrian-Saudi talks than meets the eye", Kadi notes. "They cannot be seen in isolation from the much bigger picture that goes far beyond the borders of the two countries and their bilateral relationships".

The expert notes that these negotiations are to some extent a supplement to the Saudi-Iran talks, secretly held last month in Iraq. Kadi suggests that the Iran-Saudi talks could bring an end to the six-year Yemen conflict, given Shiite Iran's supposed influence on the Houthi rebels who have recently stepped up attacks on Saudi oil infrastructure. At the same time, Riyadh and Iran could settle their differences over Syria and find quid-pro-quo solutions in both regions.

On 11 May, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan met with his Turkish counterpart Mevlut Cavusoglu in Mecca. Cavusoglu's visit to the country was the first in several years, since the Turkish-Saudi spat over the death of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018.

Earlier this year, Riyadh and its allies restored relations with Qatar, following a years-long diplomatic crisis that erupted on 5 June 2017, when Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Egypt severed relations with the country over alleged support to some terrorist groups, something that Doha strongly denied.

Some observers allege that Riyadh has opted to mend ties with regional players as a signal that the kingdom does not consider Joe Biden's White House sufficiently reliable. For their part, Saudi thought leaders and politicians are calling for "strengthening Arab and Islamic unity" and diversifying diplomatic ties.

Speaking to Saudi journalist Abdullah Al-Mudaifer in late April 2021, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman pointed out that while Riyadh is "in agreement with the Biden administration on more than 90 percent", it is "also… seeking to create new partnerships with everyone else, such as Russia, India, China, Latin America, African countries, and others".

Russia and the EU; The Ukraine Card By Intibah and Ghassan Kadi 8 April 2021

Whilst those with political nous are fighting for their lives and that of humanity on another level, Biden and his NATO businessmen are pushing to force Russia into a corner over Nazi ruled Ukraine where of course Europe can be smashed to pieces.

http://thesaker.is/russia-and-the-eu-the-ukraine-card/?fbclid=IwAR2b2dnoGJL8i7Wwevlk2Lf8kjR-5vE0EhHEb7yAzS8i90wLPWGkV7DBGFs

Russia and the EU; The Ukraine Card

14931 ViewsApril 08, 2021 26 Comments

by Ghassan and Intibah Kadi for the Saker Blog

A tug-of-war game in Europe has been a strong feature of dramatic events in the region and further afield ever since the Roman Empire plus the Church split up. Which was the cause and which was the effect is subject to debate, but the split was much deeper than one that was political; the spiritual aspect of it is not to be overlooked.

The authors are not experts on this aspect of history and will therefore not dwell too much, but it suffices to say that Catholic Easter can come before Passover, even though Jesus celebrated Passover before His Crucifixion. But this anomaly does not happen in the Julian Calendar that the Orthodox Church adheres to till today; and the Orthodox community doesn’t shy away from presenting this contradiction in the Georgian Calendar that Catholicism follows.

But this article is not about the over millennium-and-a-half-old disagreement between the Western and Eastern Churches. It is about the current rift between Russia and Western Europe.

But to what extent does much of the current rift find its roots in religion? No region in the world has in recent times experienced the repercussions of this ancient divide as much as the Balkans when the former federation of Yugoslavia split, on Catholic/Orthodox religious lines, that ironically bear a huge resemblance to the borders between those of the Roman and the Byzantine Empires. The exploitation of potential cracks in the two main spheres of Islam by the Western power-block, along with its useful non-Western allies, is not to be discounted. It is easy to apply a simplistic view of the divide of the East and West upon such criteria alone, but religious difference always plays an important role, albeit psychologically. In Europe, historical factors also include that of the influence of the Ottoman Empire, the conversion of many East Europeans to Islam, divisions within the Western Church resulting in drastic conflicts and, fast forward to the much later phenomenon of the Soviet era and the lasting implications of its legacy in neighbouring countries, then the picture becomes more complex.

No matter what is said by those countries that Russia had influence over in the post-World War II period, there is no excuse for their denial of the fact that that it was Russia, albeit under the banner of the Red Army, that liberated all of Eastern Europe, including former East Germany and all of Berlin from the Nazis. Among the allies in WWII, Russia made the biggest sacrifices, more sacrifices than all of those of the allies combined, losing tens of millions of its people, with estimates reaching up to forty million. No other nation came close to this calamitous human loss; not even Germany itself.

Yet, Russia is denied all of the accolade in winning the fight against Nazi Germany. Was it its communist USSR status that turned it into the underdog in Western written history or, was it its Orthodox heritage juxtaposed to that of a powerful-global reaching Vatican and also a ‘Christian West’, intent on subduing and dominating, all with the trappings of grabbing resources and spoils?

Clearly, Western Europe, no matter what facts on the ground exist, seems intent on expressing, in public at least, an incurable sense of apprehension, mythology and propagation of fiction when it comes to Russia. Add to this a European obedience to the dictates of America and its power-brokers in attempts to cripple Russia with sanctions, an obedience mostly gained through threats of negative consequences and blackmail if not adhered to. Not only is this broad-spectrum demonization, at least publicly, expressed by European politicians and its so-called ‘elites’, but also among most of the population of Western Europe.

One of the authors often uses popular songs of the West and their lyrics to express specific mental mindsets in certain blocks of time and space. In 1980, British musician, Sting, wrote a song titled Russians. It was meant to be a message of peace in which Sting wondered, with obvious sympathetic sarcasm, about the state of anti-Russia propaganda, and whether some people in the West regarded Russians as robotic communist mindless machines and questioned if they loved their children like all other humans. The lyrics exemplify the popular perceptions in the West of the people and nation of Russia, even to the extent that they would ask such a bizarre question about the love of children.

And, despite the changes in Russia since the dismantling of the Soviet Union which is what the West planned for, and the emergence during the Yeltsin period of ‘bandit capitalism’ – as if that doesn’t exist elsewhere- the negative perceptions persisted, and to add to that, a palpable sense of glee at the chaos and collapse occurring in Russia. Some say, Yeltsin was wracked with guilt later on and ensured a leader who could pull the country out of this disaster; Vladimir Putin, tripping up the West’s plan with many future surprises in store. To this day, the eyes of the Western public are re-directed from any ills that their own powers may be involved in and sharply turned towards this convenient ‘bogey-man’. There was no Hollywood spin to show a ‘rehabilitated’ Russia as Putin quickly turned things around after the Yeltsin period, restoring the nation and the Federation to one of healthy self-esteem, pride, strength and a resolve to regain its place in the world, gradually rendering what the West had seen as a great ‘coup’ over Russia, to a victory that backfired.

Those in the West are at a loss to accurately elaborate on the actual cause of the current escalation with Russia and, that is because the facts don’t stack up in their favour in the honesty box when it comes to manufacturing conflict. Their exploitation of any religious divide has to an extent been successful, but more so about ensuring the encircling of Russia with hostile nations or turning around some governments of traditional Orthodox allies. There is no racial based explanation to the escalation and history of it other than Russian culture being generally one of inclusiveness and diversity, something the West has failed in and in fact abused. Russia, an old culture with at least one thousand years of existence in a paradigm of interdependence with diverse cultures and ethnicities, spanning a massive section of the largest continent that reaches the Black, Caspian, Baltic, Bering Seas, those to the north and east, and all the way to the North Pacific Ocean; how can modern day Europe and the West compare to that?

For the old West, Europe, now mostly gathered into the entity known as the EU, their animosity cannot be explained by unresolved issues with the old Soviet Union. Nor can it be based on beliefs of clear and present dangers and threats posed by the existence of Russia. EU leaders are surely cognisant of the fact that it was NATO that broke the agreement between Gorbachev and the West and that NATO incrementally has been intimidating and threatening Russia’s security by positioning missiles in former Warsaw Pact nations, encircling Russia, and long before Russia made any attempts to counteract such measures. EU leaders, for various reasons, put aside reality and rationality and the known fact that peace and stability in Europe can only exist or have any potentiality if it is based on a mutual European understanding that Russia must be included. EU leaders clearly know, but never state it, that it is the USA that is coercing them to make a stand against their own regional and economic interests and to take actions against Russia; not the other way around as stipulated by their national interests as they claim.

When it comes to the crunch, it is the manipulation by America, a power that aimed and succeeded for some decades in creating itself as a unipolar, all-reaching, global power, one which called the shots on anything and everything and had under its control the vanquished nations that lost out in WWII. When Europe organized itself into a union, it became far easier for America to have almost the entire sub-continent under its boot. It could not have achieved this without the demonization of Russia and re-writing of history for the consumption of the West and all under its tutelage. Just like we have witnessed over time with the ‘Empire Wars’, the strategy of co-opting into a hybrid war format Hollywood and all media has played a crucial role in building a world-wide narrative of America as the ‘world policeman’, ‘saviour’ and ‘leader of the free-world’, when in reality it played the role of raider, pirate and predator, sharing spoils with some of its more powerful ‘allies’ who in effect were nations with little sovereignty or ability to make any crucial decisions of their own.

Last but not least, from the unpragmatic military position, EU leaders know, but under duress ignore the fact that Russia has recently developed state-of-the-art hypersonic weapons that their NATO status and alliance with the USA cannot protect them against. They know that should an escalation materialize between NATO and Russia; such weapons can be used and the outcome possibly devastating for the EU itself. EU nations and, NATO as a whole, know for a fact that a war on European soil with Russia is totally and utterly unwinnable by them. Even without deploying any of the many weapons President Putin announced to the world during his famous speech of March the 1st 2018, a conventional war between the two sides gives Russia the benefit of depth of field and number of troops. Such is the hold on these nations that they act as if in denial of the obvious. What do they stand to gain? Or, is it about harm minimization under the yoke of America? And, what does Europe in particular, expect to gain from provoking or partaking in the provoking of war over Ukraine?

Again, in the usual twisting of facts, the Western media busy themselves in the post-Trump era in portraying Russia as the culprit that is escalating the crisis in Ukraine. If Russia is left with no alternative to act, deciding it must engage militarily, it is not going to be either influenced or intimidated by Western ‘fake news’. It will act based on the facts on the ground, and whatever Russia decides to do or not do, the Western media and leading figures will portray Russia as the transgressor and aggressor, and as we have recently witnessed from Biden himself, ramp up the rhetoric such as calling the President of a world power, President Putin, ‘a killer’.

Without the benefit of a crystal ball, either the situation will escalate to a level that leaves Russia with no other alternative than taking measures similar to those it took in Chechnya and Georgia, or that Ukraine will back off. The former scenario seems more likely unless the superior style of Russian diplomacy that specializes in win-win deals can find a solution. However, the current threat regarding Ukraine surely is for Russia where the line in the sand is to be drawn. Should matters descend to the irreconcilable, even though Russia is certain to score military victory, it will most definitely be subjected to more Western sanctions than the ones it is already under. No doubt, in such an event of ever more imaginative and diabolic sanctions imposed, it will draw Russia ever closer to allies the West does not approve of and new systems which the West has monopolized, will be overridden and rendered ineffective in bringing Russia to its knees.

As for the ever creeping ‘naughty puppy’ syndrome of NATO pushing its presence in Eastern Europe one inch at a time after the breakup of the USSR, all the way from feigning reasons for missiles stationed in Eastern Europe as safeguarding the EU from Iranian missiles, to inciting and coercing former Warsaw Pact nation members to join NATO, deploying more troops in the EU, blatant support for the Ukrainian Nazis, Russia has reciprocated in measured ways. Yes, it did retake Crimea from Ukraine, but this was done within a referendum-based democratic process. Russia may have to bite the dangerous bullet and offer the persecuted regions of Ukraine the same option. Afterall, Russia’s stand in Syria in 2015 at the request of the Syrian government, has clearly signaled that the unipolar 1990’s style ‘New World Order’ is over and that there cannot be any turning back.

Russia’s patience, perseverance and confidence in superior, win-win diplomacy in time will be widely regarded with respect by the rest of the world, even quietly by the EU leaders. It is the EU leaders who will not come to the party because they are hostage to many traps and hence, it is extremely unlikely, if not impossible, given the bind they find themselves in, that they will respond to reason, diplomacy or act in their best interests. Unlike the decades America in particular has had to install or hijack institutions and conjure up scams to place ‘rules’ on the world, Russia is not yet in a strong enough financial position to implement some of its own ‘rules’ to protect her interests. No nations should be able to do this in a manner that adversely affects other nations, whether through ‘rules’, sanctions, scams or monopoly and other tools that kill without a bullet being fired or bombed dropped. These and other strategies and tactics have come predominately from a nation in a general decline; one that boasts a huge fleet of ten aircraft carriers, countless world-wide bases and almost a trillion-dollar annual war budget; the American war machine nonetheless is a technological dinosaur in comparison to the slick and advanced Russian counter-part.

On the big geo-political level; (1) what keeps America in a position of power today is its power of the petro-dollar based global economy and all that comes with it, including control of the SWIFT-based monetary international transactions without which goods cannot be bought, sold and paid for on the international market; (2) in realistic economic sense however, it is China that is approaching the global lead if it hasn’t already at least in Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) terms, and (3) in terms of military hardware superiority, it is Russia that leads the world in this.

In regards to the current ‘crisis’ and a possible showdown over Ukraine, Russia surely cannot have concerns over its military capacity to deal with any action. However, unless Russia has been able to safe-guard its economy, quarantining it as much as possible from being affected by further Western sanctions, then any escalation should not leave Russia subject to any intimidatory Western repercussions. The further the West pushes, the closer Russia will co-operate with China, whether that is driven on a voluntary basis or has arisen out of necessity, and, in such a rapidly changing global environment, that decision of Russia is understandable and pragmatic, providing China stays solidly by the side of Russia.

TRADE-OFF LOOMING ON SYRIA AND YEMEN By Ghassan Kadi. 16 March 2021

 Ghassan Kadi’s analysis of Lavrov’s recent visit to the Gulf region and where this diplomacy could be heading.

http://thesaker.is/trade-off-looming-on-syria-and-yemen/

Trade-Off looming on Syria and Yemen:

14761 ViewsMarch 16, 2021 60 Comments

By Ghassan Kadi for the Saker Blog

In the past few weeks much has happened in the area of diplomacy on the part of Russia. Russia is forging ahead after stepping up its presence in the Middle East in the past decade, taking a strong pro-active political role. Moscow during this period has been intent on consolidating its efforts in re-establishing itself as the key player in any political settlements in the Middle East. Ever since Kissinger in the late 1970’s pulled the rug out from underneath the feet of the USSR, striking a deal between Israel and Egypt, excluding the USSR and the rest of the Arab World, the political influence of Russia in the Middle East significantly waned until it came back with deciding force when Russia responded to the Syrian Government’s request for help in September 2015.

Lately, the economic crisis has deepened in Syria following the drastic Western sanctions. And specifically after the implementation of the Caesar’s Act, the Syrian currency took a huge tumble and the cost of living has soared to unprecedented levels. This left many cynics wondering and pondering what was Russia going to do in the face of the collapsed Syrian economy after having achieved an impressive military victory, taking its troops outside its former USSR borders for the first time and heralding the end of the single super power status of the USA.

To this effect, and on the diplomatic side, Russian FM Lavrov has recently visited Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE for talks pertaining to an array of issues. The agenda issues that transpired to the media include trade, the Russian Sputnik V vaccine, as well as issues of global and regional security, albeit vague in details as what ‘security issues’ mean.

It appears that in these meetings, discussions included the return of Syria to the Arab League and the cost of reconstruction of Syria after ten years of war, a bill touted to exceed $Bn200. Expectations have existed for some time that the Arab Gulf states will fork out a huge chunk of this cost. As mentioned above, the bottom line here is that Russia’s military success in its operation in Syria needs to be followed by political success. Partly, this is achieved within the Astana talks which include Turkey and Iran. However, the very same Arab States instrumental in the ‘War on Syria’ are also instrumental in facilitating the return of Syria to the Arab League, the reconstruction efforts in Syria and the easing of sanctions. The Gulf states have always reiterated that there will no return of Syria to the Arab League for as long as Iranian forces remain on the ground. The UAE seemed more open than Saudi Arabia to the prospects of Syria’s return to the Arab League and financing the reconstruction process.

But why would the Gulf States, the same states that spent tens of billions of dollars in order to destroy Syria, be suddenly now interested in the reversal of the process? This is a fair question to ask.

Quite unexpectantly, and almost immediately after the return of Lavrov to Moscow, a top delegation of Hezbollah, headed by Mohamad Raad, was invited to Moscow for talks. Apparently, the visit was cloaked in a veil of secrecy in Russia and was not at all covered in Western media, even though it made news in Arabic mainstream media. It would be politically naïve to imagine that Lavrov’s visit to the Gulf has no relation to this. All issues in the Middle East are related to each other, including the war in Yemen.

To put it succinctly, the UAE had already stepped away from the Yemen war. However, Saudi Arabia remains bogged down in this travesty and seven years on, must have come to the humiliating and painful realization that it is a war it cannot win. This is where Iran and Hezbollah can have leverage in any direct or indirect negotiations with the Saudis, and Russia is the only arbitrator who is able to communicate with all parties involved.

All parties in the Middle East are looking for face-saving tradeoffs; at least partial and interim ones. The Saudis in particular are tired and exhausted,

In an interview given to Sputnik Arabic, one not widely reported in other media, not even Sputnik English, Raad praised the cooperation between Hezbollah and Russia, stating that ‘the invitation we received aims to reopen the dialogue about the next phase after having reached the achievements that serve the interests of the people of the region in the recent past’ .

This is Raad’s first visit to Moscow since 2011. Of that visit, I am not trying to speculate in hindsight of the purpose of it and the achievements of it. Furthermore, Hezbollah has not ever been party to any international dis-engagement or peace negotiations in the past, except for ones relating to exchange of prisoners. The economic demise of Syria and Lebanon, as well as the Saudi-Yemeni impasse, may well have placed Hezbollah in a position of participating in peace-deals negotiations this time.

I am neither referring to peace deals with Israel here, nor any deal involving disarmament. Hezbollah will not be prepared to negotiate disarming itself under any political settlement either today or in the foreseeable future, and Moscow is totally aware of this.

According to my analysis, the deal that Moscow is most likely to suggest is a mutual withdrawal of Iran and Hezbollah from Syria on one hand, and an end of the Saudi war on Yemen. It is simple, Saudi Arabia to leave Yemen and Iran/Hezbollah to leave Syria. I believe that Lavrov has already secured the Saudi acceptance of those terms, terms that will not only end the war in Yemen, but also the return of Syria to the Arab League and a possible easing of the Western economic sanctions on Syria. Had Lavrov not secured the Saudi assurance, he would not have invited Hezbollah for talks.

A deal of this nature can potentially end the criminal human tragedy in Yemen in a manner that will portray the Saudis as the real losers in the war, and this is where they need a face-saving trade-off in Syria. In Syria, they will be perceived as winners by securing an Iranian/Hezbollah exit. But most importantly perhaps for the Saudis, this will put an end to a very costly and humiliating war in Yemen, one which is beginning to draw criticism from some quarters of the international community, including alleged talk of America considering placing arms deal embargos on Saudi Arabia.

On the other hand, if Iran and Hezbollah end their presence in Syria, many sanctions are likely to be lifted and the severe economic pressure in Syria will be eased. Such a deal will be a humanitarian win for Syria and Yemen, a strategic win for Saudi Arabia and Iran, and a diplomatic win for Russia.

What will be in it for Hezbollah will largely depend on what Lavrov has put on the table, and it seems obvious that it is Hezbollah that will need more convincing than Iran, and this is why the talks are now with Hezbollah; not with Iranian officials. Perhaps the deal already has the tacit approval of Iranian officials.

It goes without saying; Israel will be watching these developments with keen interest. Israel wants Iran and Hezbollah out of Syria. But the trade-off deal I am talking about is not one in which Israel is a direct party.

What is known at this stage is that a meeting has already taken place between the Hezbollah delegation and Russian officials. As I write this, I am not aware if other meetings are to follow and or whether or not the Hezbollah delegation is back in Lebanon.

Was the 2011 Moscow visit of Raad a prelude for Hezbollah to enter Syria? Will the 2021 visit be prelude for Hezbollah to leave Syria? We don’t know. We may never find out the actual detailed outcome of the mysterious-but-not-so-mysterious current Hezbollah visit. It may not even end up with a press release, but in the next coming days, we will find out if a Syria-Yemen trade-off is indeed looming.

 

 

Could Lebanon Protests Lead to a 'Coup' & How Might NATO Capitalise on the Political Crisis? Ekaterina Blinova interviews Ghassan Kadi 10 March 2021

The 45 year long, slow demise of Lebanon reached a crescendo in 2020 when the currency almost totally collapsed and society and its institutions went into free-fall, eventuating in the past few weeks into some potentially serious developments. 
Could Lebanon Protests Lead to a 'Coup' & How Might NATO Capitalise on the Political Crisis? (sputniknews.com)

Could Lebanon Protests Lead to a 'Coup' & How Might NATO Capitalise on the Political Crisis?

14:00 GMT 10.03.2021

© REUTERS / AZIZ TAHER

Subscribe

International

India

Africa

Ekaterina Blinova

All materialsWrite to the author

Tensions continue to grow in Lebanon following the dramatic collapse of the Lebanese lira early last week, prompting people to take to the streets and protest the government's inaction. The country is teetering on the brink of explosion, warns Middle East expert Ghassan Kadi, weighing up the possible scenarios of how the situation may unfold.

On 9 March, anti-government protesters in Lebanon set up new roadblocks and lit tyres on fire amid demonstrations over the government's inability to tackle the economic crisis and crippling poverty. On Monday, the three main roads from Zouk, Jal el-Dib, and al-Dawra to the capital Beirut were closed by demonstrators.

Previously, protests – dubbed the Tax Intifada or the WhatsApp Revolution – shattered the Middle Eastern state in October 2019. The uprising eventually led to the resignation of Prime Minister Saad Hariri. His successor, Hassan Diab, started talks with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to receive a $10 billion loan to pull the country back from the economic abyss. However, on 4 August 2020 a massive blast destroyed the country's biggest port exacerbating the economic situation even further.

Lebanon's Economy is in Free Fall

In the aftermath of the August 2020 explosion, French President Emmanuel Macron stepped forward urging Beirut to implement a "new political order". On the surface, the French initiative has thus far failed, according to Ghassan Kadi, a Middle East expert, blogger, and political analyst.

"The Macron initiative ended up with President Aoun appointing Mustafa Adib (a political outsider) as prime minister", he says. "Faced by 'chiefs' who did not comply with their promise to the Macron initiative, Adib resigned before he was able to form government. He was replaced by [Prime Minister-designate] Saad Hariri in October 2020. Five months later, he is still unable to name the cabinet and Lebanon continues to be governed by the caretaker former cabinet that resigned in August 2020".

On 6 March, Lebanon's caretaker Prime Minister Hassan Diab threatened to quit in protest at Hariri's failure to form a new government. The formation of the new cabinet is crucial for kicking off long-anticipated economic reforms in the country which would open the door to multi-billion international aid.

Addressing the nation in a televised speech, Diab warned that the country had "reached the brink of explosion" after the Lebanese lira's dramatic slump. Arab News suggested last Saturday that the caretaker prime minister's retreat may further weaken the country's currency.

"It is sufficient to say that the exchange rate of the Lebanese lira to the USD before the 1975 Civil War was 3 to 1", recalls Kadi. "It held its value during the darkest days of the war, and began to slide in 1984 reaching a low of 1,500 to 1. But it kept that value from 1989 until 2019. Then suddenly, after the popular uprising in October 2019, the lira has been on a dive, reaching 11,000 to 1 as we speak. The collapse of the Lebanese lira is a simple reflection of what has happened to Lebanon since".

Lebanon's Cardinal Mar Bechara Boutros al-Rahi (or Rai) greets supporters ahead of a speech on February 27, 2021 at the Maronite Patriarchate in the mountain village of Bkerki, northeast of Beirut

© AFP 2023 / ANWAR AMRO

Maronite Patriarch: 'Do Not Remain Silent'

It appears that trouble is brewing for the present Lebanese leadership, suggests Kadi. On 27 February, Moran Mor Bechara Boutros al-Rahi, the 77th Maronite Catholic Patriarch of Antioch, addressed protesters outside his headquarters: "Do not remain silent in the face of corruption. Do not tolerate the theft of your money, the fluid borders, the failure of the political class, the chaos in the investigation into the Beirut port explosion, or the imprisonment of the innocent", he told the gathering.

Citing sources at Bkerke Arab News noted that the patriarch had decided to speak out over concerns that the country is facing an acute political crisis. Al-Rahi's earlier attempts to reconcile President Aoun and Prime Minister-designate Saad Hariri failed.

The development is symptomatic given the significance of the Patriarch of the Lebanese Maronite Church in a civil reform matter, according to the Middle East analyst.

"Lebanon was 'created' in 1920 to protect Levantine Christians after five centuries of Ottoman rule", the expert recalls. "It was the then head of the Maronite Church, Patriarch Howayek who became the architect of 'Grand Liban'. The French accepted his proposal and the Maronite Patriarchs who followed him became the religious custodians of the state. In 1943, the Lebanese Constitution in Article 95 stipulated that for an interim period, the President of Lebanon as well as the Army Chief would be Maronite Christians. Other key positions were given to other religions and sects".

This historic interim provision is still in force in Lebanon, and the Maronite Patriarch remains a strong and influential figure in the country, according to Kadi, who highlights that "never before has the Lebanese Maronite Church been so vehemently against Lebanon's Maronite president".

"Patriarch al-Rahi is seen by many as the actual leader of the current 'revolution'", the political analyst remarks.

Cars block a highway during a protest against the fall in Lebanese pound currency and mounting economic hardships, in Jal el-Dib, Lebanon March 9, 2021

© REUTERS / ISSAM ABDALLAH

Lebanese Army Chief Criticises Gov't's Handling of the Crisis

On the other hand, the country's military also appears to show sympathy for the protesters. Following Patriarch al-Rahi's address, Army Chief General Joseph Aoun (not related to the country's president) "spoke out for the first time since the uprising started 18 months ago", the analyst highlights. The army's top commander who was ordered by the president to clear roadblocks made it clear that he respects the people's right to protest peacefully. Speaking at a meeting with military commanders, Army Chief General Aoun criticised the government for its handling of the crisis.

"The officer also is suffering and is hungry, to the officials I say, where are you going? What are you waiting for? What are you planning to do?", he said in a Monday statement, as quoted by Reuters.

The general also warned against dragging the army into the political conflict: "The fragmentation of the army means the end of the entity, this is impossible to let happen. The army is holding together and the experience of '75 will not be repeated", he underscored, referring to Lebanon's 1975-1990 civil war.

On 10 March, the Lebanese Army announced that it had started clearing roadblocks set up by protesters across the country, as cited by i24News.

It is hard to predict whether the current deadlock between the government and the people will translate into some sort of a "coup", according to the analyst. At the same time, he ruled out the current tensions between the army and civilian leadership leading to a military takeover.

"What is most likely to happen is that the Army Chief will ask the chiefs of all other security forces to form a front to present President Aoun with an ultimatum of appointing them as an interim cabinet", he hypothesised.

However, this fragile situation "has the potential to put Lebanon back entirely inside the circle of influence of the West", Kadi suggests.

"Such an outcome will weaken the 'Axis of Resistance' and give the NATO-Israel alliance huge mileage. With that said, it is highly unlikely that an international consensus about 'saving Lebanon' can be achieved on Western interests only; especially considering that much at stake remains in Syria and that Russia has a strong position at the negotiating table", the Middle Eastern expert believes.