Saturday, October 26, 2019

Lebanese Protest Unlikely to Turn Into Civil War Unless External Forces Derail It. Ekaterina Blinova interviews Ghassan Kadi 25 Oct 2019

Ghassan Kadi's latest interview with Sputnik about the developments in Lebanon. Thankyou Ekaterina Blinova for the very poignant questions.

https://sputniknews.com/20191025/lebanese-protest-unlikely-to-turn-into-civil-war-unless-external-forces-derail-it-1077151371.html

Lebanese Protest Unlikely to Turn Into Civil War Unless External Forces Derail It – Mid-East Expert

Subscribe
The Lebanese unrest that has engulfed the country since 17 October has been raging primarily amongst the ranks of the disadvantaged, says Middle East expert Ghassan Kadi, explaining the reasons behind the so-called Tax Intifada.

The Lebanese mass street protests also dubbed the Tax Intifada and the Whatsapp Revolution have quickly morphed into an anti-government movement: on Friday, demonstrators rejected President Michel Aoun's call for dialogue and urged him to step down.

The turmoil erupted on 17 October over new taxes included in the draft 2020 state budget aimed at reducing the deficit and boosting revenues. In particular, the government proposed introducing a $6 monthly tax on online calls via Whatsapp and other messengers. The public discontent also coincided with a series of wildfires which broke out on 13 October and quickly spread over large areas of Lebanon's forests.

Tens of thousands took to the streets in various regions of Lebanon, prompting the government to revoke the proposed bill as the protests turned violent.

On 20 October, Prime Minister Saad Hariri presented a package of economic reforms to calm the situation down and resolve the crisis. However, the protesters rejected concessions and blocked key roads in response.

On Thursday, Lebanese President Michel Aoun addressed the nation signalling his readiness to meet with protesters' representatives, but again the government proposal fell on deaf ears.

'People are No Longer Asking for Minor Reforms'


Ghassan Kadi, a Middle Eastern expert, blogger and political analyst of Syrian descent, explains that "unlike previous Lebanese street protests which were politically or ideologically driven, these are protests of angry and hungry people".

According to him, Prime Minister Hariri and President Aoun failed to smooth things out because their concessions "came too late and offered too little".

"People are no longer simply asking for minor reforms; they are asking for corrupt politicians to be held accountable, for their foreign account funds to be repatriated, for their property to be confiscated and [for them] to face court", Kadi elaborates. "Ironically, the Lebanese Parliament has passed a bill to establish a 'national anti-corruption council' two months ago. President Aoun refused to ratify it and sent it back to Parliament for amendments. Now, in light of the protests, he is calling for the establishment of a council to fight corruption".

The analyst highlights that Lebanon is a country "rich in many resources, many rivers and untapped natural gas to name a few," while its "human resources have been the backbone of development of the Gulf region" – and yet, Lebanese youths cannot find local jobs.

The Middle East expert lamented the fact that "successive governments [in Beirut] have not been willing and able to rebuild the infrastructure, destroyed during the 1975-1989 civil war".

"There are shortages of water, power, employment opportunities, all the while politicians are filling their coffers with corruption money and hiding it in secret Swiss bank accounts", he underscores.

The political analyst notes that foreign minister Gibran Bassil, Aoun's son-in-law, has become the main target of the demonstrators who accuse him of corruption.

"Aoun, a former army chief, embarked on a career of reform and used the slogan 'reform and change' for his political party", the political analyst recalls. "Perhaps he was genuine, but by the time he came to power in 2016, he was already in his eighties and unhealthy. He informally passed on the reigns of governance to his son-in-law Gibran Bassil, who proved to be highly corrupt and inept. He is believed to have stolen billions of dollars and lavished himself and family with costly holidays under the guise of official trips".

Lebanese Protest Unlikely to Turn Into Civil War Unless External Forces Derail It – Mid-East Expert - Sputnik International
An anti-government protester adds to a makeshift barricade blocking a highway that links to north Lebanon in east Beirut, Lebanon, Sunday, Oct. 20, 2019

'External Players May Capitalise on the Protests'

The protests have engulfed both the south and the north of the country, bringing together Muslims, Christians and the Druze. And still, the question arises as to whether any external players are fanning the rage.

According to Kadi, "thus far, the protests look spontaneous and without direct and obvious external interference".

Still, judging from the eagerness with which international mainstream media jumped at covering the protests and their support for the uprising, there is a chance that "some meddlers [are] trying to capitalise on the phenomenon", the Middle East expert opines.

Kadi refers to the timing of the unrest and Aoun's longstanding ties with Hezbollah, an Islamic militant organisation that took an active part in the 8-year civil war in Syria.

"Given Hezbollah's recent victory in Syria, I would not be surprised if the protests would eventually be used as a weapon to weaken the current strong political position of Lebanon", he highlights.

In a 19 October televised speech, Lebanon's Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah openly condemned new taxes and at the same time made it clear that he did not want the government to resign. His statement prompted criticism from some of the demonstrators.

"Nasrallah has recently endorsed the protests, but in the eyes of many, his words are also seen to come from the too-little-too-late basket", Kadi says, adding that some forces could jump at the opportunity to sway public opinion against the militant group "for giving its political ally Aoun cover".

Still, he believes that the uprising won't turn into yet another civil war in the region, especially given the fact that the Lebanese army is monitoring the situation and "keeping elements of chaos out".

"Unless the uprising changes course, unless meddlers can derail it, I cannot see how this can morph into a civil war akin to that of 1975. If anything, thus far, the protests look like the revolution Lebanon needs to have; one that is peaceful and demands reform", the political analyst underscores.
 

THE LEBANESE FALL; HEZBOLLAH'S LATEST CHALLENGE Ghassan Kadi 22 October 2019

Ghassan’s views about the latest developments in Lebanon

The Lebanese Fall – Hezbollah’s Latest Challenge

by Ghassan Kadi for The Saker Blog

Hezbollah is facing a new challenge, and this time it is not a military one, but rather political.

Perhaps few countries need peaceful “popular revolutions” more than Lebanon does. In my simplistic way of thinking, Lebanon should actually be on the top of the list; followed by the USA.

Corruption in Lebanon is endemic. Its politicians are in reality the heirs of dynasties with self-given “birthrights”. Lebanon is ruled, owned, and manipulated by a few families and bloodlines that virtually own everything and have control on whatever happens in the country. This excludes the very few new comers such as the Hariri dynasty, Hezbollah, and the incumbent President Aoun, among others that one can count on the fingers of one hand.

Before President Aoun was finally elected, Lebanon had a presidential vacuum and had no head of state for 29 long months. It took all that time for the feuding Mafias to finally come to an agreement that guaranteed their positions and vested interests before they were convinced that Aoun was the right choice.

Aoun does not come from any of the political-feudal lineages. As a former Army Chief, and despite his history as a former enemy of Syria in the 1980’s who turned into a supporter twenty years later and eventually became a political partner of Hezbollah, he was finally endorsed even by his Christian Maronite arch-rival, Samir Geagea, the head of the rightwing “Lebanese Forces” as a conciliatory president. This was what finally gave him the numbers to be elected and ended the presidency vacuum crisis.

Aoun was perhaps the first Lebanese president to be elected by consent of many rivals and former political and strategic enemies. After all, he had the backing of Hezbollah and the approval of Geagea. He had all that was needed to embark on a journey of reform.

And “Reform and Change” was the motto of his political party.

As a former enemy of Syria, he took voluntary exile in France in 1984 and started his movement of alleged reform. As he returned to Lebanon in 1999, in the years leading up to his election, his rhetoric was that of holding politicians accountable for corruption.

In 2008 Aoun visited Syria, his former enemy, and was greeted by President Assad like a head of state. He had a huge reform agenda, but whether he was genuine or not, by the time he was elected as President in 2016, he was already in his eighties and suffering ill health.

As a president and if anything at all, he followed the footsteps of those he was meant to hold accountable by endorsing his son-in-law Gibran Bassil to become a Member of Parliament and a Minister. But this is not all, he acted in a manner as if he has passed on the presidency and the running of Lebanon to Bassil.

This would have gone well had Bassil been “clean”, but he soon proved to be corruptible as hell. Bassil is now perhaps the most hated Lebanese politician. He is believed to have amassed billions of dollars of corruption funds. The current Lebanese uprising in the streets of Lebanon and the world are aimed at many Lebanese politicians; but mainly Bassil.

What is pertinent is that the political backdrop that eventuated in guaranteeing Bassil’s position has originally come from Hezbollah who has secured the presidency of his father-in-law; President Aoun.

In hindsight, Hezbollah has made a bad gamble on Aoun, and this is forgivable perhaps, but what is unforgivable was turning a blind eye to thus far three years of unimaginable corruption of the Aoun tenure.

Admittedly, the Lebanese Cabinet, headed by Saad Hariri, an opponent of Hezbollah, is an all-inclusive cabinet. Politically, strategically and militarily protected by Hezbollah in a manner that represents all political parties of Lebanon, the ambient Lebanese cabinet has Nasrallah as its patron. Right or wrong, this is the general understanding in the streets of Lebanon now.

For the sake of giving itself a constitutional cover and parliamentary majority, Hezbollah’s gamble on Aoun is failing. Aoun is losing ground and for Hezbollah to continue to support him would be an act of political suicide.

Currently, everything about what looks like a “Lebanese Revolution” looks legitimate and worthy of support. Thus far, the protestors have been peaceful and civilized. Lebanon is a country rich in many ways; well-educated human resources, agriculture, water, tourism venues, untapped oil/gas, you name it. People are angry because their government has not yet been able to build up enough infrastructure after the 1975-1989 Civil War that destroyed much of it. The country is reeling from growing unemployment, the high cost of living and a lack of basic local services like water, power and garbage management. Add to this the factor of low income, it becomes understandable that the Lebanese are sick and tired of having to put up with a seemingly endless legacy of government incompetence and rising taxes.

So once again, Lebanon needs a peaceful popular revolution that can provide reform; not more destruction, and the current uprising, which hasn’t been given a name yet, will inevitably, for better or for worse, yield some outcomes.

What seems probable is that President Aoun will be forced into retirement at the very least. And, this may only be the prelude to further developments. However, what we are seeing now in Lebanon is not necessarily a “Lebanese Spring”. The seasonal aspect of it does not necessarily mean that it is a “Lebanese Fall” either. It is a Lebanese test; and most specifically a defining moment for Hezbollah.

Thus far, Hezbollah has been “faultless” in as far as deterring Israel, protecting its own ground base and providing enough popular support to guarantee its popularity.

And the support of, and well regard for Hezbollah did not only come from the Shiite sector of the Lebanese community. After all, Hezbollah represented resistance, and this ideological arm has no sectarian boundaries. But what Hezbollah seems to have failed to realize is that it cannot bank on ideology alone, all the while turning a blind eye on corruption.

It has to be said as it is. Hezbollah is becoming increasingly perceived in Lebanon as having a role in protecting its corrupt government. This situation is inviting the “Soros connected” forces to take control of the “Lebanese Revolution”.

But as events in Lebanon are changing on daily basis, we must look back at the Arab Spring and what came out of it.

There is a revolution in Lebanon and I support it. People on the streets are genuine and have legitimate demands. But this revolution is headless and has fingerprints of meddlers already. After all, as we see virtually millions of Lebanese flags appearing all over the world, including some that are 300 and 400 meters long, we ought to ask where did they come from and who paid for them? And, who is giving the greenlight for mainstream media coverage to this all?

After the Israeli war with Hezbollah in July 2006, Shiite Muslim Hezbollah had a huge popularity in Lebanon even in the Muslim Sunni as well as Christian regions. This changed soon after Hezbollah made the decision to control the streets of Beirut in May 2007. Ever since, Hezbollah lost a fair chunk of its popularity outside the Shiite sect.

Nasrallah must make his position clear in regard to the street protests and his stand on the ugly corruption that is bringing Lebanon to its knees. He had to urgently respond to the street rallies during the 2005 so-called “Cedar Revolution”, where protestors wanted Syrian troops out of Lebanon, and the counter pro-Hezbollah protestors demanded the opposite. The schism back then brought Lebanon close to civil war again. A repeat of such a scenario now is potentially more dangerous and inflammatory than back then.

Hezbollah rose victorious, both politically and militarily, and with victory in Syria, the position of Hezbollah in Lebanon has never been stronger. Hence a wise and appropriate response to the current crisis is paramount.

The situation occurring presently is quite different to the events of 2005. It is no longer ideological. People are literally unemployed, angry and hungry. They blame the corrupt government, and are pointing the finger at Hezbollah for its silence.

Hunger and popular anger do not stop at sectarian boundaries.

Nasrallah has been making the right decisions thus far, but he cannot afford to be complacent. Each and every camel has a straw that can break its back, and Aoun is not the one for Nasrallah to count on for political survival; quite the contrary in fact.

Even within the ranks of heartland pro-Hezbollah territory, there is an element of opposition to the Aoun administration and its political and economic bankruptcy.

The success of Hezbollah as a liberating force in Lebanon may well have reached a crossroad now. How the protests and the issues voiced are dealt with, will define the future of Hezbollah. It can cause it great damage or, if quickly respond to with sympathy and solutions to the issues raised by the groundswell of angry and fed-up protesters, Hezbollah can maintain the grassroots support they enjoyed. It is time for Hezbollah to revisit the viability of its political alliances.

The progress of the popular uprising thus far, sounds too good to be true. However the substantial support this uprising is receiving, both domestically and internationally is ominous. International support can only be based on political interests aimed at reducing the stronghold of Hezbollah and to weaken the position of the axis of resistance.

Without a figure head, without a clear agenda, the Lebanese uprising is likely to end up like the Egyptian uprising back in 2011. The street anger will be employed by the meddlers in order to serve their own agendas, and the suffering of the people will not be reduced. This is my fear.


The Vineyard of the Saker

Saturday, October 12, 2019

Ghassan Kadi Interview. Peace Spring Op: Kurds Found Themselves in Dire Straits, New 'Safe Zone' Sparks Concerns.


Ghassan's latest interview with Ekaterina Blinova for Sputnik about the developments in Northern Syria. 11 October 2019
https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201910111077016866-peace-spring-op-kurds-found-themselves-in-dire-straits-new-safe-zone-sparks-concerns/

Peace Spring Op: Kurds Found Themselves in Dire Straits, New 'Safe Zone' Sparks Concerns - Observers

Subscribe
The Turkish offensive against northeast Syria, denounced by Damascus as a violation of the country's sovereignty, has left little if any chances for Kurdish resistance, say international observers weighing up the pros and cons of the Ankara-proposed "safe zone" in the north of Syria.

On 9 October, Ankara launched Operation Peace Spring against areas held by the self-proclaimed Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (NES), also known as Rojava, amid a partial US withdrawal out of the path of the Turkish Armed Forces.

​The region, located to the east of the Euphrates River along the Turkish border and borders Iraqi Kurdistan to the southeast, is being held by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). This group of Kurdish-dominated and formerly US-funded militias is led by the People's Protection Units (YPG), which presented in the Turkish media and by President Erdogan as being an offshoot of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), outlawed as a terrorist organisation in Turkey. Ankara has repeatedly stated that it won't tolerate a potentially hostile autonomous entity in Turkey's underbelly.

"The objective of our operation is to avoid the establishment of a terror state in the south [of Turkey]. That’s what we are working for," Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan stated Thursday at a meeting of his Justice and Development Party (AKP).

According to Ergogan's plan, Turkey is going to create a "safe zone" stretching from the Manbij area to the Iraqi border, where Syrian refugees will be resettled once the operation is completed.

While Damascus does not recognise the Kurdish self-proclaimed autonomous region in the north, the Syrian leadership denounced Ankara's operation as a violation of the Republic's sovereignty. Iran and a number of European countries have also condemned the Turkish military operation. For its part, Russia has called upon the Turkish leadership to respect the territorial integrity of Syria.

Peace Spring Op: Kurds Found Themselves in Dire Straits, New 'Safe Zone' Sparks Concerns - Observers - Sputnik International
Turkey-backed Syrian opposition fighters going to Tel Abyad from Turkish gate towards Syria in Akcakale in Sanliurfa province on October 10, 2019

Syrian Kurds Had to Stay Under the Banner of Damascus

Christopher Assad, a Canada-based political analyst of Syrian descent, emphasises that neither the American nor the Turkish presence in the region have any legitimate grounds.

"Walid Muallem, Syria’s deputy prime minister and minister of foreign affairs made it clear at the UNGA74 that any and all foreign troops who are present on Syrian territory without consent from the Syrian state are considered occupation forces and will be dealt with accordingly", Assad says. "I believe that this statement would soon be clarified to the dream weavers in Ankara and Washington relatively soon."

According to him, Washington’s presence east of the Euphrates "has always been technically unsustainable". The question arises as to what exact mission the US has been accomplishing in the region apart from "guarding" and training Kurdish and Arab fighters.

"Now that all the pieces are in place for a confrontation between Turkey and the SDF, the strategic objective of the US/Israeli agenda has been given relative reprieve because the same was about to be defeated by the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) which as a consequence, would have prevented the prolongation of the war on Syria," the political analyst suggests.

During the first two days of the Turkish offensive, the US-backed Kurdish fighters were largely outgunned by NATO's second-largest military force.

Citing YPG sources, Reuters reported Thursday that the militiamen do not have heavy weapons to resist the advance of Turkish aircraft or tanks.

According to Assad, there is little if any chance that "the SDF [will] relinquish its newfound power in Northern Syria by joining the ranks of the SAA" which means that "peace in the North will prove to be elusive".

Ghassan Kadi, a political commentator and blogger of Syrian origin, agrees that it won't be easy to avoid a Kurdish bloodbath.

"Sadly, it seems inevitable and I have been warning that unless the Kurdish issue is dealt with properly, then history is likely to repeat itself, and historically, Kurds have almost always paid for the price of settlements and were invariably let down and abandoned by their foreign supporters. This is why Syrian Kurds ought to stay under the banner of Damascus as I have been saying", Kadi stresses.
Peace Spring Op: Kurds Found Themselves in Dire Straits, New 'Safe Zone' Sparks Concerns - Observers - Sputnik International
Turkish troops on the border with Syria

Turkey's "Safe Zone" in Syria

The Erdogan-proposed "safe zone" in the north also prompts growing concerns, according to observers.

"Turkey has been violating Syrian territory for centuries, and this violation did not end up with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire," says Kadi.

Citing the region's history, he notes that all territory south of the Taurus Mountains is "geographically, demographically and historically Syrian", adding that "the regions of Iskenderun and Cilicia" were given to Turkey by the French "as a consolation prize" in the 20th century.

"And now, Erdogan wants to move the border further south by 30-40 more kilometres. This move cannot have any positive outcome for Syria; only negative," the political commentator opines.

On Thursday, Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu asserted that Turkey’s incursion would not go further than 30 kilometres into northeast Syria: "When we go 30 km deep in the safe zone, terror there will be removed," the politician said.

According to Kadi, Erdogan is apparently seeking to move Syrian opposition forces loyal to him to the region after expelling the Kurds and thus maintain control over the territory. Turkey has dubbed these forces the "Syrian National Army".

"This is not a new tactic. Israel played the same game after its 1982 invasion of Lebanon," he remarks.

Mark Sleboda, an international affairs and security analyst, shares Kadi's concerns: "There are no 'pros' of the euphemistically termed Turkish-proposed 'safe zone' in Syria", he asserts.

The security analyst envisions that having ousted the Kurdish militias, Ankara would repatriate 3.6 million Syrian refugees and relocate numerous foreign proxy fighters who fled the Syrian war zone for Turkey to the region. Citing recent polls, he notes that the Turkish people want the refugees gone.

"[Erdogan's strategy] solves the refugee and proxy fighter problem, serves as a 'final solution' to the problem of sympathetic Syrian Kurds on the other side of the now-meaningless border, and serves as a means of leverage and control over Syria with its north turned into a protectorate supported by and loyal to the Erdogan regime in Turkey," Sleboda suggests.

Having said that the recent offensive violates the country's sovereignty, the security analyst points out that three years ago Turkey established control over "a large swathe of Syrian territory along the border essentially from Idlib and Afrin in the west through to the 'Euphrates Shield' operation zone in the Jarablus corridor". According to him, the recent expansion of the Turkish military presence in Syria is ringing alarm bells.

Translation into Romanian by Bogdan Stoican. Many thanks

Traducerea interviului:
Ofensiva turcă împotriva nord-estului Siriei, denunțată de Damasc ca o încălcare a suveranității țării, a lăsat puține posibilități de rezistență a kurzilor, spun observatorii internaționali care cântăresc avantajele pro și contra „zonei sigure” propuse de Ankara în nordul Siria.
La 9 octombrie, Ankara a lansat „Operațiunea Peace Spring” împotriva zonelor deținute de autoproclamată Administrație Autonomă din Siria de Nord și de Est (NES), cunoscută și sub numele de Rojava, pe fondul unei retrageri parțiale a SUA din calea Forțelor armate turce.
Regiunea, situată la estul râului Eufrat, de-a lungul graniței turcești și care se învecinează cu Kurdistanul irakian spre sud-est, este controlată de Forțele Democrate Siriene (SDF). Acest grup de miliții dominate de kurzi și foste finanțate de SUA este condus de Unitățile de protecție a populației (YPG), care au fost prezentate în mass-media turcă și de președintele Erdogan ca fiind un „offshoot” (ramură) al Partidului Muncitorilor din Kurdistan (PKK), scos în afara legii ca organizație teroristă din Turcia. Ankara a afirmat în repetate rânduri că nu va tolera o entitate autonomă potențial ostilă în apropierea Turciei.
"Obiectivul operațiunii noastre este de a evita crearea unui stat terorist în sudul [Turciei]. Pentru asta lucrăm", a declarat joi, președintele turc, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, în cadrul unei reuniuni a Partidului său pentru Justiție și Dezvoltare (AKP) .
Conform planului lui Erdogan Turcia va crea o „zonă sigură” care se va întinde din zona Manbij până la granița irakiană, unde refugiații sirieni (din Turcia) vor fi relocați după ce operațiunea va fi finalizată.
În timp ce Damascul nu recunoaște regiunea autonomă auto-proclamată a kurzilor din nord, conducerea siriană a denunțat și operațiunea Ankarei ca o încălcare a suveranității Republicii. Iranul și o serie de țări europene au condamnat și operațiunea militară turcă. La rândul său, Rusia a solicitat conducerea turcă să respecte integritatea teritorială a Siriei.
Kurzii sirieni trebuiau să rămână sub steagul Damascului

Christopher Assad, un analist politic din Canada, originar din Siria, subliniază că nici prezența americană și nici cea turcă în regiune nu au motive legitime.

"Walid Muallem, viceprim-ministrul sirian și ministrul afacerilor externe a precizat la UNGA74 că toate trupele străine care sunt prezente pe teritoriul sirian fără acordul statului sirian sunt considerate forțe de ocupație și vor fi tratate în consecință", spune Assad. "Cred că această declarație va fi curând clarificată pentru țesătorii de vise din Ankara și Washington, relativ curând."
Potrivit acestuia, prezența Washingtonului la est de Eufrat „a fost întotdeauna nesustenabilă din punct de vedere tehnic”. Se pune întrebarea cu privire la misiunea exactă pe care SUA au îndeplinit-o în regiune, în afară de „paza” și instruirea luptătorilor kurzi și arabi.
„Acum, că toate mijloacele sunt în vigoare pentru o confruntare între Turcia și FDD, obiectivul strategic al agendei SUA / israeliene a primit o relativă răspundere pentru că aceeași ar fi fost învinsă de armata arabă siriană (SAA) care, în consecință, ar fi împiedicat prelungirea războiului pentru Siria", sugerează analistul politic.
În primele două zile ale ofensivei turcești luptătorii kurzi susținuți de SUA au fost în mare parte eliminați de cea de-a doua forță militară a NATO.
Citând surse YPG Reuters a informat, joi, că milițienii nu au arme grele pentru a rezista avansului aeronavelor sau tancurilor turce.
Potrivit Assad, există puține șanse ca „SDF [să] renunțe la noua sa putere în Siria de Nord, prin aderarea în rîndurile ASA”, ceea ce înseamnă că „pacea în Nord se va dovedi neclară”.
Ghassan Kadi, comentator politic și blogger de origine siriană, este de acord că nu va fi ușor să evitați o baie de sânge kurdă.
„Din păcate, pare inevitabil și am avertizat că, dacă nu este tratată corect problema kurda, atunci istoria este probabil să se repete, iar istoric, kurzii au plătit aproape întotdeauna pentru prețul așezării lor și au fost invariabil lăsați și abandonați de susținătorii lor străini. Acesta este motivul pentru care kurzii sirieni ar trebui să rămână sub steagul Damascului așa cum am spus", subliniază Kadi.
„Zona sigură” a Turciei în Siria
Potrivit observatorilor, „zona sigură” propusă de Erdogan, în nord, determină totodată îngrijorări.
"Turcia violează teritoriul sirian de secole, iar această încălcare nu s-a sfârșit cu prăbușirea Imperiului Otoman", spune Kadi.
Citând istoria regiunii el observă că tot teritoriul de la sud de Munții Taurului (Taurus) este „geografic, demografic și istoric sirian”, adăugând că „regiunile Iskenderun și Cilicia” au fost date Turciei de către francezi „ca premiu de consolare”, în Secolului 20.
"Și acum, Erdogan vrea să mute frontiera mai spre sud cu încă 30-40 de kilometri. Această mișcare nu poate avea niciun rezultat pozitiv pentru Siria; doar negativ", opinează comentatorul politic.
Joi, ministrul de externe, Mevlut Cavusoglu, a afirmat că incursiunea Turciei nu va depăși 30 de kilometri în nord-estul Siriei: „Când vom merge cu 30 km adâncime în zona sigură, teroarea va fi înlăturată”, a spus politicianul.
Potrivit lui Kadi, Erdogan încearcă aparent să mute forțele de opoziție siriene loiale către regiune după expulzarea kurzilor și astfel să mențină controlul asupra teritoriului. Turcia a poreclit aceste forțe „armata națională siriană”.
"Aceasta nu este o tactică nouă. Israelul a jucat același joc după invazia sa din Liban din 1982", remarcă el.
Mark Sleboda, un analist al afacerilor internaționale și al securității, împărtășește îngrijorările lui Kadi: „Nu există „avantaje” ale eufemisticei „zone sigure” propusă de turci în Siria”, afirmă el.
Analistul de securitate prevede că, după eliminarea milițiilor kurde, Ankara va repatria 3,6 milioane de refugiați sirieni și i-ar reloca în regiune pe numeroșii luptători străini care au fugit din zona de război siriană pentru Turcia. Citând sondaje recente, el observă că poporul turc dorește refugiații plecați.
"[Strategia lui Erdogan] rezolvă problema de luptă pentru refugiați și proxy, servește ca o„ soluție finală "la problema simpaticilor kurzi sirieni de pe cealaltă parte a graniței care acum nu are sens și servește ca mijloc de pârghie și control asupra Siriei, cu nordul său transformat într-un protectorat susținut și fidelizat de regimul Erdogan din Turcia", sugerează Sleboda.
După ce a declarat că recentă ofensivă încalcă suveranitatea țării, analistul de securitate subliniază că, în urmă cu trei ani, Turcia a stabilit controlul asupra „unei mari părți a teritoriului sirian de-a lungul frontierei, în esență, de la Idlib și Afrin, în vest, până la operațiunea„ Shield Euphrates”, zonă în culoarul Jarablus". 
Potrivit acestuia, extinderea recentă a prezenței militare a Turciei în Siria sună clopotele de alarmă.



IRAN VS SAUDI ARABIA IT'S GAME OVER. Ghassan Kadi 19 September 2019

Saudi Arabia cannot win a war, let alone fight it. Here are Ghassan Kadi's views on it

Iran vs Saudi Arabia: it’s game-over

by Ghassan Kadi for The Saker Blog

Is the attack on ARAMCO the first of a long war or is it game-over already? It seems like the latter and in more ways than one, the war between Iran and Saudi Arabia has ended before it even started. One single solitary Houthi attack on Aramco has sent Saudi oil exports tumbling down by half; not to mention a 20% hike on the price of crude.

Now, even though the Houthis have declared responsibility for the ARAMCO attack, the Trump administration wants the world to buy the idea that it was Iran who launched the attack, not the Houthis. https://sputniknews.com/us/201909191076835893-pompeo-attack-saudi-oil-facilities-act-war-iran/. This far, at least Japan seems unconvinced, and so is France https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201909191076835540-japan–no-evidence-iran-behind-attack-saudi-aramco-facilities/

In reality however, the resolve of Saudi Arabia and its capability to stand up and fight has little to do with the identity of the attacker, and this is because Saudi Arabia has demonstrated that it didn’t take much for it to suffer what it suffered. This begs the question; how many such similar attacks can Saudi Arabia weather before it totally capitulates? Seemingly, not many.

In a previous article, I anticipated such scenarios because the Saudi economy and infrastructure are highly vulnerable. A country that has virtually one major wealth-producing base (ie oil) and just a few desalination plants that pump fresh water into its major cities, is a very soft target indeed. After all, if those handful of vital targets are hit, not only oil exports will stop, but water will stop running in households. http://thesaker.is/dissecting-the-unfathomable-american-iranian-war/. But the water desalination plants do not have to suffer a direct hit for them to stop running. They need power to run, and the power comes from fuel, and if the fuel supplies stop, so will they, and so will electricity-generating plants in a nation that cannot survive without air-conditioning.

Up until recently, people of Arabia were used to drought, brackish water and searing heat. They lived in and around oases and adopted a lifestyle that used little water. But, the new generation of Saudis and millions of expats are used to daily showers, potable water and climate control in their households. During wars, people normally go to nature to find food and water. They hunt, they fish, they collect local berries and edible wild plants, they fill jars from running rivers and streams, they grow their own vegetables in their backyards, but in Saudi Arabia, in the kingdom of sand, such alternatives do not exist at all.

Furthermore, with a population that has swelled from a few million in the 1950’s, the current population of Saudi Arabia stands at 33 million, and this includes the millions of expats who work and live there

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Saudi_Arabia. The limited supply of brackish water is not enough to get by until any damaged infrastructure is fixed, and it’s not even piped to begin with.

As the nation with the third highest global defence budget, higher than Russia’s, Saudi Arabia continues to import everything from Patriot Missiles all the way down to bullets.

This is in sharp contrast with Iran’s geography, natural assets and demography. Iran is a nation of mountains, valleys and rivers, meadows, thriving agriculture and 70 million citizens who have been taught to be innovative and self-sufficient; courtesy of US-imposed sanctions.

And to say that the ARAMCO target was hit by surprise would be quite absurd and inexcusable given that Saudi Arabia is already in a state of war with Yemen, and especially given that the Yemeni aerial strikes have been escalating in recent months. To make the situation even more embarrassing for the Saudis; the spectre of war with Iran is currently hot on the agenda, so how could key Saudi installations be unprotected?

But here’s the other thing, had it been truly Iran that was responsible for the attack as the Trump administration alleges and wants us to believe, America would then be admitting that Iranian missiles flew from mainland Iran, across the Gulf, managed to dodge American defences and state-of-the-art detection hardware and software, and effectively reached their target on Saudi soil. If this is the scenario Trump wants us to believe, what does this say about the capability of America to engage militarily with Iran? This is a much bigger farce than that of Russia-gate; a claim that Russia can indeed affect the outcome of the presidential elections of the allegedly “greatest and strongest nation on earth”. Do such claims mean that America’s adversaries are extremely organised, smart and strong or that America is in disarray, stupid and weak; or both? Either way, when such claims are perpetrated by none but America itself, they certainly do not put America in a good light.

The weaknesses and vulnerabilities of Saudi Arabia and Big Brother are only matched by the other ally, the UAE. As a matter of fact Houthis spokesperson Yahia Saria gave the Emirates a stern warning if they want to protect their glass skyscrapers. https://www.rt.com/news/469104-houthis-new-drones-attack-uae/ . In his address, Saria is perhaps giving a tongue-in-cheek reference to the Arabic proverb which says that if one’s house is made of glass, he should not cast rocks at others. After years of indiscriminate shelling under the watchful and indifferent eyes of the world, after years of ruthlessly trying to starve the Yemenis into submission, why would one expect the Houthis to exercise any mercy towards their aggressors?

But let us face it, Dubai and other thriving metropolises of the UAE are predestined to morph into ghost towns. It is only a question of time before they run out of their current charm and their fake onion skin deep glitter. After all, there is nothing in those fantasy cities that is real, substantial and self-sustaining. If anything, a war with Iran has the potential to fast-track the decay process and leave foreign investors and expats exiting in droves; if not running for their lives.

Ironically, the American/Saudi/UAE alliance, if it is indeed an alliance, accuses Iran of spreading its dominion over the region; and perhaps there is evidence to support this accusation. However, the alliance seems to conveniently forget that it was its own orchestrated invasion of Iraq and toppling of Saddam that created a power vacuum in Iraq that was soon filled by Iran. And even though the eight-year long and bitter Iran-Iraq war ended up with no winners or losers, the fall of Saddam at the hands of the American/Arab alliance has turned Iran into the virtual winner that the same alliance is now trying to curb. How more ironic can this farcical situation be?

America plays down the strength of Iran’s Army, and Iran does the opposite. This is normal and part-and-parcel of the psychological warfare. In reality however, no one knows for certain what is Iran’s military capability. For this reason, any all-out confrontation with Iran may at least initially sway America to move its vessels out of the Gulf and further away from the reach of short-range Iranian missiles until and if they feel confident to move closer at a later stage. However, Saudi ground and key and vital ground targets cannot be moved, and for Iran to only be able to hit a few that can be counted on the fingers of one hand, can lead to a total Saudi/UAE capitulation.

Whilst no one knows Iran’s real strength, what we do know is that Saudi Arabia has failed abysmally in defeating the much weaker, poorer, underprivileged starving people of Yemen.

America will not commit boots on the ground and, to this effect, has little to lose apart from risking naval vessels. The soft targets will be Saudi and UAE key infrastructures and no Patriot defence systems will be able to intercept all missiles poised to hit them. If the Houthis could do it, it is a given that Iran also can.

I have recently watched the series “The Vietnam War” on Netflix, and I remembered how back then when the truth about that war was exposed, I believed that American hawks would never get away with lying to their people and the rest of the world again, or ever invade another country in the way that they did with Vietnam. In less than two decades however, they moved full throttle into Iraq, and the masses believed their story. Perhaps some things will never change, and after the losses in Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria, America seems still determined to fight Iran. This time around, the biggest loser may not end up to be America itself, but its Arab allies; namely Saudi Arabia and the UAE, and the recent attack on ARAMCO is only a prelude to an inevitable outcome, because the writing is already on the wall and it clearly reads: GAME-OVER.