Move Over BRICS, Here Comes FUKUS

There's a hot new acronym in international affairs: FUKUS.

The United States of America has joined its FUKUS Axis partners France and the UK in recognising the Syrian opposition as the only "legitimate representative" of the Syrian people.

Via: "Foreign Policy"

The Syrian Intelligence War

A Tale of Two Security Headquarters

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya writes,

There is much more to the conflict in Syria than meets the eye. Syria is currently the scene of a cold war between the US, NATO, Israel, and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) on one side and Russia, China, Iran, and the Resistance Bloc on the other hand. Amidst the fighting between the Syrian government and anti-government forces, an intense intelligence war has also been taking place.
Germany’s foreign intelligence service, the Bundes Nachrichtendienst (BND, Federal Intelligence Service), has been pointing its finger at Al-Qaeda for the bombings in Syria. This, however, has the effect of hiding and detracting the role that the intelligence services of the US and its allies have played. By crediting Al-Qaeda, the Bundes Nachrichtendienst is helping get Washington and its allies off the hook. Albeit Al-Qaeda is far more than just a US intelligence asset, the organization and label of Al-Qaeda is a catch-all term that is used to camouflage the operations of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and other affiliated intelligence services.

Syrian intellectuals and scientists have also been reportedly assassinated in Damascus. Like in Iraq and Iran, it is probably the work of Israel’s Mossad and part of Tel Aviv’s policy of crippling scientific and technological advancement in enemy states. Informed sources in Washington have already clarified that Israel is helping the Free Syrian Army and actively participating in the intelligence war against Syria. 

An unnamed US official has confirmed to David Ignatius that both the CIA and Mossad are involved in Syria. [1] In his own words: “Scores of Israeli intelligence officers are also operating along Syria’s border, though they are keeping a low profile.” [2] A Qatari defector in Venezuela has also been reported to have divulged that the Qataris have been outsourced intelligence work against Syria by the CIA and Mossad.

The Bombing of the Syrian National Security Headquarters and its Crisis Unit in Damascus

There are still a lot of unanswered questions about the bombing of the Syrian National Security Headquarters in the northwest Damascene neighbourhood of Al-Rawda on July 18, 2012. Very little is actually known about what happened exactly. Moreover, Syrian television and media did not show scenes of the explosion as people have become accustomed to. This may be due to the security-based nature of the bombing location.

Key members of Syria’s security and military command structure, Dawoud Rajiha, Assef Shawkat, and Hassan Turkmani, were all killed on July 18. Rajiha was the Syrian defence minister, deputy prime minister, and deputy commander-in-chief of the Syrian Armed Forces. Assef Shawkat was the Syrian deputy defence minister and the husband of Bashar Al-Assad’s older sister Bushra. Hassan Turkmani was the Syrian assistant vice-president, head of Syria’s crisis management operations, and the army general that was formerly minister of defence from 2004 to 2009. Hisham Ikhtiyar (Bakhtiar/Bakhtyar), the chief of the Syrian National Security Bureau, who was also hurt by the bombing, would also die from the injuries he sustained two days later on July 20. These men all formed what was called the Crisis Unit.
The Killing of the Crisis Unit was executed by a Foreign Intelligence Service
Saudi sources have taken the opportunity to report that the Syrian officials were killed by Maher Al-Assad, the commander of the Syrian Republican Guard and President Al-Assad’s younger brother, because of a rift between them that saw the general’s supporting a political solution over a combative solution.  [3] Pakistani sources, claiming to be receiving direct reports from the perpetrators of the July 18 bombing, contradicted the report by saying Maher Al-Assad was also a target and wounded during the attack. [4] The Pakistani source published the following:

“Everyone came in time, but Maher Al-Assad did not show up. Two men responsible for the mission waited for some time and pressed the remote control button as the dreaded general took his seat,” the [Syrian Free Army] source said.

“Our men filmed the video from a safe distance which would be made public at an appropriate time,” he revealed to this correspondent [that is, Naveed Ahmad]. One of the two daredevils was an employee of the government and worked in the very office the device was planted while the other was an outsider, according to the [Syrian Free Army] source.

[…]

The [Free Syrian Army] sources said Maher had brought his best friend Ghassan Bilal to the meeting as well. Maher al-Assad, who was never seen in the funeral of the key security aides assassinated in the attack, was in fact severely injured and according to a source de-capacitated. [5]

What the Pakistani source discloses is unreliable for several reasons. One of them is that the credibility of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) is extremely questionable. The Free Syrian Army has an undeniable track-record for shoddy propaganda and lying. Syria has also rejected claims about the Free Syrian Army’s involvement and the assertions that the bomb was remote controlled.

The Free Syrian Army was most probably bypassed by the US and its allies for this targeted attack. Instead of outsourcing the attack to the Free Syrian Army, the operation was probably directly conducted either by the intelligence agency of a NATO or GCC state or a consortium of intelligence agencies trying to topple the Syrian government.
A Damascene Operation Ajax
The attack on the Syrian National Security Headquarters in Al-Rawda was a carefully coordinated event that was synchronized with the assault on Damascus by the various armed groups operating under the umbrella and banner of the Free Syrian Army. It is clear that the US and its allies more or less used the same playbook of tactics in Damascus that were used in 2011 to topple the Jamahiriya government in Tripoli. Both are modern reincarnations of the infamous Operation Ajax, which was an intelligence operation launched in 1953 by the US and British governments to topple the democratic government of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossageh in Iran. Washington and London installed a brutal and repressive dictatorship under Mohammed-Reza Shah in place of Dr. Mossadegh’s government and Iran was transformed from a constitutional monarchy into a de facto absolute monarchy.

The aim of the attack on high-ranking Syrian officials, especially important figures from the military and security apparatus that has been the backbone of the Syrian regime, was two-pronged. The attacks aim was to cripple Syria’s command structure with the objective of disorganizing resistance to anti-government forces and creating internal panic within the hierarchy of the Syrian government and military. This psychological blow was supposed to lead to fear, defections, and betrayal as anti-government forces attacked the gates of the Syrian capital.

The mainstream media, in terms of what scholar Edward Said called “image making” experts, also played a supportive role in the US-sponsored siege of Damascus. [7] Securing a monopoly over information and air waves has also been a part of the intelligence war and a goal of the US and its allies. This is why the signals of Syrian broadcasters have been banned from the Arab Satellite Communications Organization (Arabsat) and Nilesat satellite feeds. This is aimed at preventing Syria from countering the claims of the US and its allies and proxies. By the same token the US and the EU are also trying to cut and block Iranian stations, which are challenging the accounts of the mainstream media in NATO and GCC states. This is also the reason why the US and British media very decidedly condemned the Iranian, Russian, and Chinese medias in their news coverage of the Syrian crisis, which challenge the tide of misinformation from the declining networks of CNN, Fox News, France 24, and Al Jazeera. [8]

Like the original Operation Ajax in 1953, in which the state-run British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) took part, the mainstream media broadcasts from NATO and GCC states have been synchronized to shape the events on the ground. The media war intensified when the anti-government forces launched their attack of Damascus. The aim was to fuel panic and fear with the hope of getting the Syrian government and the Syrian military to scatter and lose hope instead of facing the anti-government forces. The ultimate objectives are to demoralize the Syrian population and to weaken the Syrian government’s domestic support.

The media outlets of NATO and GCC states insinuated that President Assad and his family fled Damascus to Lattakia and would seek asylum in the Russian Federation. [9] Again, the aims were to cause panic and both the governments in Syria and Russia rejected the false claims. According to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, Assad was “not even thinking about” fleeing to Russia. [10] This was a repeat of British Foreign Secretary William Hague’s 2011 lie that Muammar Qaddafi had fled from Libya to Venezuela. [11] This behaviour also falls into line with British Prime Minister David Cameron’s false claim that Vladimir Putin had told him that President Assad had to step down. [12]
A New Saudi Intelligence Boss: Return of  Prince “Bandar Bush”
Shortly after the bombing of the Syrian National Security Headquarters, a July 19 royal decree was enacted in Riyadh to replace Prince Muqrin (Mogren) bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud with Prince Bandar bin Sultan Al-Saud as the director-general of the external intelligence agency of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Al-Istikhbarat Al-Amah (General Intelligence).

Since 2005, Prince Bandar has been the secretary-general of the Saudi Arabian National Security Council, but his new appointment has made heads turn and is being used to infer that Saudi Arabia has a far more aggressive foreign policy. What the appointment reflects is that Saudi Arabia is fully in the service of the US in its intelligence wars against Syria and Iran and that Washington’s men in  Riyadh have a firm grip over Saudi Arabia’s intelligence, security, and military apparatus. In the words of the Saudi pundit Jamal Khashoggi and the chief of the Bahrain-base Al-Arab network: “Bandar is quite aggressive, not at all like a typical cautious Saudi diplomat. If the aim is to bring Bashar down quick and fast, he will have a free hand to do what he thinks necessary.” [13]

Prince Bandar, the son of the deceased Sultan bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud, has been one of the central figures in creating Al-Qaeda and manipulating militant groups as geo-political tools for Washington since the Cold War. He was the Saudi ambassador to the US from 1983 to 2005. He has been a key figure in the intelligence war in Lebanon against Hezbollah and its allies and involved in exporting Fatah Al-Islam to Lebanon in an attempt to help the Hariri family fight Hezbollah and the March 8 Alliance.

Because he was the Saudi ambassador to Washington, he became the key figure in Saudi-US relations and developed close ties to the Bush family, which earned him the name “Bandar Bush.” It has been reported that the relationship was so close that the US Secret Service was part of his security detail. Moreover, he has had a long history with Robert Gates, starting from when Gates was a member of the CIA and helping mobilize fighters in Afghanistan against the Soviets. [14]

In 2009, Bandar may have attempted to launch a silent coup in Saudi Arabia to impose his father, Crown Prince Sultan, as the new absolute monarch of Saudi Arabia. He was not seen for several years and may have been in some form of confinement.  Things changed, however, in 2011 with the Arab Spring; Prince Bandar, Washington’s man, was seen in public again.

Bandar may also be a key figure in Saudi negotiations with Pakistan to purchase nuclear bombs. [15] United Press International writes:

“As Iran becomes more dangerous and the United States becomes more reluctant to engage in military missions overseas, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia may find that renewed military and nuclear cooperation is the best way to secure their interests,” observed Christopher Clary and Mara E. Karlin, former [Pentagon] policy advisers on South Asia and the Middle East. [16]

The picture that UPI depicts actually is misleading. If anyone is pushing the Saudis to acquire nuclear weapons, it is Washington. The US has also been heavily arming the Saudi regime and the GCC for the same reasons. One dimension of the US strategy is clear: Washington aims to create multiple and ongoing contained conflicts in the Middle East to bleed the region and keep it immobilized. Like the Israelis, the US wants perpetual civil war in Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, and even Turkey. By being duped into burning its bridges with Syria, the Turkish government has laid the foundations for the destabilization of the Turkish republic. 

A Tale of Two Security Headquarters
Days after the appointment of Prince Bandar and the attack of the Syrian Crisis Unit an attack on General Intelligence’s Headquarters in Riyadh was reported by Yemen’s Al-Fajr Press and then widely quoted by the Iranian media. The blast is reported to have killed Banadar’s number two man, the deputy director-general of Saudi external intelligence, while he was entering the building. Rumours are also circulating that Bandar may have been hurt or killed. Saudi Arabia has remained silent over the issue.

The blast in Riyadh is no mere coincidence. It is a retaliatory response to the blast in the Syrian National Security Headquarters.  The chances that the Syrians executed the operation while all their energies are being spent on fighting against the US-directed siege on their country are marginal, but still possible. This is speculation, but it is most likely that one of Syria’s friends and allies retaliated against the Saudis for their involvement in the attack on the Crisis Unit in Damascus.

A remote-controlled bomb was also discovered in front of a Yemenese Intelligence building in Aden on July 22, 2012. [17] The event came shortly after a Yemenese intelligence officer died after a targeted attack in the province of Bayda. [18] What this means is a matter of speculation, but what is clear is that that the intelligence apparatus of Arab states are being targeted. There is a full-out intelligence war in the Middle East and there are probably cross-cutting alliances.

The Bush Jr. Administration’s “Redirection” Policy is Manifest under Obama

In Yemen, the national military has successfully been fractured and divided, which is exactly what Washington, DC and its NATO and GCC allies want to replicate in Syria. Regime change is not their only goal, the destruction and balkanization of the Syrian Arab Republic is. They want sectarianism and balkanization to take root in Syria and across the Middle East.  To paraphrase, when the so-called spiritual leaders of the Syrian Free Army and anti-government forces begin saying that “Israel and the Sunnis are allies against the Shias” or that “all Alawites must be exterminated,” it is clear that the end goal is to regionally divide and conquer the peoples of the Middle East by pitting them against one another. 

This is part of the Middle East policy that the Bush Jr. White House called the “redirection” in 2007: “The ‘redirection,’ as some inside the White House have called the new strategy, has brought the United States closer to an open confrontation with Iran and, in parts of the region, propelled it into a widening sectarian conflict between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.” [19] Robert Gates, Bandar’s old comrade, was brought into the Pentagon to oversee this “redirection” and retained by Barak Obama, who’s “A New Beginning” Speech in Cairo is an extension of this policy.  The New Yorker is worth quoting about what the “redirection” policy began to implement:  “[Washington] has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.” [20]

Regardless of the political position that one takes about President Assad and his government, what has to be emphasized is that the governments of the US, UK, France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar are not involving themselves under the cover of the so-called “international community” on the basis of concern for the Syrian people and their well being. Because of them the words “protester” and “activist” have been hijacked by anti-government militias and foreign intelligence services. Humanitarianism and human rights are not the motive for US involvement. This is a fairy-tale for the naïve. Geo-political opportunism is at play and all the parties involved have blood on their hands at the expense of the Syrian people.

Via: "Global Research"

There Will Be Hell To Pay For NATO's Holy War

Pepe Escobar Writes:

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is running out of rhetorical ammunition in the US's Holy War against Syria. Perhaps it's the strain of launching a NATO war bypassing the UN Security Council. Perhaps it's the strain of being eaten for breakfast routinely by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.

Hillary has just called on "Western powers" and their Arab stooges - the NATOGCC compound [1] that passes for the "international community" - to "make it clear that Russia and China will pay a price because they are holding up progress" regarding weaponized regime change in Syria.

In non-newspeak, this means, "If you block our new war, there will be payback".

Howls of laughter in the corridors of the Kremlin and the Zhongnanhai notwithstanding, this shows how desperate the NATOGCC compound is to force regime change in Syria as a stopover in cutting off Iran's privileged connection with the Arab world.

It's useful to examine what price Washington itself, not to mention its NATO subjects, could be paying for this Holy War branch-out fought with - who else - the same bunch of "terrorists" who until yesterday were about to destroy Western civilization and turn it into a giant Caliphate.

Washington, London and Paris have tried - twice - to twist the UN Security Council into yet another war. They were blocked by Russia and China. So plan B was to bypass the UN and launch a NATO war. Problem is NATO has no stomach - and no funds - for a very risky war with a country that can actually defend itself.

Thus plan C is to bet on a prolonged civil war, using the Far-from-Free Syrian Army (FSA), crammed with mercenaries and jihadists, and the band of opportunistic exiles known as the Syrian National Council (SNC).

As for China, it's laughing about Hillary's desperation all the way to the bank. As the House of Saud becomes ever more paranoid with what it sees as the Obama administration flirting with democracy in the Arab world, Beijing jacked up trade ties by delivering a bunch of new missiles to Riyadh.

And while the "West" flirts with Holy War, Beijing's state-sponsored corporations have been buying commodities like crazy all across the Middle East, North Africa and South America - as well as stockpiling rare earths for strategic reserves. China produces no less than 97% of the world's rare earths - used on everything from iPads to those shiny new missiles now frying in the Arabian desert.

Other side effects as in "the price to pay" for the bypassing of the UN and the obsession on NATO as global Robocop will be inevitable. It shouldn't be forgotten that the Holy War on Syria is a stopover on the way to Tehran. For instance, a new system of maritime insurance, as well as a new international exchange mechanism - bypassing Western diktats - may be about to be born.

Yet the most important element may be a concerted move by Russia, Iran and China to reorganize the global energy market by transacting outside of the petrodollar.

So Washington cuts Iran off from SWIFT - the international bank clearing system? Iran's central bank counterpunches; if you want to do business with us, you can pay in any currency apart from the US dollar, or you can pay with gold.

This is the Holy Grail of the Holy War - not Syria; one thing is for Tehran to accept euros as payment for its oil and gas; another thing is to accept gold. On top of it with full support from both Russia and China.

In a nutshell; the whole Holy War syndrome is accelerating the end of the US dollar as global reserve currency. And when it happens, will there be an American Spring? Or will US elites - like the Mob - have the guts, and the muscle, to force Russia and China to pay the price?

Via: "Asia Times Online"

Iran: Outgunned In The Gulf

By Rex Wingerter, 
February 18, 2012 
Courtesy Of "Anti-War"

Iran has threatened to close the Straits of Hormuz — a "choke point" in the Persian Gulf through which about 20 percent of the world’s oil passes – if the West imposes sanctions against Iran’s petroleum exports. This threat is not without historic parallel. In 1941, Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and launched its war against the United States after Washington blockaded oil shipments to Tokyo. Japan relied on 80 percent of its oil from the United States; oil sales make up 80 percent of Iran’s exports. A complete oil embargo on Iran, just as it would have done to Imperial Japan, would result in economic calamity.

Like all historic analogies, this one is imperfect: President Roosevelt’s oil embargo was not without cause as Imperial Japan had invaded Manchuria and was ravaging the rest of China and Indochina. In contrast, Iran has invaded no country and exhibits no intent to do so. Western concern instead rests on the speculation that Iran’s nuclear program could result in the development of a nuclear weapon and conjecture that once so armed, Iran would intimidate neighboring states into subservience and achieve hegemony in the Persian Gulf at the expense of the West.

Another departure from the analogy is that Imperial Japan appeared to have sufficient military might and a geostrategic advantage to take on the United States. The Islamic Republic, in contrast, is so militarily disadvantaged compared to its opponents as to make its threat to close the entrance to the Persian Gulf almost farcical.

Outgunned In The Gulf

In nearly every measurement of military power, Iran is overshadowed by the firepower of the neighboring Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), a six-member organization consisting of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). While never saying so, the six monarchies created the coalition in 1981 to fend off the destabilizing political aftershocks sparked by Iran’s 1979 revolution and the Iran-Iraq war. Its members are Arab and predominately Sunni (except in Bahrain where the ruling elite are Sunni but nearly 70 percent of the population is Shiite); Iran in contrast is Persian and majority Shiite. The impending membership of the monarchies of Jordan and Morocco reinforces the conservative nature of the GCC. Assuring the longevity of the royal families rather than establishing regional cooperation is the organization’s reason for being. Yemen, another non-Gulf Arab state, is seeking GCC membership.

Iran surpasses the GCC in one important military metric: the number of military troops.  According the Israel-based Institute for National Securities Studies, Iran has nearly twice as many armed personnel than does the GCC states – 520,000 uniformed service members against a GCC force of less than 350,000 — with Saudi Arabia accounting for 60 percent of the total. Iran also has twice as many men between the ages 18 and 49 available for military service, according to the CIA World Fact Book. But as the U.S. wars against Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrated, modern day military victories are decided not by the size of armies but by how quickly and forcibly a country can project its sophisticated munitions against a rival. And in this latter category, Iran suffers distinct weaknesses.

According to Iran and the Gulf Military Balance, published by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the GCC (including Yemen) surpasses Iran in nearly every type of conventional weapon. In many cases, the Arab/Sunni coalition possesses two or three times the number of key armaments than does Iran.

Iran similarly falls short in the crucial arena of air superiority, where control of the skies often means victory on the ground. The CSIS study calculates that in the category of "modern" warplanes, Iran’s 190-plane air force confronts a GCC air force of 576 planes. But Iran is far worse off than the numbers suggest: a decades-old Western-led arms embargo on Iran has made it nearly impossible for the Islamic Republic to purchase modern warplanes or advanced weapons technology. The most sophisticated aircraft in Iran’s inventory includes out-of-date Russian MiGs and U.S.-made F-4s and F-14s bought before the 1979 revolution. It also acquired in 1991 some French-made combat aircraft that Iraqi pilots flew into Iran while escaping U.S. warplanes. But the reliability of those planes is questionable because, as one military analyst put it, the "Iranians have extraordinary difficulty sustaining their military equipment due to a lack of spare parts and trained mechanics." The CSIS report noted that the embargo has prevented Iran from acquiring "large numbers of modern armor, combat aircraft, longer-range surface-to-air missiles, or major combat ships." The consequence, concluded CSIS, is that "much of [Iran's] conventional military force is obsolescent or is equipped with less capable types of weapons."

Comparative Military Budgets

That the GCC spends twice as much on its military establishment than does Iran further underscores the imbalance between Iran and the Arab Gulf states. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute calculates that over the past decade, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the UAE, have devoted about 7 percent of their GDP to military expenditures while Iran’s expenditures have averaged just less than 3 percent of its GDP.  In terms of actual, overall military spending since 2000, the three states have averaged about $16 billion a year against Iran’s expenditures of about $8 billion.

Benefiting from high oil revenues and unencumbered by an arms embargo, the GCC has purchased some of the most advanced weaponry money can buy and most of it is from the United States. According to the Congressional Research Service, from 2003 through 2010,U.S. arms sales agreements with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the UAE totaled $31.9 billion. Nearly $25 billion of that sum was transferred between 2007 and 2010.

At the end of 2011, weapons sales to the Arab Gulf states hit newfound heights with the announcement that Washington would be selling to Saudi Arabia $60 billion in arms over the next decade. The sales included 84 new F-15 fighter jets and upgrades to 70 of Saudi Arabia’s existing F-15 inventory. The warplanes, according the U.S. Department of State, would be the "most sophisticated and capable aircraft in the world," equipped with satellite-guided "smart bombs", anti-ship missiles, and anti-ground-based radar and missile missiles. The package includes over 170 helicopters. Agreements in 2011 were also reached with the UAE for a $3.5 billion advance missile defense system and possibly 600 "bunker buster" bombs and other munitions; Oman for 18 F-16 fighter jets and other items worth $3.6 billion; Kuwait for a $900 million advanced missile defense system; and Iraq for nearly $5 billion for 18 F-16 fighter jets.

The U.S. Gorilla

The 800-pound gorilla in the Gulf is the presence of U.S. military forces. Bahrain is the headquarters of the U.S. Fifth Fleet’s carrier strike group (CSG), which currently includes the largest warship in the world, the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, hosting about 80 warplanes and supported by an armada of five to nine ships, including guided missile cruisers, destroyers, frigates, and attack submarines. The U.S. Sixth Fleet’s CSG sitting in the Mediterranean Sea is posed to intervene in the Gulf, as it did during the Iraq war. B-1 bombers are stationed in Oman, along with a storehouse of U.S. munitions. Kuwait is an important refueling depot for U.S. aircraft as well as a perch from which reconnaissance planes operate. U.S. Defense Secretary Panetta said in November that nearly 29,000 U.S. troops are in Kuwait, in addition to over 17,000 more in the Gulf states. Complementing U.S. forces are warships and ground troops from France, Britain, and Canada. The cumulative result is that perhaps the greatest concentration of conventional military firepower on the planet is located in or near the Gulf, most of it U.S.-owned or controlled, and potentially aimed at Iran.

In the face of such overwhelming military might, claims that Iran poses a military threat to its neighbors fall flat. The Islamic Republic lacks a credible, offensive military capability and, despite its large ground army, cannot take and hold foreign territory for any meaningful period of time. Superior U.S.and GCC air power would quickly dispatch any invading ground vehicles, as Saddam Hussein’s army discovered after it invaded Kuwait. Iran’s leadership is rational and is not going to commit suicide by launching an attack that it knows it cannot win.

But Iran is not without means to inflict injury on its opponents. The U.S. Institute for Peace points out that Iran’s military is configured in a defensive posture, tailored "specifically to counter the perceived U.S. threat." The CSIS report warned that Iran has sought to bridge the gap in its conventional capability by "developing a strong asymmetric capacity that focuses on the use of smart munitions, light attack craft, mines, swarm tactics, and missile barrages to counteract U.S. naval power." That strategy may be succeeding. In 2002, the Pentagon conducted a war game where large numbers of small Iranian speedboats attacked American ships in the Gulf with machine guns and rockets. In the simulation, the U.S. Navy lost 16 warships, including an aircraft carrier, cruisers, and amphibious vessels in battles that lasted 5-10 minutes. Since that war game, Iran has only improved and expanded its asymmetric capabilities.

And that is Iran’s real threat to the United States — its capability to inflict painful retaliatory strikes. As the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments recognized in a January 2012 report, Iran is seeking to "make traditional U.S. power-projection operations in the Persian Gulf possible only at a prohibitive cost."Iran’s asymmetric strategy is denying the United States the freedom of low-cost military intervention.

Iran’s rulers could make a pre-emptive strike if they thought their enemies were on the verge of toppling them from power, either through a suffocating economic embargo or incessant covert attacks. Such conduct would be extraordinarily dangerous, as it could spiral out of control and lead to a devastating general war in the Gulf with enormous regional and international consequences. But it would not be irrational for Islamic Republic to make a futile attempt to close the Straits of Hormuz if its sends a strong signal to the West that Iran is willing to risk it all to preserve the regime.

Imperial Japan stands again as an imperfect history analogy. When its leaders were mulling over the option to attack Pearl Harbor, Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto dissented, warning that the United States would retaliate with a vengeance to defeat Japan. But when the Imperial command decided to attack, it was Admiral Yamamoto who drew up the plans to bomb Pearl Harbor. Iran’s ruling Mullahs may similarly calculate that the risk of a wider conflict is worth the price of deterring a slow but sure death by economic strangulation. As Mark Twain put it, "History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme." 

Exposed: The Arab Agenda In Syria

By Pepe Escobar 
February 4, 2012 
Courtesy Of "Asia Times Online"

Here's a crash course on the "democratic" machinations of the Arab League - rather the GCC League, as real power in this pan-Arab organization is wielded by two of the six Persian Gulf monarchies composing the Gulf Cooperation Council, also known as Gulf Counter-revolution Club; Qatar and the House of Saud. 

Essentially, the GCC created an Arab League group to monitor what's going on in Syria. The Syrian National Council - based in North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member countries Turkey and France - enthusiastically supported it. It's telling that Syria's neighbor Lebanon did not. 

When the over 160 monitors, after one month of enquiries, issued their report ... surprise! The report did not follow the official GCC line - which is that the "evil" Bashar al-Assad government is 

indiscriminately, and unilaterally, killing its own people, and so regime change is in order. The Arab League's Ministerial Committee had approved the report, with four votes in favor (Algeria, Egypt, Sudan and GCC member Oman) and only one against; guess who, Qatar - which is now presiding the Arab League because the emirate bought their (rotating) turn from the Palestinian Authority. So the report was either ignored (by Western corporate media) or mercilessly destroyed - by Arab media, virtually all of it financed by either the House of Saud or Qatar. It was not even discussed - because it was prevented by the GCC from being translated from Arabic into English and published in the Arab League's website. Until it was leaked. Here it is, in full. The report is adamant. There was no organized, lethal repression by the Syrian government against peaceful protesters. Instead, the report points to shady armed gangs as responsible for hundreds of deaths among Syrian civilians, and over one thousand among the Syrian army, using lethal tactics such as bombing of civilian buses, bombing of trains carrying diesel oil, bombing of police buses and bombing of bridges and pipelines. Once again, the official NATOGCC version of Syria is of a popular uprising smashed by bullets and tanks. Instead, BRICS members Russia and China, and large swathes of the developing world see it as the Syrian government fighting heavily armed foreign mercenaries. The report largely confirms these suspicions. The Syrian National Council is essentially a Muslim Brotherhood outfit affiliated with both the House of Saud and Qatar - with an uneasy Israel quietly supporting it in the background. Legitimacy is not exactly its cup of green tea. As for the Free Syrian Army, it does have its defectors, and well-meaning opponents of the Assad regime, but most of all is infested with these foreign mercenaries weaponized by the GCC, especially Salafist gangs. Still NATOGCC, blocked from applying in Syria its one-size-fits-all model of promoting "democracy" by bombing a country and getting rid of the proverbial evil dictator, won't be deterred. GCC leaders House of Saud and Qatar bluntly dismissed their own report and went straight to the meat of the matter; impose a NATOGCC regime change via the UN Security Council. So the current "Arab-led drive to secure a peaceful end to the 10-month crackdown" in Syria at the UN is no less than a crude regime change drive. Usual suspects Washington, London and Paris have been forced to fall over themselves to assure the real international community this is not another mandate for NATO bombing - a la Libya. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described it as "a path for a political transition that would preserve Syria's unity and institutions". But BRICS members Russia and China see it for what it is. Another BRICS member - India - alongside Pakistan and South Africa, have all raised serious objections to the NATOGCC-peddled draft UN resolution. There won't be another Libya-style no fly zone; after all the Assad regime is not exactly deploying Migs against civilians. A UN regime change resolution will be blocked - again - by Russia and China. Even NATOGCC is in disarray, as each block of players - Washington, Ankara, and the House of Saud-Doha duo - has a different long-term geopolitical agenda. Not to mention crucial Syrian neighbor and trading partner Iraq; Baghdad is on the record against any regime change scheme. So here's a suggestion to the House of Saud and Qatar; since you're so seduced by the prospect of "democracy" in Syria, why don't you use all your American weaponry and invade in the dead of night - like you did to Bahrain - and execute regime change by yourselves? Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007) and Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge. His most recent is Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009). He may be reached at pepeasia@yahoo.com. (Copyright 2012 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The US-GCC Fatal Attraction

By Pepe Escobar 
January 20, 2012 
Courtesy of "Asia Times Online"

There's no way to understand the larger-than-life United States-Iran psychodrama, the Western push for regime change in both Syria and Iran, and the trials and tribulations of the Arab Spring(s) - now mired in perpetual winter - without a close look at the fatal attraction between Washington and the GCC. [1] 

GCC stands for Gulf Cooperation Council, the club of six wealthy Persian Gulf monarchies (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates - UAE), founded in 1981 and which in no time configured as the prime strategic US backyard for the invasions of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003, for the long-drawn battle in the New Great Game in Eurasia, and also as the headquarters for "containing" Iran. 

The US Fifth Fleet is stationed in Bahrain and Central Command's forward headquarters is based in Qatar; Centcom polices no less than 27 countries from the Horn of Africa to Central Asia - what the Pentagon until recently defined as "the arc of instability". In sum: the GCC is like a US aircraft carrier in the Gulf magnified to Star Trek proportions. 

I prefer to refer to the GCC as the Gulf Counter-revolution Club - due to its sterling performance in suppressing democracy in the Arab world, even before Mohammed Bouazizi set himself on fire in Tunisia over a year ago. 

Cueing to Orson Welles in Citizen Kane, the Rosebud inside the GCC is that the House of Saud sells its oil only in US dollars - thus the pre-eminence of the petrodollar - and in exchange benefits from massive, unconditional US military and political support. Moreover the Saudis prevent the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) - after all they're the world's largest oil producer - to price and sell oil in a basket of currencies. These rivers of petrodollars then flow into US equities and Treasury bonds. 

For decades virtually the whole planet has been held hostage to this fatal attraction. Until now. 

Gimme All Your Toys 

The GCC, essentially, is the core of the empire in the Arab world. Yes, it's essentially about oil; the GCC will be responsible for over 25% of global oil production within the next few decades. Their tiny ruling classes - from monarchies to business associates - function as a crucial annex to the mighty projection of US power all across the Middle East and beyond. 

That explains, among other things, why in October last year Washington closed a juicy US$67 billion deal - the largest bilateral deal in US history - to supply the House of Saud with a prime collection of brand new F-15s, Black Hawks, Apaches, bunker-buster bombs, Patriot-2 missiles and warships. 

It explains why Washington will shower the UAE with thousands of bunker-buster bombs, and Oman with Stinger missiles. Not to mention another juicy mega-deal - worth $53 billion - with Bahrain, which has not gone through yet because human-rights associations - to their credit - have fiercely denounced it. 

And there's the redeployment - or, in Pentagon speak, "repositioning" - of 15,000 US troops from Iraq to Kuwait. 

The rationale for all this weaponized orgy is provided by the usual suspect logic; the necessity of building a "coalition of the willing" to "counter Iran". Why Iran? Half-jokingly, because Iran is not part of the GCC - that is, a pliable US satrapy, just like in those jolly good times under the shah. 

Adam Hanieh, professor of development studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London and author ofCapitalism and Class in the Gulf Arab States has been one of very few global analysts trying to decode the centrality of the GCC in the imperial strategy. In a crucial interview, Hanieh outlines all one needs to know. And it's not pretty. [2] 

As Asia Times Online has extensively documented, the Arab Spring was virtually dead on arrival in the GCC. In Oman, Sultan Qaboos basically distributed loads of cash. In Saudi Arabia, there was fierce pre-emption and sustained hardcore repression in the Shi'ite majority Eastern province, close to Bahrain, where the oil is. 

And in Bahrain itself, there was not only hardcore repression - with documented detention and torture of hundreds of pro-democracy protesters - but an outright invasion by Saudi and UAE troops. 

The invasion may have given the GCC the sweet taste of an actual physical expansion. Morocco and Jordan - although not exactly in the Gulf as basic geography rules - were "invited" to be part of the wealthy club; after all they are duly reactionary Sunni monarchies, not "decadent" secular Arab republics like Libya and Syria. 

A fair question is why the Arab Spring has not touched Jordan - since the same socioeconomic volcano that convulsed Tunisia and Egypt is also active. The key part of the answer is that the GCC - even more than Washington, European capitals and Israel - is terrified that the Hashemite throne might fall. 

For immense GCC wealth it's a piece of cake to control Jordan - a small country, where most of the population is actually Palestinian, with a tiny organized opposition (no wonder; Jordanian intelligence imprisoned or killed any dissidence). For the GCC that's pocket money compared to the billions of dollars earmarked for Egypt and Tunisia so they don't dare becoming "too" democratic. 

There was no way for the GCC other than to become Counter-revolution Central after the initial democracy rush in North Africa. As Hanieh emphatically stresses, the ruling autocrats in the Gulf couldn't care less about the impoverished masses in MENA (Middle East-Northern Africa). 

The culmination of this process has been the birth of a new geopolitical monster - NATOGCC. That embodies the key role of Qatar and the UAE in the NATO invasion - and destruction - of Libya. Libya was an all-out GCC special - from actual cash and weapons dispensed to the "rebels" to actual operatives, intelligence and last but not least, political legitimacy, via that fake Arab League vote legitimizing a no-fly zone vote at the United Nations (only nine out of 22 Arab League members voted yes, and six of them were GCC; the other three were bought, and Syria and Algeria were against it). 

And now a tragic joke reigns supreme; the GCC trying to intervene and actually financing hardcore Sunni fundamentalists in Syria under the cover of helping pro-democracy protesters. When the meek UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon urges President Bashar al-Assad to stop the violence against Syrian protesters and says the time of dynasties and one-man rule in the Arab world is coming to an end, obviously he believes the GCC is a colony in one of Saturn's rings. 

After the NATOGCC win in Libya, no wonder they are on a roll. The GCC strategy of regime change in Syria is the preferred way to weaken Iran and the so-called Shi'ite crescent - a fiction jointly concocted during the George W Bush administration by the Playstation king of Jordan and the House of Saud. 

And that leads to an inevitable question; what are two of the top BRICS - Russia and China - doing about all this? 

Enter The Dragon 

The immensely powerful secretary of the National Security Council and former head of the FSB (the successor to the KGB), Nikolai Patrushev - a frequent visitor to Iran - has already warned of a "real danger" of a US strike on Iran; the US, he says, is "trying to turn Tehran from an enemy into a supportive partner, and to achieve this, to change the current regime by whatever means".
  
Yet for Russia, regime change in Iran is a no-no. Russia's deputy prime minister and former envoy to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, has already stated, unequivocally, "Iran is our close neighbor, just south of the Caucasus. Should anything happen to Iran, should Iran get drawn into any political or military hardships, this will be a direct threat to our national security." 

So on one side we have Washington, NATO, Israel and the GCC. Not exactly an "international community", as the spin goes. And on the other side, we have Iran, Syria, a fed-up-with-Washington Pakistan, Russia, China, and scores of countries linked to the 120-member Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). 

It's China's position in relation to the GCC that is a source of endless fascination. China's Premier Wen Jiabao has just visited the three key GCC members - Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar. 

Imagine Wen Jiabao telling Crown Prince Nayef (King Abdullah's half-brother) in Riyadh that Beijing wants "strong and reputable" Chinese companies to invest fortunes in ports, railways and infrastructure development in Saudi Arabia - part of their increased cooperation "in the face of changeable and complicated regional and international trends". Imagine Nayef salivating over his mighty moustache, stressing the House of Saud is indeed willing to "expand cooperation" in energy and infrastructure. 

What adds spice to the mix is that Beijing also happens to hold a strategic relationship with Iran - and enjoys a healthy trading relationship with Syria. So as far as the Middle East and Central Asia are concerned, Beijing is betting - unlike the Pentagon - on a true "arc of stability". 

As Xinhua has put it in its unrivalled all-inclusive style, what matters for the Beijing leadership is for China and Southwest and Central Asia to take "full advantage of their respective strengths and jointly strive for common development". How come no one in Washington can ever come up with something as simple as this? 

It's true that whoever dominates the GCC - with weapons and political support - projects power globally. The GCC has been absolutely key for US hegemony within what Immanuel Wallerstein defines as the world system. 

Yet let's take a look at the numbers. Since last year Saudi Arabia is exporting more oil to China than to the US. This is part of an inexorable process of GCC energy and commodity exports moving to Asia. 

By next year foreign assets held by the GCC could reach $3.8 trillion with oil at $70 a barrel. With all that non-stop "tension" in the Persian Gulf, there's no reason to believe oil will be below $100 in the foreseeable future. In this case GCC foreign assets could reach a staggering $5.7 trillion - that's 160% more than in pre-crisis 2008, and over $1 trillion more than China's foreign assets. 

At the same time, China will be increasingly doing more business with the GCC. The GCC is increasingly importing more from Asia - although the top source of imports is still the European Union. Meanwhile, US-GCC trade is dropping. By 2025, China will be importing three times more oil from the GCC than the US. No wonder the House of Saud - to put it mildly - is terribly excited about Beijing. 

So for the moment we have the pre-eminence of NATOGCC military, and USGCC geopolitically. But sooner rather than later Beijing may approach the House of Saud and quietly whisper, "Why don't you sell me your oil in yuan?" Just like China buying Iranian oil and gas with yuan. Petroyuan, anyone? Now that's an entirely new Star Trek. 

Notes 
1. See The myth of an isolated Iran Asia Times Online, January 19. 
2. See here. 

Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007) and Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge. His new book, just out, is Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009). 

He may be reached at pepeasia@yahoo.com. 

(Copyright 2012 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Why Is The GCC Expanding Its Army

The Gulf Cooperation Council sent troops into Bahrain in order to crack down on protesters [GALLO/GETTY]


Is The Expanded Force Designed To Defend Against Iran Or To Prevent An Arab Spring In The Oil Rich Gulf?

By Shenaz Kermali
Last Modified: 02 Jul 2011 10:37
Courteys Of "Al-Jazeera"

A proposal to boost the Peninsula Shield, the Gulf Cooperation Council's combined military force, has been approved by its six member states, and could increase to include 100,000 troops before the end of the year, the director of a government linked think-tank in Kuwait has told Al Jazeera .

The Peninsula Shield currently consists of about 40,000 troops and has its permanent base in Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province. The proposed expansion would be a huge boost from the previous force's incarnation, whose numbers fluctuated between 5-10,000 troops during its existence.

Its permanent military base could also be moved to Bahrain. "There is a large de facto presence currently in Bahrain which could evolve into a permanent military base," Dr Sami Alfaraj, a security, defence and intelligence advisor to the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and President of the Kuwait Centre for Strategic Studies told Al Jazeera.

According to Dr Alfaraj, the decision to expand the 'Shield', as it is known by its troops, was taken largely to counter Iran "and its subversive terrorist elements across the GCC".

But is the motive for building a bigger force really to defend the region from a potential attack from Iran - or to prevent an Arab Spring in their own backyard?

Powerful Symbol

Back in March, when the protest movement in Bahrain was gaining the same kind of momentum that toppled Egypt's Hosni Mubarak the month before, the GCC issued a mandate to send nearly 2000 troops to the tiny island to suppress protests and restore public order. What followed was a bloody confrontation between activists and troops in Manama's Pearl Roundabout, the focal point of protest for the opposition.

Dozens of protesters were killed in the crackdown and hundreds more imprisoned. Human rights groups reported that many wounded activists who were sent to the hospital were subsequently arrested. Others simply went missing. At least 32 people, mostly opposition activists, have died since March and nearly 1000 are being held in detention, many without charge.

To the ruling Gulf monarchies, the opposition movement was demonstrating dangerously similar strength to the protests that succeeded in bringing down Mubarak and Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia. However, analysts say the motive behind the GCC's decision to send the rarely used Peninsula Shield into Bahrain was not just about regaining control. It was a show of force that also sent a powerful message to opposition movements across the Gulf and the wider Arab world: The GCC's way of rule was here to stay.

After all, if Bahrain's government were to give in to the demands of the protestors - which at the very least involved economic and political reforms and at most, a constitutional monarchy - Saudi Arabia, Oman, and Kuwait may be forced to follow suit. Both Saudi Arabia and Oman offered their citizens generous cash bonuses and loans after opposition demonstrations broke out in those countries shortly after the fall of Mubarak in Egypt. These could be seen as a lucid expression of panic on the GCC's part in response to the pro-democracy movement gaining momentum.

America 'Losing' The Middle East

Analysts suggest that the entry of GCC troops into Bahraini territory on March 14 and its decision to strengthen itself on a massive scale has numerous other implications for the region.

"The decision to expand the army is of huge geo-military significance," says Barak Seener, a Middle East research fellow with the Royal United Service Institute (RUSI) in London. "What we are seeing now is the militarisation of societies. One of which is to preserve the GCC's own security from domestic unrest and the other to counter external insecurity from Iran. So the military build-up is two fold.

"Often there is no distinction made between the internal and external unrest because the GCC perceive unrest in Bahrain as not a legitimate request for democracy and freedom but manipulation from Iran."

"It's difficult to conclusively say to what degree Iran is behind the instability in Bahrain," Seener continues. "Irrespective, however, there is no doubt that Iran would benefit from the turmoil there. Their anti-Westernism causes them to transcend the Sunni-Shia divide and it sees the Arab Spring as a way to exploit their own influence. It's clear that America is increasingly losing the Middle East to Iran."

Shashank Joshi, an analyst on international security and military affairs at Harvard University believes the GCC decisions to boost its military and to create new alliances with Jordan and Morocco, both of which have sizeable armies, are an effort to shift the stronghold of power in the region.

"The GCC expansion is only one piece in the overall picture of Saudi Arabia looking for a foreign policy alternative to the US," he says. "The Gulf Cooperation Council itself is a vehicle for Saudi Arabian ambitions as it has the most sway in the region. The move is significant in that it reflects alignment in Saudi Arabian priorities - it's diversifying its alliance portfolio."

GCC analyst Dr Alfaraj agrees that plans to boost the Shield would send a strong message to the world of a newfound military strength in the region.

"Through the expanded army we are sending messages to our Arab alliances as well as to our western alliances. The international economic situation tells us that the US is not as reliable as it used to be because it's already overextended in Afghanistan, North Korea and Iraq. So there is no force to send to us."

America's muted criticism towards the Bahraini government's crackdown of protestors in March, he adds, was irrelevent.

"They were idle and couldn't understand the situation. They looked at the situation in Bahrain and compared it to Egypt and Tunisia. It's totally wrong because Tunisia, for example, does not export anything to the world - it's a textiles and tourism state. Bahrain is next to the oil fields of all the oil members of the GCC."

View From The Ground

Whatever the motives are for a greater military presence in the region, one thing is clear - the government's continued heavy-handedness in silencing dissidents is only hardening the protesters' resolve. And sectarianism, something that both sides said they wanted to avoid, is on the rise - unsurprising perhaps in a country with a Shia population of 70 per cent but an exclusively Sunni military.

The complexity of the sectarian issue is reflective of the mixed feelings Bahraini's hold towards the GCC troops. For Sarah Y Ashoor, a Shia from Sadad, a village in the western region of Bahrain, welcomed the arrival of the Peninsula Shield troops on March 14.

"As citizens we are glad the government has finally discovered the dire need for a military presence. We don't take lightly any outside interference. People are calling it [the Saudi-led military presence] an invasion… but allies don't invade each other. They support each other in times of need.

"It's understandable with our population size that Saudi Arabia would be in power and militarily have the upper hand," she adds. " We look to the Saudis for help and leadership and their standing in the world as one of the largest exporters.

But Mohammad al Maskati, from the Bahrain National Youth Society, believes that a greater Peninsula Shield army and presence in Bahrain, would inflame Sunni-Shia tensions.

"This army would be a kind of sectarian shield because of what's happened in Bahrain," he said. "Some troops from the Shield specifically targeted Shias. Saudi Arabia would have to have an upper hand in controlling the whole state but this hand will not be direct - it will be through the army. Everyone knows the GCC shield is led by the Saudi's so an army here would not be directed by the GCC, it would be led by Saudi Arabia.

"They say that the army is for unity [among GCC states] but then why is this army interfering in internal issues?" he adds. " This only affects Bahraini people - why is Saudi Arabia interfering? It's not like there's a war against the state. It's just Bahraini people asking and demanding their rights."

'Open Warfare'

For Mahmoud, a Shia who lives in a village near the capital Manama who did not want to give his real name, the arrival of the Gulf troops has meant continual intimidation, violence and threats.

"Even trying to move around in normal ways has become life-threatening," he said. "My young brother, 15, was coming back from school one day, and the bus had been stopped at a checkpoint and the riot police entered.

"The officer had a Saudi accent and he asked the whole bus: 'Which of you went to Lulu Square? You are Shia dogs, why is there no photo of King Hamad in the bus?'

"He asked the other officers to check the books of random students to see if the photo of King Hamad was there (all school books have his photo) and they found a number of students who ripped or damaged the photo.

They started to beat them up inside the bus and then arrested them. The same day I drove by the same checkpoint and saw four teenagers with their heads covered by bags lying on their stomachs at 2pm under the hot sun, with their shirts removed and getting random kicks by the officers."

Mahmoud denies that Iran has infiltrated the opposition movement. "They say that we are spies for Iran, but nobody here wants to be ruled from Iran," he says. "We are Shia, but we are also Arabs, not Persians. We do not want help from Iran. We want democracy in our own country."

But in the eyes of the Gulf states, Iran and some elements of Bahrain's Shia community are inextricably linked.

"We see the subversive attacks of Iran on us," Dr Alfaraj asserts. "We see it and we are reacting to it…we are at open warfare."