Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12
  1. #1
    Senior Member Platinum Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    13,473

    Default All Change in the Middle East?

    The Middle East has not become an election issue in the US, and if it does, it is most likely to be the President crowing about his so-called achievements in the search for peace, and wondering aloud when he is going to get the Nobel Peace Prize, something he probably obsesses about because Obama got one, and he wants one too.

    The recognitions by the UAE and Bahrain of Israel are not, in fact, part of a seismic shift in the region as far as relations with Israel go -both Bahrain (which has a long-established if small Jewish community and even a Synagogue, albeit non-functional)- and the UAE have had covert relations with Israel for years, so these acts of recognition merely formalize existing relations and do not therefore amount to anything more than a cosmetic excercise. Were there fraught negotiations in smoke-filled rooms that ran into the early hours or all night with tension and fears of collapse? No. Some billionares exchanged emails and slapped each on the other back for admitting in pubic what had previosly been sort-of secret.

    In the short term, these acts are part of a 'Cold War' consolidation of the anti-Iran alliance that has been formed by Israel and Saudi Arabia. Bahrain has a long and difficult history with Iran because most of the population, but not the ruling famly, are Shi'a Muslims. The Briitish had more problems with Bahrain when it was one of the 'Trucial States' than any of the others that became indepedent in the 1970s -in 1956 Bahrainis demonstrated against the British attack on Egypt, and as a result firebrand Shi'a clerics who were held responsible were arrested and deported to the isand of St Helena. The anxiety in Bahrain has always been the fragile grip on power that the ruling al-Khalifa clan has, with the prospect that any form of 'democratic' rule would at least in theory favour Iran in terms of a balance of power in the Gulf, and given Qatar's trade relations with Iran, Saudi Arabia sees this area as 'sensitive' -with the additional fact that most of the Kingdom's Shi'a Muslims live in the North-East. At the moment, MbS cannot do much to change his country's relations with Israel as long as Salman is still aive, though recognizing Israel is the least of its problems (see below).

    For Israel these measures are part of an historic rejection of regional peace treaties, Israel insisting, and so far getting, bi-lateral peace treaties with Egypt, the PLO and Jordan. From this perspective Israel needs these bi-lateral deals with the Arabs to weaken the Palestinians, but in this it has failed, as the core issues that concern the illegal siege of the Gaza District and the illegal occupation of Palestinian territory have not moved an inch. Moreover, 'Democatic' Israel not only appears to be endorsing dictatorship in the Middle East, neither the UAE nor Bahrain have actually got anything of note in exchange for recognizing Israel.

    The US apppears to benefit, or does it? So far, in my estimation, not one single foreign or stategic policy decision of the US has been made that has a clear benefit to the USA -from its policies on Israel -moving the Embassy to Jerusalem, endorsing the illegal occupation by Israel of Syrian territory- to its abandonment of the Kurds- to its withdrawal from the Paris Climate Change Accords and the Iran Nuclear Deal- and the withdrawal of the USA from the INF treaty and the Open Skies agreement -the US has demanded nothng in return for these moves, and received nothing.
    This Repubican Government is a Something-for-Nothing Government, the USA is giving away its influence ad its Strategic Advantages for free, and returnng home with nothing other than a President and Under-President who think they have achieved what nobody else has.

    Or it is a con trick: have these diplomatic acts been made to protect their family interests in Israel, given most of them, President and son-in-law and his other relations have financial investments in Israel and the Occupied Territories. Dare one suggest that this has always and only ever been about money? Their money?

    So, no advance on Palestine. No advance on Syria and the Kurds, and no advance in the urgent need to end the war in Yemen. And so far from the US, not a lot of views expressed on the prospects of military or political conflict in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea as Turkey, Greece and Israel compete for the Sea's gas resources. As for Libya -what is the US Administration's views on that failed state?

    Lastly, I recommend Patrick Cockburns arguments that the Middle East is in the process of profound change as Petroleum declines as a source of revenue, and unelected Dictatorships struggle to deliver jobs and prosperity for a large and increasiingly young and restless population.

    "The era characterised by the power of the oil states is ending. When the price of oil soared in the aftermath of the 1973 war, countries from Iran to Algeria, mostly though not exclusively Arab, enjoyed an extraordinary accretion of wealth. Their elites could buy everything from Leonardo da Vinci paintings to Park Lane hotels. Their rulers had the money to keep less well-funded governments in power or to put them out of business by funding their opponent.
    It is this historic period that is now terminating and the change is likely to be permanent. Saudi Arabia and UAE still have big financial reserves, though these are not inexhaustible. Elsewhere the money is running out. The determining factor is that between 2012 and 2020 the oil revenues of the Arab producers fell from $1 trillion to $300bn, down by over two-thirds. Too much oil was being produced and too little was consumed pre-coronavirus and, on top of this, there is a shift away from fossil fuels. Cuts in output by Opec might go some way to raising the oil price, but it will not be enough to preserve a crumbling status quo."
    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-a9670926.html


    1 out of 2 members liked this post.
    Last edited by Stavros; 09-12-2020 at 03:54 PM.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Platinum Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    13,473

    Default Re: All Change in the Middle East?

    I wonder how many people who watched the early season Pantomime at the White House yesterday were fooled by the inflated claims made, when two Arab states formally recognized what for years has been an informal relationship with Israel? There they were, this Parade of Dunces, holding up the Accords -not treaties- which appeared to herald a new era in the Middle East. But look more closely, and you can see how much of it was just 'business as usual' in the Middle East.

    For what is in those Accords? This being the Middle East, we -and the Citizens of Bahrain and the UAE- are not allowed to know, as was pithily put in this brief survey-

    "What are the Details of the Agreements?
    In short, we do not know. The wording of both deals has been kept secret due to the sensitivity of the content. However, this afternoon Emirati officials affirmed it will make reference to a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. "
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...u-b446885.html

    The two-state solution? According to Prime Minister Netanyah, it's dead, and has been for him since c1993. Maybe Bahrain and the UAE are easiy fooled by their Ugly Sister, nether are Prince Charmings for the Middle East's permanent Palestinian Cinderella, and to claim that they have wrung a concession from Bibi, ok so we won't annexe the West Bank- is not even a joke, as Israel has had no legal right to be there since 1967. Oh, and all those Security Council Resolutions and treaties that Israel has ignored or betrayed? Not much of a boost to morale. Don't frame those Accords, Abdul, they might turn out to be an embarrassment

    The triumph here, is that as usual, Israel is the prism through which Middle Eastern politics is viewed. For Under-President Kushner, who may have dual citizenship with the USA and Israel, and for his Daddy-in-Law, the optics could not be more in tune with their world-view if Stephen Sondheim or Lord loyd-Webber had written it: a Corrupt Prime Minister of Israel, flanked by two unelected Billionaires who treat their countries as a family business: one can imagine the song running through Kushner's head: Maybe this time? And one can even imagine the President, elevated by his triumph declaring he wants what they got: declare himself President for Life, abolish Congress, and appoint Junior, Skittles and Tiffany to important posts in his Revolutionary Government by Family. I mean, the Republican Party is a party of Family Values, right?

    One can say with certainty, that neither the Prime Minister of Democratic Israel, nor the President of the USA are going to suggest, in public, that the Middle East is exhausted with 70-100 years of corrupt, unelected dictators, and that they will be promoting regime change and democracy in the Gulf. And did the two Americans not weigh up the financial benefits in the Accords which secure for a few more years their investments in Israel and the Occupied Territories?

    Can you imagine if President Nixon had secured diplomatic recognition with China while having a stake in a Chinese bank? Or that Carter and Clinton signed peace treaties with countries in which they had invesments in banks and property? They would have been impeached beforre the ink was dry on the documents.

    Peace treaties? The Siege of Gaza continues, the wars in Syria and Yemen continue, the chaos in Lebanon deepens, Iraq is not an integratated State, Libya has fallen to pieces. There is going to be change in the Middle East, as the article by Patrick Cockburn in my OP suggests, and it will be messy. I hope this new, more open coalition between Israel and some of its neighbouring Reservoir Dogs is not going to answer the question- "Are you going to bark all day, little doggy, or are you going to bite?" -by launching military strikes against Iran, but with a 'Herd Mentality' growing when the mental case is Mohammed bin Salman, who knows?

    A Parade of Dunces- not a musical, no jokes, no laughs. Just a bunch of secret accords agreed by a couple of corrupt Billionaires who have never done a day's work in their lives. George Cohan, Irving Berlin, George Gershwin -from poverty to the stage-music you can sing along to and dance with. Compare those three to the Rent Collectors who went from one Palace to another, the World their Stage, accountable to nobody, producing shows empty of content, but an insult to everyone who believes freedom and democracy are values worth preserving.


    1 out of 2 members liked this post.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Veteran Poster
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    939

    Default Re: All Change in the Middle East?

    I just hope all these changes in the Middle East doesn't lead to Iran feeling isolated and one day they decide, "Fuck it, if we are going down, we are going down swinging".



  4. #4
    Senior Member Platinum Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    13,473

    Default Re: All Change in the Middle East?

    Quote Originally Posted by blackchubby38 View Post
    I just hope all these changes in the Middle East doesn't lead to Iran feeling isolated and one day they decide, "Fuck it, if we are going down, we are going down swinging".

    I have heard this before, from someone who spent a summer on a Kibbutz and took the view if Israel felt it was going to be annihilated, it would take everyone down with them. The problem is that there is a grievance culture throughout the Middle East (Oman might be an exception), most of which stems from the fact that after the First World War and the end of Ottoman rule, the Arabs were denied the right -by force of arms as well as international diplomacy- to govern themselves as they wanted to, a denial that persists with regard to the Palestinians.

    Even Iran, which was not part of the Anglo-French dispensation of power, has been in grievance mode for over a century. The weak and incompetent Qajar Dynasty sold 100% of its oil in a concession in 1901 because the Shah needed the money. It not only inserted the British Empire into the country -as the guarantor of the Oil Concesson -the British Government in 1914 took the majority shareholding in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company.

    Because the Russians thought they had been tricked by the British -their Ambassador was away from Tehran hunting, and when he returned the contract between the British and the Persians was presented to him in the ancient Shikasta script which had to be sent away to be translated. After much protest, the Anglo-Russian Entente of 1907 carved Persia into a Northern sphere dominated by the Russians, with the British taking the oil-rich south (as this was the climax of 'The Great Game' the Entente also included provisions for Afghanistan and Tibet).

    Iranians thus not only gripe about how their country was subjected to imperial intervention, it got worse when in later years the Nationalist President Mosadeq was overthrown in a coup in 1953 financed by the Americans. It is a simple fact that Persia/Iran fell victim to Western Imperialism because its ruling class were incompetent and corrupt, but to Iranians all their problems stem from the pernicious intervetions of the West, whom they see hiding behind the Saudi Arabian dishdash.

    For their part, the Saudis take great pride in repudiating British imperialism (though before 1914 Ibn Saud was happy to take British gold) and even trying to overthrow the British-backed Hashemites in TransJordan, but really this Sunni-Shi'a fault line became a violent rift when the Islamic Revolution in Iran inspired young Muslim radicals in the Kingdom and the Saudis felt that if they did not respond in kind their 'custody' of the Holy Places woud be in jeapordy.

    I am not sure if there is likely to be a military conflict -John Bolton, who advocates regime change in Iran, believes swift and decisive military strikes on strategic targets are justified, as well as harsh and effective sanctions. But, unlike the boycott of Iranian oil in the years between 1951-1954 which shattered the Iranian economy, and depleted a lot of the support among the people Mosadeq had, these days Iran has maintained its supplies of oil to China and Japan, so that the prospect of the Russians and the Chinese offering security guarantees to Iran must be a factor the US Military has factored in, regardless of what the politicians shout about.

    It is noticeable that Iran has not, so far retaliated against the US or its allies for the assassination of Qasem Suleimani -who, incidentally, was the strategic commander of the Iranian and Iraqi brigades that mounted damaging attacks on Daesh in Iraq- and in this election year with Covid 19 of more importance, no action in the near future seems likely, though some reckless figures in Iran might try it on -ironically, it would have been Suleimani in charge of any retaliation -maybe no figure of similar stature and influence has emerged to take his place in the Republican Guard.

    I think sanctions might be tightened, unless Iran is part of the 'October Surprise' that is trotted out every election year. To be fair to Mohammed bin Salman, someone I consider the biggest threat to the region, there were reports that he wanted to end the hugely expensive war in the Yemen and thus was prepared to open talks with Iran. I don't know if this has been happening in secret, which is possibe, but what we do know is that the fall in the price of oil and demand for the Black Stuff is re-focusing minds in the region to what it is possible, rather than desirable, but where the region is concerned I tend to be a pessimist.

    The final irony is that if here are secret talks taking place and the US brokers an end to the war in Yemen with a conference and/or treaty, the 45th President would meet some of the requirements for the Nobel Peace Prize -something Bill Clinton never got even though he was instumental in negotiating peace in Yugosavia, the treaties between Israel and the PLO and between Israel and Jordan, as well as being influential in the later stages of the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland. Nixon got nothing for the deal with Vietnam, Carter got his Nobel Prize mosty for the treaty between Israel and Egypt, so I assume Clinton didn't have the sponsors to make it happen even though, Woodrow Wilson aside, he deserved it more than Obama or Teddy Roosevelt, though this does not exactly attach much value to the prize, though we know the incumbent is obsessed with it.


    1 out of 1 members liked this post.
    Last edited by Stavros; 09-17-2020 at 02:08 AM.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Professional Poster Paladin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Out of the sandbox
    Posts
    1,355

    Default Re: All Change in the Middle East?

    If the iranians ever get a-hold of the bomb, they are sending it straight to Tel Aviv come hell or high water. They've been saying this for over 40 years.

    The two peace agreements were a good things. The first in over 25 years and all efforts to contain iran must be kept up, unlike what the prior administration did.


    0 out of 1 members liked this post.

  6. #6
    filghy2 Silver Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    3,161

    Default Re: All Change in the Middle East?

    Quote Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
    The two peace agreements were a good things. The first in over 25 years and all efforts to contain iran must be kept up, unlike what the prior administration did.
    Yes, it's a wonderful thing that the war between Israel and Bahrain and UAE has finally been ended. Trump should definitely get the Nobel Peace Prize, especially after his previous success in denuclearising North Korea.


    2 out of 3 members liked this post.

  7. #7
    Gold Poster
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    4,699

    Default Re: All Change in the Middle East?

    Quote Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
    The two peace agreements were a good things. The first in over 25 years and all efforts to contain iran must be kept up, unlike what the prior administration did.
    As someone who wants to see peace throughout the Middle East, I wonder what normalization means to some people. For Israel, I would have expected it means that the reaction of other states to it is conditioned on its conduct.

    If Israel makes overtures towards peace and reconciliation (not tokens but not things beyond their control to unilaterally deliver), then other countries might create diplomatic relations with it. What did Israel give up other than the annexation plan which is illegal under international law? It shouldn't require saying but not doing something you're not legally permitted to do is not forbearance.

    Also as Filghy's post indicates, what changed based on this "peace agreement"? If one was summing up the factional conflicts in the Middle East, hot and cold, would they have ever described the relations of Israel with Bahrain as the stress point?

    While I understand the hypocrisy of nuclear states dictating who should have nuclear weapons, I still don't want to see the Iranians get a nuke. I've listened to the Ayatollah over the years and the previous Presidents from Ahmadinejad to Rouhani and don't like what I hear. But sanctions punish the people in a country and should never be imposed indefinitely unless you're a sadist. Trump ripped up the JCPOA, at the behest of Netanyahu and has probably pushed Iran towards the development of nukes.


    Last edited by broncofan; 09-28-2020 at 02:45 PM.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Platinum Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    13,473

    Default Re: All Change in the Middle East?

    Quote Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
    If the iranians ever get a-hold of the bomb, they are sending it straight to Tel Aviv come hell or high water. They've been saying this for over 40 years.

    The two peace agreements were a good things. The first in over 25 years and all efforts to contain iran must be kept up, unlike what the prior administration did.
    It might be legitimate to ask if nuclear energy should be part of the energy mix in the Midle East where there are shortages of water, but there is more than enough gas to go around. My view is that the Middle East should be a nuclear free zone. If Iran poses a threat why not Saudi Arabia? The US President supports nuclear development in the country that actually accounted for most of the 9/11 murderers, so why is he so opposed to Iran but not Saudi Arabia? Could it be because one gives him “lovely dollars” and the other does not?



  9. #9
    Senior Member Professional Poster Paladin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Out of the sandbox
    Posts
    1,355

    Default Re: All Change in the Middle East?

    We can get into SA to verify, etc, but not iran. THINK!



  10. #10
    Senior Member Platinum Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    13,473

    Default Re: All Change in the Middle East?

    South Africa ended its nuclear development programme in 1989, and the dismantling of its nuclear weapons capability was complete by 1994. Iran has complied with the stipulations of the Joint Comperehensive Plan of Action, inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency continue to enter the county to monitor Iran's compliance with the JCOP. Compare South Africa and Iran, with Israel, which continunes to deny it even has a nuclear weapons capability, and the US support for nuclear development in Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

    Iran
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-53922717

    South Africa
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_...ss_destruction

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-q...-idUSKCN1R120L


    1 out of 1 members liked this post.

Similar Threads

  1. Middle East Drifting
    By zulusierra in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-01-2012, 04:29 AM
  2. here in the middle east
    By cody99 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-30-2009, 08:45 PM
  3. turkey and middle east
    By takyouk in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-02-2009, 12:18 PM
  4. middle east
    By takyouk in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-13-2008, 08:48 AM
  5. FROM THE MIDDLE EAST
    By avrix in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-31-2007, 04:16 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •