Partial US Drawdown in Iraq would Portend Military Shifts in Syria….
22 February 2020
Israel’s Defence Minister Naftali Bennett said on Tuesday, February 18, “We have picked up first signs of Iran’s weakness and its reassessment of posture in Syria.”
Israel has moved from the defensive to the offensive in order “to weaken, exhaust and erode the core of the octopus and so disarm its tentacles,” he stated, adding, “We have just begun and will go a lot further.”
Was the minister talking about new military alignments in Syria?
The minister spoke five days after an IDF missile strike near Damascus killed four Iranian Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) officers, both generals.
They were tentatively identified as Riday Mahmadi, commander of IRGC forces in the Damascus region, and Hajj Hossein, who was in charge of munitions for Iranian forces in Syria.
If confirmed, this operation must count as an important intelligence feat, but it does not add up to a new strategy.
After all, Israel has taken out a number of senior Iranian officers in Syria without inhibiting Tehran’s drive for a military base in that country.
And the loss of two generals has not slowed the operations of Iran’s proxy militias.
They continue to fight under IRGC commanders in support of the Russian-backed Syrian government forces’ offensive for the capture of the north-western province of Idlib, the last rebel stronghold in Syria.
Iranian aircraft, moreover, are still flying in with equipment and weapons systems for their forces and Hizballah.
The real significance of the defence minister’s claim of a conceptual switch was revealed in earlier comments.
Upon returning from a visit to Washington last week, his first in his new role, Bennett stated that he and Defence Secretary Mark Esper [pictured below] had agreed on a separation of tasks for the campaign against Iran:
US forces would focus on operations in Iraq, while the IDF would continue to take on the Iranian military presence in Syria without pause.
His assertions were never confirmed officially either in Jerusalem or Washington, although they were not denied.
They do, however, tie in closely with the new US redeployment in Iraq we spoke of in late January.
Military sources revealed then that Washington was willing to withdraw the US military from Baghdad and from most of the Shiite-dominated regions of southern Iraq and was redeploying in the Kurdish regions in the north and along Iraq’s border with Syria and Jordan.
These areas are sparsely populated and the few inhabitants there, mostly Sunni Muslims, are not seen as a threat to the American presence.
Confirmation of this disclosure came last week, when, in secret talks launched at the Canadian ambassador’s residence in Amman, a US military representative and a NATO official put before a senior Iraqi security adviser a new plan:
 
“We are prepared to leave some of the Shiite-majority areas, like the base in Balad,” said the US officer.
He went on to say, “Maybe we could reduce our presence in Baghdad,” leaving enough troops to guard the airport and the US embassy in the Green Zone.
However, he stressed, the US “categorically rules out” any withdrawal from the biggest air base in Iraq, Ain al-Assad, in Anbar province in the west.
This concession, laid on the table at the outset of the Amman talks, would partly meet the Iraqi parliament’s call for a complete US withdrawal from the country.
Iran, too, may find it acceptable, it is believed in Washington, judging from the fact that Tehran has begun redeploying its strength in Iraq and Syria accordingly.
At the same time, some hard bargaining lies ahead of the Amman track since Tehran will find it hard to swallow at least two of the consequences of the US realignment in Iraq:
1. The chain of large Revolutionary Guards bases - spanning the border between the Syrian town of Abu Kamal and the Iraqi town of Al-Qaim – will be left high and dry.
They will be isolated and hemmed in by the US forces still positioned in both countries. Tehran is not expected to let this happen.
2. This chain of bases not only provides rear support for the pro-Iranian Shiite militias fighting in Syria but are also a vital link in the land bridge between those militias and Hizballah in Lebanon.
This is not an asset that Iran will be inclined to jeopardise.
Developing…..
Putin Baits Turkey by Idlib Battle to Quit NATO…………
22 February 2020
Cold calculations lurk behind the sound, fury and savagery of the battle for Idlib, Syria’s last rebel stronghold.
They are fuelling the hell-for-leather speed of the Syrian government army’s takeover of territory, with heavy Russian air support.
Even more intriguingly, the Hayat al Tahri al-Sham (HTS) rebel militia has stepped away from resistance.
Muhammad Abdul Rahman, former HTS spokesman (who changed his name for safety), confirmed that the group had withdrawn its heavy weapons weeks before the pro-government military offensive to recover Idlib province.
Parts of the province were handed over one by one without a fight, he said. Some of the fighters went AWOL to defend their own towns, while other HTS factions pretended to fight to save face.
Rahman explained the rapid fall of territory to the Syrian army by the “extensive and violent” Russian air campaign.
The rebel tacticians decided not to sap their strength by fighting battles they were sure to lose.
They realised that the government forces were unstoppable on flat terrain and so they withdrew to areas they were able to defend.
The rebel groups claim to have inflicted heavy losses on government forces and allies, estimated at more than 1,500 dead including at least 140 officers and some Russian soldiers, with hundreds more injured.
Still, despite those losses, the HTS understood that the Assad regime will continue is Idlib offensive until it is stopped either by Russia or Turkey.
On Wednesday, February 19, Turkey’s President Recep Erdogan declared open war on Bashar Assad’s army unless his Idlib offensive moves back to “behind Turkish military positions” by the end of the month.
“We are counting down. That is our last warning,” he said.
Turkey was determined to make Idlib a “secure zone” no matter the cost. “We will not leave Idlib to the Syrian regime,” Erdogan declared.
Turkish-Russian talks for resolving the crisis continue.
Kremlin Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov [pictured above] warned Ankara that “an operation against the legitimate authorities of the Syrian Republic and armed forces would be the worst scenario.”
Meanwhile, nearly a million people have been forced from their homes, half of them children since the Syrian offensive began.
The Turkish president’s threat would redouble the human disaster in north-west Syria.
It is becoming obvious that Moscow could do much more to rein in Erdogan’s bellicosity and halt the cruel bloodshed overtaking Idlib than desultory talks and vague threats to Ankara.
Except that President Vladimir Putin’s pledge to restore regime control to all parts of Syria masks an ulterior motive.
He is counting on the gulf between Ankara and fellow members of the North Atlantic Alliance becoming unbridgeable the deeper the Turkish army is mired in the brutal quick sands of northern Syria.
Erdogan will not forgive those allies for refusing to come to his aid.
Russia and Turkey Technically at War??
A week after Israel National News reported that Turkey was on a crash course with Russia over Syria the parties are now at war technically speaking.
This happened after talks between a Turkish delegation and the Kremlin in Moscow about the worsening crisis in north-east Syria and the imminent threat of a new Turkish invasion in Syria over the Idlib Province, which is home to a range of Sunni Islamist groups supported by Turkey, broke-down.
The Turkey-backed Islamist militias in Idlib are on the verge of defeat after the Iranian-Russian-backed pro-Assad coalition rapidly advanced in the last rebel stronghold and even surrounded Turkish observation posts which were set up to monitor a 2018 de-escalation agreement between Russia and Turkey that failed miserably.
China Steals Israel’s Iron Dome Secrets through Electronic “Back Door”….
22 February 2020
Security authorities at IDF General Staff HQ in Tel Aviv discovered last September that the blueprints for Israel’s Iron Dome short-range anti-rocket system had been stolen.
Every attempt to establish how the thief had managed to pierce the layers of physical and electronic security guarding one of Israel’s crown jewels drew a blank.
According to intelligence sources, the finger of suspicion has fallen mainly on the China Ministry of State Security-MSS using Huawei equipment to obtain the data through a “back door.”
Furthermore, many Chinese firms have set up offices in high-rise buildings located very close to Hakirya, Israel’s Security City in Tel Aviv.
Those offices are believed to be used for spying on the IDF General Staff HQ and the Defence Ministry housed there, with the help of sophisticated Huawei electronic equipment.
The theft of the Iron Dome’s secrets, presumably by China, is a highly sensitive matter - and not just for Israel.
It also impinges on its close security and intelligence collaboration with the United States.
The Trump administration, which is pushing hard to isolate Huawei from developing a larger foothold in US partner countries, is furious over Israel’s lackadaisical response to its warnings of Chinese cyber intrusions.
In recent secret conversations, US officials threatened to cut off essential intelligence and technological sharing feeds unless Israel acts to bar China’s incursion of its economy and stops using Huawei wireless networks in building fifth-generation equipment.
The UK’s Boris Johnson has called President Donald Trump’s bluff, followed by Germany and France. All have refused to exclude Huawei from their advanced networks, although all three say they are employing rigorous restrictions to protect their security.
Australia did well to ban Huawei from being involved in this country's coming 5G network!
Purged for Parliamentary Vote, Iran’s “Reformists” Fight for Survival…..
22 February 2020
Ahead of Iran’s elections to parliament (the Majlis) yesterday on Friday, February 21, more than 9,000 contenders for the 290 seats were disqualified by the powerful Guardian Council, most of them reformists, and some 7,000 approved.
This culling process, taking place under the iron fist of supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, made sure to cut the reformist camp out of its standing in the Majils; and distanced the incoming parliament farther than ever before from reflecting the will of the people.
The Guardian Council vehemently denied slashing the list on political grounds, claiming that most of the barred candidates had financial corruption charges pending against them.
President Hassan Rouhani’s son-in-law Kambiz Mehdizadeh was on the list of disqualified candidates on the grounds of nepotism.
The president mocked the Council’s vetting procedure as a charade and has tried to enact a bill calling for a referendum to limit the Council’s infallible authority.
Iran’s moderates face greater odds than ever before.
Short of candidates for running in Friday’s election, 80 filed complaints with the Guardian Council to challenge its dictates.
However, the reformists have not managed to hammer out a consolidated strategy.
Some leading figures like Mohammad Reza Aref,[pictured above] leader of the Hope faction of parliament, opted out of running for re-election. The Supreme Council of Reformist Policy Makers (a coalition of at least 10 factions) declined to submit any list at all.
Other prominent reformists did insist on participating in the vote, including Golamhossein Karbaschi, a former Mayor of Tehran and leader of the Executives of Construction faction, Elias Harzati, head of the National Confidence faction, and Davood Mohammadi, leader of the Islamic Society of Teachers.
Many frustrated reformists, after being marginalised in the current election, believe that their only hope of surviving the regime’s purges depends on how quickly they step outside party frameworks and join forces with the people to create an extra-parliamentary movement for change.
The results will be interesting?
A US-Taliban Peace Deal Close, But Big Questions Remain…..
22 February 2020
President Donald Trump may be closer than ever to fulling his promise to end the United States’ reckless intervention in foreign wars, if he can end the Afghan war, the longest in American history.
After interminable years of negotiations, the radical Taliban is close to signing an accord that would entail a reduction of hostilities, a settlement of the country’s future and the withdrawal of US forces.
The US also appears to be on the way to signing this accord before the end of the month. Its terms are still to be revealed.
Until they are, reliable sources confirm that some provisions have almost certainly been accepted by both sides:
The Taliban has committed to a seven-day period of reduced violence - as a test of its good faith and ability to control its field forces, coupled with a pledge to disassociate from Al-Qaida and other jihadist terrorist organisations.
The US will draw down its forces, initially by 5,000 troops up to an eventual full withdrawal.
While the deal is meant as a frame for the US military departure from Afghanistan, it will also pose a hard test for the country’s assorted groups, when left to their own devices, to be able to come together for viable self-rule.
They have failed in this task consistently for nearly half a century.
| 
No comments:
Post a Comment