Shifting strategic alliances

[BlandOatmeal]

SHIFTING STRATEGIC ALLIANCES

The world political map has been, since the ascension of Barack Obama to the throne of America, undergoing a paradigm shift -- or, alternatively, a series of paradigm shifts. Some of the major movements are:

1. The "Arab Spring" revolutions, of 2011 in which the US called for the ouster of long-standing US Ally Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, and engineered the brutal execution of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. In both these cases, as well as in Tunisia, the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) and Al Qaeda (MB) came out as the big winners. Turkey and Gaza were already ruled by MB-affiliated parties, and the Moroccan government followed suit. When civil strife then broke out in Syria and Yemen as well, President Obama threw his full weight behind these Sunni Islamist parties. The Qataris moved in lock step, investing billions of dollars into the MB government of the new Egyptian President Morsi. The Saudis had been old friends and allies of Hosni Mubarak, and were incensed at Obama's meddling to depose him.

2. The Egyptian counter-revolution of 2013, engineered and financed by Saudi Arabia, removed Morsi; and now the MB is listed there as a terrorist organization -- as is the related HAMAS in Gaza. At the same time as the change of government in Egypt, opposition groups in Tunisia began clamoring to oust their own MB leaders. Libya, meanwhile, has become an anarchic collection of local militias, and a spawning ground for international terrorists. The MB advances in Yemen have been neutralized; and despite MB victories in Morocco, that country's close ties with the Saudis have not been broken.

3. The last stand of the MB, and Obama's backing of it, was in Syria, where the American President drew a "line in the sand" at President Assad's use of chemical weapons. The French, Turks, Qataris, Saudis and Israelis stood firmly with Obama; but then the British deserted him, and he had to go scurrying to the Russians to help him out of the diplomatic corner he had painted himself into. The Russians helped, only to put Obama and the Americans firmly into the Russian-Iranian-Syrian orbit, and to further distance him from the Israelis, Saudis, Egyptians, Turks, Gazans and Qataris.

4. The most damning blunder of Obama in this transaction, has been to allow the Iranians to continue pursuing their program of building a nuclear weapon capability. This has led to flat-out animosity from nearly all Israelis, and has caused the Saudis to go ahead with plans to deploy their own nuclear weapons. Those weapons have been purchased from Pakistan, a close ally of China. India, meanwhile, being an ally of Russia and Japan (which has meanwhile become more unfriendly than ever with China), and a foe of both China and Pakistan, has strengthened ties with the now-American-aligned Iran.

5. There is now a three-way split in the world. The US-British-Russian-Iranian-Indian-Japanese bloc is, of course, the most powerful. A second bloc consists of MB-Al Qaeda remnants: Turkey, Qatar, Gaza and the Syria-Iraq opposition forces (Syria and Iraq have become essentially one country, engaged in a trans-border civil war pitting Shiites against Sunnis). The third block, meanwhile, has been busy collecting allies. The Saudis have lost their old Qatari partners; and other allies such as the UAE are wavering between them and the American-Iranian bloc; but they are strongly allied with Egypt, cooperating as never before with Israel, and now finding a sympathetic friend in France. Italy and Greece, meanwhile, have become increasingly connected with Israel.

It's not over yet.

cf. Turkey Scandal’s Al-Qaeda Angle « Commentary Magazine , for the Saudi-French connection.

​

Our new allies?
​

 

[InformedIgnorance]

5 is bunk.

4 is what is known as a compromise (and it wasnt actually a bad one) thats what people who live in reality do if they arent entirely absorbed by their belief that their rights are preeminent and willing to use force to make it so

3 is reflective of the change in geopolitical positions over the last 15 years rather than indicative of the current administration, american geopolitical position has reduced slightly over the same time that russias has recovered moderately, the result is a significant shift in relative power - one that has merely become more overt recently

1+2 The region is in heavy flux with a huge range of factors contributing to it; some are as you described - others are not even close.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

5 is bunk.

4 is what is known as a compromise (and it wasnt actually a bad one) thats what people who live in reality do if they arent entirely absorbed by their belief that their rights are preeminent and willing to use force to make it so

3 is reflective of the change in geopolitical positions over the last 15 years rather than indicative of the current administration, american geopolitical position has reduced slightly over the same time that russias has recovered moderately, the result is a significant shift in relative power - one that has merely become more overt recently

1+2 The region is in heavy flux with a huge range of factors contributing to it; some are as you described - others are not even close.

You haven't presented any clear picture of the international situation. Reading what you have said, I get the impression you think the world is like a spinning clothes drier, and we're a T-shirt, swirling around in it. That's not very helpful to anyone. Do you have something useful to contribute?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

What the heck does that description of my response even mean?

Were you after respondents to attempt to describe the current world political landscape? because that is not what appeared to be the point of this thread - as the thread did not make any explicit attempt to solicit information of a particular nature, instead I merely responded to the 5 points raised.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

What the heck does that description of my response even mean?

Were you after respondents to attempt to describe the current world political landscape? because that is not what appeared to be the point of this thread - as the thread did not make any explicit attempt to solicit information of a particular nature, instead I merely responded to the 5 points raised.

It means you're just spouting off, and not saying anything of substance. This world is not one, big happy family, as you seem to imagine. We have some 200 entities in this world, called "sovereign states". Some of those states have, or are about to get, nuclear weapons designed to annihilate one another. Those nuclear states, in turn, are allied into blocs for mutual defense.

A. The Americans and Russians, for instance, feel very unthreatened by the Iranians, and therefore they are playing footsie with them.

B. The Saudis and Israelis, on the other hand, are very much threatened by a nuclear Iran, which could wipe them both off the map in a trice. They are not in the footsie business, and have coordinated with one another.

C. The Turks, who already have nuclear weapons, feel alone in the world. Iran is supporting their enemy in Syria, and the Saudis have thrown out their client in Egypt. Meanwhile, US President Obama has deserted them with his "red line" bluff that the Russians called, and he has gone over to their side. American foreign policy now essentially resembles Russian foreign policy.

D. The Middle East does not live in a world of its own: The entire world is tied into it. China relies on Saudi Arabia as its main energy supplier, for instance. China is allied with Pakistan, Pakistan with Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia with Egypt, etc. These countries, of course, are all on America's list to either trash or pack off to Goodwill. Meanwhile, our "pivot to Asia" amounts to deploying troops and garnering allies in places like Australia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Japan and South Korea, in an attempt to encircle China; and the Chinese have not failed to notice this. The Japanese provoked a confrontation with China in the East China Sea, and the US is increasingly confronting China in the Spratleys. That is REALITY. Your pie in the sky is not.

Versteh?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Happy family? Clothes Drier? I think perhaps you are making characterisations about my comments without ever having read them - or perhaps having read them while under the influence.

B is simply false - Israel for example is and has been for a very long time a nuclear power with hundreds of nukes and could wipe Iran off the face of the earth in an instant if they so chose. The only part of C that bears any weight is the very first phrase; the rest of the comment is ludicrously divorced from reality and shows not the slightest comprehensions of the rather tense US-Russia dynamic, for which on both sides, playing up the rhetoric against the other is seen as politically beneficial - the relationship is strained at a time when their -relative- geopolitical positioning has begun to shift in a way that is potentially incredibly destabilising (though potentially far more equitable). D is a relatively sound assessment (though the discussion of Chinese-Japanese relations is a crude oversimplification) - yet the Russian-Chinese angle insufficiently examined.

Nor has your discussion really touched on India in any appreciable way - in many regards, India is paramount to the shifting geopolitical climate, in that it has a more sustainable growth base than china, is among the world's most populace nations, among the largest economic markets and more; it is also a nation which has very complex histories with europe, china, russia and the US - it is arguable that the road that India takes into the later half of this century may determine the future. Nor the emergence of africa and south east asia into a more prosperous state, the contestation for not just resources but geopolitical inffluence and the changing nature of foreign relations as a result of powers needing to revaluate their behaviour at a time when their relative influences are altering. Nor any discussion about how the change in the balance of private vs public power plays into foreign relations; the increasing role of economic interdependance, the opening of markets, perceived exploitation and more.

None of this plays like some happy family crammed into a clothes drier; I merely commented on the poor construction of the post and some of the less reliable content.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

Happy family? Clothes Drier? I think perhaps you are making characterisations about my comments without ever having read them - or perhaps having read them while under the influence.

Hello, Informed. Can the irrelevant remarks, please. At least this time around, you actually gave the name of a country. That's a really big step, in trying to make sense of what's going on in the world. Thank you.

B is simply false - Israel for example is and has been for a very long time a nuclear power with hundreds of nukes and could wipe Iran off the face of the earth in an instant if they so chose.

Reality check: Israel has a total area of 8,019 square miles. The New York Metropolitan Statistical Area has an area of 6,720 square miles. Iran, by contrast, has an area of 636,000 square miles -- nearly 10 times that of Israel. There is simply no comparison when considering target areas.

As for having nukes, the US nuclear program was led by Jewish scientists such as Enrico Fermi, so it should surprise nobody that they have had the capability to produce such weapons since the time they became a state. They built their reactor at Dimona in the late 1950s. They are suspected to have produced nuclear weapons since some time later. If these suspicions are correct, then Israel has been a responsible member of the "nuclear club" for some 50 years. They have not used nuclear weapons in an aggressive capacity; and there should be no wonder about this, since Israel does not lay claim on the land or people of any of its neighbors. Iran, on the other hand, has been openly belligerent, singling out Israel in particular as a nation it wishes to destroy.

Please look at the figures I gave you again, about the size of this tiny country that you seem to think is so key to world strategic planning. It is not. In future posts, please try to stick to reality more, and less to unfounded imaginations.

The only part of C that bears any weight is the very first phrase; the rest of the comment is ludicrously divorced from reality

I have already told you which of us is ludicrously divorced from reality in his statements

and shows not the slightest comprehensions of the rather tense US-Russia dynamic, for which on both sides, playing up the rhetoric against the other is seen as politically beneficial - the relationship is strained at a time when their -relative- geopolitical positioning has begun to shift in a way that is potentially incredibly destabilising (though potentially far more equitable). D is a relatively sound assessment (though the discussion of Chinese-Japanese relations is a crude oversimplification) - yet the Russian-Chinese angle insufficiently examined.

I know the US-Russia dynamic. I've lived through it. We have had nukes pointed at each other, thousands of them, for over 60 years. "Mutually Assured Destruction" works for us, because our two countries, which together occupy a sizeable part of the globe, can both weather a first strike long enough to deliver a killer blow to the other. Those are not the most ideal circumstances to live under, but we have managed in the past and have a good prospect of managing in the future. We have implemented several arms reduction treaties with the Russians; we share intelligence with them, and they are "Partners for Peace" with NATO.

Chinese-Japanese relations are not anywhere near as good as this; and the Chinese and Russians cooperate with one another at arms' length. China has clashed directly with Russia over the years, which we have not done. They have had border incidents with India as recently as a few months ago. I am ACUTELY aware of the deterioration of US-Chinese relations since Obama took office, because my children and grandchildren live there. To me, none of this is a game: It is deeply personal.

Nor has your discussion really touched on India in any appreciable way - in many regards, India is paramount to the shifting geopolitical climate, in that it has a more sustainable growth base than china, is among the world's most populace nations, among the largest economic markets and more; it is also a nation which has very complex histories with europe, china, russia and the US - it is arguable that the road that India takes into the later half of this century may determine the future.

I HAVE touched on India. You just chose to ignore that until now. India's main security concerns are China and Pakistan; so it is unreasonable to try to group them with them -- as I assume you are trying to suggest. Rather, India has a history of good relations with Russia AND Iran, and is VERY interested in opening trade routes to Central Asia. India only has one overseas military base, and this is in Tadjikistan. Just a few days ago, the Iranian fleet visited India, and they plan increased contacts militarily. None of what you have said, points to their lining up with any bloc other than what I have said: India's foreign policy is pointing TOWARDS ever-closer relations with Iran, Russia, Japan (with whom they recently completed joint naval exercises) and the United States; and her main rivals, China and Pakistan, are drawing close to Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

Nor the emergence of africa and south east asia into a more prosperous state, the contestation for not just resources but geopolitical inffluence and the changing nature of foreign relations as a result of powers needing to revaluate their behaviour at a time when their relative influences are altering. Nor any discussion about how the change in the balance of private vs public power plays into foreign relations; the increasing role of economic interdependance, the opening of markets, perceived exploitation and more.

Africa does not have nuclear weapons, nor does Southeast Asia.

None of this plays like some happy family crammed into a clothes drier; I merely commented on the poor construction of the post and some of the less reliable content.

You implied that allowing Iran to continue its march towards producing and deploying nuclear weapons was not an issue people need to be concerned about. That reflects a level of optimism that goes offscale. Whatever you think about this, The Saudis and Israelis are not upbeat; and nothing you say will make them so. Saudi Arabia is exceedingly vulnerable to nuclear attack: Just one bomb striking either Mecca or their oilfields would be disastrous for them. Even more dangerous is the fact that the Gulf States, on whom the Saudis depend for cooperation, are far more vulnerable than even them; and that they can easily be blackmailed by a nuclear power across the Arabian Gulf.

You used some pretty insulting words in your first post, simply dismissing my words as "bunk", with no explanation. I would like you to stop doing that sort of thing. My premise is that there is a major shift going on, in international relations. If you think that is "bunk", then tell me exactly what YOU see. Do you see the world dividing into blocs, as I do? Or do you see everyone somehow "all just getting along", Rodney King-style? If you do believe that blocs are forming, how are the blocs that you see forming different from mine? That would probably be a useful exercise.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

I don't know exactly what "Informed"'s point was; but my point in this exercise is to provide a framework for analyzing the events of the day. One major event has been the expansion of the Syrian War, such that it now completely envelops both Syria and Iraq. In the analysis of the OP, I detailed three major, competing military blocs, which, from a Middle Eastern perspective, are centered in Israel/Cairo/Riyadh, Istanbul/Qatar/Al Qaeda and Tehran/Moscow/Washington. In the conflict in Iraq, cited below, the Istanbul/Qatar/Al Qaeda group is represented by Abu Bakr's Al Qaeda-affiliated groups, along with non-Al-Qaeda Sunnis from western Iraq. The Tehran/Moscow/Washington faction is represented by the Iraqi government troops, led by Iranian officers and equipped by the US:

Distrust hinders U.S.-Iraq fight against resurgent Al Qaeda militants
The militants are seeking control of two of Iraq's major cities, while also playing an increasingly large role in Syria's conflict.

​

Sunni Muslim fighters take up position during a clash with Iraqi soldiers in Fallouja, in Anbar province.
(Mohammed Jalil / European Pressphoto Agency / January 3, 2014)
​

By Paul Richter and David S. Cloud
January 3, 2014, 5:54 p.m.

"WASHINGTON — With insurgents linked to Al Qaeda battling for control of two major Iraqi cities, long-standing suspicion between the Obama administration and the government in Baghdad is hindering joint efforts against a common foe..."

-- Distrust hinders U.S.-Iraq fight against resurgent Al Qaeda militants - latimes.com

US & Iran's First Joint Military Venture: Fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq
Date Posted: 2013-12-29 23:35:04
​

-- US & Iran's First Joint Military Venture: Fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq

 

[BlandOatmeal]

The following was posted today on the Internet, but I believe it is an old map. It reminds me of the situation maps published during the Vietnam War, which all showed the US and its allies firmly in control of nearly all the country, right up to the day the Viet Cong toppled the South Vietnamese.

I looked for a Turkish response at the usual websites, but couldn't find any. Turkey is, at the moment, entangled in a Watergate-style corruption and coverup scandal that is rocking the government. One of the leaks coming out of the investigations, is a note of secret dealings between high officials of the Turkish government and Al Qaeda:

Turkey Scandal’s Al-Qaeda Angle
Michael Rubin | @mrubin1971 12.27.2013 - 8:00 AM

-- Turkey Scandal’s Al-Qaeda Angle « Commentary Magazine

The northeastern part of Iraq is shown on the map as the Kurdish area. The Kurds are divided between the Kurdistan Regional Government, led by Barzani and connected to the Sunni Turks; and the autonomous Syrian Kurds who are locked in combat with Turkish-backed Al Qaeda forces.

Meanwhile, the Russians are, as I noted in previous posts, supporting the same elements as the US is.

Surprise, surprise, surprise!​

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The Middle East and north Africa Has always been an unstable melting pot.
This is not new it goes back to Pre History.
The Coming of Islam under Mohammed did little to stabilise it, but did establish sufficient power to grow, moving north and eastward.
Until the Advent of Oil it had little to sustain this power base.
The oil in the region has started to decline and there is an increased effort to control it, Both locally and by global players, resulting in increased conflict.

In terms of the long term, the power of North Africa and the middle East will decline on the world stage.

The real power struggle will between the Old western world and and the Indian Chinese axis. Even Russia with its vast resources of power and mineral wealth is struggling to find allies and maintain its influence in the world.

America and Europe are net users of resources, in much the same way as Japan and the pacific nations are. It is inevitable that their power will dwindle over time.

The traditional Muslim nations will become irrelevant in this struggle. The Sunni Shiite antagonism will weaken them still further.

No nation thinks and plans long term in the way China does. It is the future world leader.

The wild card in all this is Australia who may well make an impact in future developments.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

Wow, Terry! I'm impressed -- I don't entirely agree, but I'm impressed.

The Middle East and north Africa Has always been an unstable melting pot.

In terms of GOVERNMENTS, the Middle East has... Hmm... let's see. From 1520 to around 1880, the Middle East was under one government, the Ottoman Empire, whereas Europe was divided into many states. The Ottoman Turks were preceded by the Mamluks (mainly of Circassian origin); before that it was the Ayyubids (Kurds) and Fatimids (Berbers). The place wasn't really a "melting pot" of cultures fusing with one another: The Middle East is, and has always been, a land of clans who trace their ancestry back upwards to thousands of years. The terrain lends itself to empires, though.

This is not new it goes back to Pre History.
The Coming of Islam under Mohammed did little to stabilise it, but did establish sufficient power to grow, moving north and eastward.
Until the Advent of Oil it had little to sustain this power base.
The oil in the region has started to decline and there is an increased effort to control it, Both locally and by global players, resulting in increased conflict.

That's more history. The Middle East's main industries have been agriculture and aquaculture, handicrafts and -- more than anything else -- TRADE. Today, much of that trade is locally-produced oil; but even if that runs out, East and West will continue to ply the land and sea routes that cross the area. Even if the Europeans were to get their oil from, say, Indonesia, the Middle East would have strategic importance. It is truly the crossroads of the world. Just look at Iran, for example: They are a large oil exporter, but dependent on imports for gasoline; and the Indians are interested in them as a way to TRANS-ship oil from Central Asia and other parts, and Indian products in the other direction. A big part in Obama wanting to cozy up to the Iranians, in fact, may be so the US will have an alternative to Pakistan, as a way to pull our men and equipment out of Afghanistan.

In terms of the long term, the power of North Africa and the middle East will decline on the world stage.

The real power struggle will between the Old western world and and the Indian Chinese axis. Even Russia with its vast resources of power and mineral wealth is struggling to find allies and maintain its influence in the world.

There is no "Indian-Chinese Axis". There was some attempt for a few years, to strengthen the "Shanghai Cooperation Council", consisting of Russia, China and some states in-between. India is periphally connected with that group, as is Iran. Russia tried to use that group, along with countries like Brazil and South Africa, as a counterweight to the United States. Little came of it, though, outside of some joint exercises. India was in the Russian sphere of influence since the 1960s, when it was invaded by Chinese troops, until the collapse of the Soviet Union. After that, it tried to strengthen relations with the US; and under George W. Bush, those relations were very good. Under Obama's administration, India-US relations soured. At the moment, they have strong ties to both Russia and Israel (their top arms suppliers), Saudi Arabia (their top trading partner), and increasingly with Japan and Iran. China has tried to keep relations upbeat; but they are India's competitor.

America and Europe are net users of resources, in much the same way as Japan and the pacific nations are. It is inevitable that their power will dwindle over time.

Over time, anything can happen. What I'm trying to do here, is sort out these sometimes fleeting relationships, so I and others can make sense of current events.

The traditional Muslim nations will become irrelevant in this struggle. The Sunni Shiite antagonism will weaken them still further.

As you said, the Middle East is unstable. Events can turn on a dime there.

No nation thinks and plans long term in the way China does. It is the future world leader.

That's very flattering to my Chinese son-in-law, but I don't believe it. Japan looked like nothing could stop it in the 1970s; then they met with major setbacks. China will very likely encounter something similar in the future.

The wild card in all this is Australia who may well make an impact in future developments.

You've been playing too much RISK. I was hoping my family could rendezvous there, if things get too ugly in the US and China. I certainly don't wish world prominence for them -- I like the place too much.

Thanks for posting.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Never played Risk in my life
Predicting the future or even understanding what is really going on now, is a mugs game.
But Fun.

I do not think in the long term that it will matter at all what the Middle East and North Africa wants or thinks. they will remain troublesome bit players.

The trade Cross roads as you call it is moving. Perhaps as far as the north East Passage and dominated by Russia. The enlarged Panama Canal, and the overland route between China and India will become increasingly important. The Suez route is becoming dangerous indefensible and unprofitable.

I know you don't believe in the India China Axis, but it has an inevitable synergy.
And if you want a Trinity then throw in Southern Africa.

The USA will become increasingly insular and defensive.

South America will be where the growth and interest will develop. It is potentially a very wealthy continent, doing its best to remain poor. Its two greatest assets, mineral wealth and its people, are squandered by its governments by self interest and corruption.

I think quite soon, The USA will stop trying to find a new roll for itself, as it is not ready to accept a junior position. Its militarism will shrink in line with its sphere of interest. Just as the once world dominant British one did.

Your View of things fits the American perception covering the period from now for perhaps the next twenty years, by which time the play ground and main players will have changed.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

Never played Risk in my life
Predicting the future or even understanding what is really going on now, is a mugs game. But Fun.

Hi, Terry. I'm not trying to predict the future. For what it's worth, I read the last chapter of the book, so I cheated. What I'm doing here, is trying to sort out the present in an understandable way. With all the shifting of alliances going on the past three years -- and especially the past year -- this has been a task unto itself.

I do not think in the long term that it will matter at all what the Middle East and North Africa wants or thinks. they will remain troublesome bit players.

The trade Cross roads as you call it is moving. Perhaps as far as the north East Passage and dominated by Russia. The enlarged Panama Canal, and the overland route between China and India will become increasingly important. The Suez route is becoming dangerous indefensible and unprofitable.

I know you don't believe in the India China Axis, but it has an inevitable synergy.
And if you want a Trinity then throw in Southern Africa.

The USA will become increasingly insular and defensive.

South America will be where the growth and interest will develop. It is potentially a very wealthy continent, doing its best to remain poor. Its two greatest assets, mineral wealth and its people, are squandered by its governments by self interest and corruption.

I think quite soon, The USA will stop trying to find a new roll for itself, as it is not ready to accept a junior position. Its militarism will shrink in line with its sphere of interest. Just as the once world dominant British one did.

Your View of things fits the American perception covering the period from now for perhaps the next twenty years, by which time the play ground and main players will have changed.

As I said, I can't say "yea" or "nay" to any of that. I've got some ideas, but I don't want to encourage a discussion of the future here.

Concerning the present, I've presented three blocs so far (I'll list the major countries I think belong in each):

1. US America, Japan, UK Britain, Russia, India, Iran, Philippines, (Hizbullah, PLO)

2. China, France, Italy, Saudi Arabia, Hong Kong, Egypt, Greece, Israel, Pakistan

3. Turkey, (Al Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood, Gaza)

undecided: Germany, Brazil, Canada, Australia, Spain, Mexico, S Korea, Indonesi, Netherlands, Switzerland, Swede, Norway, Poland, Belgium, Argentina, Austria, Thailand, S Africa, U Arab Em, Venezuela, Colombia, Denmark, Malaysia, Singapore, Chile, Nigeria, Finland

You can see that I haven't even tried to categorize much of the world. I'm trying to sort out the Middle East, where the real action has been lately, and put it into a global strategic context. Notice that I have NATO members in all three groups; even though ON PAPER, they are all presumably on the same page.

NATO's most recent escapade as a united entity has been Afghanistan, which they all seem eager to abandon and forget about. Not only has the US not provided strong leadership for NATO recently, but it seems patently obvious that the US does not WANT to lead NATO at the moment: My country is ENTIRELY in-turned, and this cuts across party lines.

I will try to fill in the rest of the map, as events seem to merit it. Al Qaeda is in the news a lot, the past few days. They have just declared Fallujah to be the capital of the Islamic Caliphate, and the US has just washed its hands of involvement there.

There is one interesting article about North Korea:

Report: North Korea's Kim Fed Uncle to Dogs
Friday, 03 Jan 2014 11:38 AM
By Drew MacKenzie

"North Korean leader Kim Jong Un had his uncle stripped naked, thrown into a cage, and eaten alive by a pack of 120 ravenous hounds, according to a Chinese report...

"The detailed account of the brutal execution was published in Wen Wei Po, a Hong Kong-based mouthpiece of China's ruling communist party...

"The fact that Beijing approved the report of the horrifying execution reveals that relations between China and North Korea have reached an all-time low, says the Singapore-based Straits Times...

"However, The Washington Post said Friday that the report may not be true, claiming Wen Wei Po, although linked to the communist party, is more like Hong Kong's version of the National Enquirer..."

-- North Korea's Kim Fed Uncle to Dogs

I'm interested in the above, because I'm wondering how North Korea fits in with all this. As for South Korea, its leader and China's leader are on the best of terms, so it's significant if China-NORTH Korean relations are headed the other direction. As far as N. Korea is from the Middle East, they have been closely involved there: The Iranian nuclear and rocketry programs have been linked for years with North Korea's, with Pakistan as a surreptitious third player. The most interesting possibility to me, would be if China and South Korea coordinated their stragegies to put Kim Jong Un in his place. Whatever happens with the Geneva group and Iran, North Korea is the other half of the same story.

If you want to see a LITTLE prediction, I strongly feel that Iran will leave the Russians and Americans down with their nuclear weapons program. At the moment, they have enough highly enriched uranium to produce several bombs in short order -- so soon, that by the time anyone notices what's happened, it will be a done deal. Of the Geneva group, only the French seem to be concerned about the matter, which is one big reason I have put them in the Saudi camp.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

WHAT IS IT WITH JAPAN?

After listing countries in three competing blocs in the last post, one thing occurred to me: The vast majority of countries in the world do not even think in terms of "blocs", much less of international confrontation. We are in a situation where the concept of war has become nebulous to people in First World countries, where war is seen as something that is endemic to the Middle East and Third World, but never strikes thriving, traditionally industrial societies. That is why I had to put so many countries in the "undecided" category.

I even heard a news commentator say today, that the world has become not bipolar, unipolar or multipolar, but "zero-polar". What was he trying to say, in this Freudian slip? That we have entered a phase of international anarchy? I don't think so: If he really thought this, he would have been concerned about it; and he wasn't.

The "polarity" of the world goes this way:

1. The US is, by far, the most powerful country in the world. We can project our military diplomacy anywhere on earth with our 10 supercarriers (more than all the rest of the world together, many times over), threaten any state that would dare attack us with nuclear weapons because of a massive ballistic-missile nuclear submarine fleet, and have superiority not only in the air, but also in space, from which we can spy at will and rain destruction on anyone we want. As Mr. Snowden recently showed, moreover, we listen in on every electronic conversation of everyone all the time. Any nation that would seriously want to challenge our dominant poistion, as the Germans dared challenge the British in WWII, would be facing an economic investment none are willing to make.

2. All the major economies of the world are interested in peace; because peace means free trade, free trade makes the richest people ever richer, and those rich people control the world's major economies.

3. War, of course, is so rampant in some places, that it is considered "normal" This is especially true in Central Africa (the region, not just the country) and the Middle East. This is where the rivalries I am showing, by means of these "blocs", are the most intent.

It intrigues me, therefore, when I see developments in parts of the world far from the conflict area, between industrial countries, that could flare into open warfare if our leaders work hard enough at it. I'm not talking about the bubbling cauldron of Mexico, right next to the US, where a drug war more bloody than the Afghanistan conflict has been raging, with virtually no press coverage, for years. I'm talking about China, Korea and Japan. Nearly 70 years after the end of WWII, those countries still haven't delineated mutually acceptable borders between them, as shown in the map below:

​

What's more interesting, is that the building belligerence there doesn't follow "Cold War" lines: Traditionally US-aligned Taiwan is siding with China over the Diaoyu/ Senkaku Islands dispute; and US-occupied South Korea, which is formally allied with Japan, is siding with China over the Japanese PM's visit to a war shrine honoring Japanese soldiers who committed genocide against the Chinese and Koreans long, long ago. North Korea, meanwhile, which occasionally rattles its sabers to get attention, is largely ignored by everyone.

The US, meanwhile, has become the world's Bozo. We have the power to destroy the world, but are led around by the nose by third-rate countries like Iran. We're trying to "pivot to Asia", whatever that's supposed to mean; but the countries in that region have come around to the understanding that All we have to offer are empty threats and promises; and that, when push comes to shove, every country must act in its own interest.

I imagine that's what the commentator meant, when he said the world had become "zero-polar". The problem is, that it has not become this: The poles are still there; and I am quite certain that in a few years, as the veneer of (US-led) unity becomes thinner, those nuclear powers that feel so non-threatened nowadays will, at the drop of a hat, begin hurling their bombs at one another.

Jesus said the end times would be like the days of Noah, with everyone completely engrossed in vain pursuits right up to the end. I believe him.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

THE MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS

There have been so many failed "Middle East Peace Initiatives", that I counted Kerry's latest publicity stunt as typical Washington domestic politics. Some interesting things have arisen out of the process, though:

I. The Israelis and Americans are actually talking about drawing lines along ethnic divides, instead of fro inflated historical claims by both sides. Under the most reasonable Israeli-American proposals, Israel would get lands actually inhabited by Jews, and "Palestine" would get lands actually inhabitabited by Arabs -- DISREGARDING the temporary cease-fire lines known as the "1967 borders". This is so close to reasonable, that Palestinian Arabs on both sides of the 1967 "Green Line" are losing sleeep over the prospect, viz:

Israeli Arabs: We Do Not Want to Live in Palestinian State
by Khaled Abu Toameh
January 6, 2014 at 5:00 am

-- Israeli Arabs: We Do Not Want to Live in Palestinian State :: Gatestone Institute


II. The other thing that caught my attention, is that there is one country that is more opposed than Israel is, to the prospect of an armed Palestinian Arab presence on the "West Bank" of the Jordan River: The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan:

Gloom in Kerry’s party over widening Israeli-Palestinian gaps. Jordan rejects Palestinian security on its border
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report January 5, 2014, 10:19 PM (IDT)

-- Gloom in Kerry

Israel, meanwhile, appears ready to annex the overwhelmingly Jewish-inhabited third of pre-1967 "Palestine" (actually, 1948-1967 Jordanian Occupied Territories) known as the "Jordan Valley Security Corridor". The annexation bill has been approved for presentation to the knesset, but apparently little or no action has been taken on it. Annexation would cause the area to be governed by the same laws and procedures as other parts of Israel, such as Tel Aviv, Haifa, Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.

As I said, I give the Kerry proposals a ZERO or LESS chance of succeeding; but it's interesting to note that Israel and Jordan are both moving towards a common solution to the "Palestinian" headache -- to the chagrin of ultra-corrupt "Palestinian" leaders such as Mahmud Abbas.


III. In a previous post, I noted that Gaza's ruling HAMAS party, which seeks the establishment of an Islamist Caliphate, is akin to and allied with the ruling AKP party of Turkey, as well as Al Qaeda and connected groups fighting in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Chechnya, Lebanon, Tunisia, Mali, Nigeria and Somalia. This is a strategic bloc that controls very little politically or militarily, but has a tremendous hold on the hearts and minds of young Muslims across the globe who are willing to lay down their lives for Allah. It recruits from an endless supply of zealous followers, such as the Boston Marathon bombers, and has cost the world powers hundreds of billions of dollars in wars like Afghanistan, and in draconian measures such as the Transportation Security Administration in the US.

Mahmud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority (known by Liberals and other fantacists as the "State of Palestine"), meanwhile, has given its allegience to Bashar al Assad of Syria and his Iranian and Russian backers. He is under military attack, though, by supporters of the Turkey-HAMAS-Al Qaeda bloc:

Heavily armed militias wrest control of West Bank Palestinian refugee camps from Palestinian Authority
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report January 7, 2014, 9:47 AM (IDT)

- Heavily armed militias wrest control of West Bank Palestinian refugee camps from Palestinian Authority


IV. I was curious to find out what Saudi Arabia's take on all this was. The other day, I read that the Saudis see little value in them, the Israelis, Jordan or ANYONE relying on the United States being the guarantor of any security agreement. The latest in the Western press today, on the other hand, is very upbeat about "positive results" in Kerry's negotiations with the Saudi king -- results which a Palestinian Arab spokesman has rejected without even hearing them. To clear up the confusion, I checked the ARAB NEWS, a Saudi-based news outlet. Their headlines were:

1. 187 million in US shiver as ‘polar vortex’ arrives
2. Syria peace meet must seek future without Assad: Turkey PM
3. US speeds up drone, missile deliveries to aid Iraq
4. Pressure mounts on Bangladesh PM after walkover re-election
5. Lawyer for Indian diplomat seeks delay in visa fraud case

Did you notice something missing -- such as ANY mention of Kerry, Israel or "Palestine"? I did. It seems that as of a couple of days ago, the only one in Saudi Arabia interested in the "Kerry Proposals" was John Kerry himself; and now that he's gotten on the plane and left, there is nobody left in the Kingdom who gives a hoot.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

SOMETHING ROTTEN IN EAST ASIA

Japanese PM Abe (center) at Yasukuni Shrine

​

Something rotten is going on in East Asia. The details of it are rather innocuous to Western eyes, especially to the eyes of a younger generation that hasn't even been presented an accurate picture of WWII, much less lived through it. In recent weeks, Japan and China alike have conjured up the character "Valdemort", of Harry Potter stories, each accusing the other of being the Dark Lord. I personally have not seen that particular bit of British fiction as resembling the recent antics of the two countries, but the work of another British author, Jasper Fforde, and his science fiction comedy "Something Rotten".

In "Something Rotten", the protagonist, Thursday Next, is out to correct a literary aberration: A minotaur has escaped from a Greek legend about ancient Crete, and asserted himself into a Cowboy story set in Nebraska. Once Next has read herself into the story, she can sense the nearness of plot abnormalities by the sudden occurence of slapstick. At one point, the Minotaur slips out of the Western and into a British setting, where he threatens the life of the Prime Minister. Next knows she is on the right trail, when a piano suddenly falls from the roof of a tall building, nearly killing her.

Fast forward to December, 2013 in Japan. The new Prime Minister there, Shinzo Abe, visits a Shinto War shrine honoring convicted Japanese War criminals. This predictably sets off an international incident between Japan and fellow modern economic giants China and Korea. This is slapstick: it doesn't fit into a story about globalization, a resurgent, democratizing Asia and the peaceful flow of diplomacy and commerce. Mr. Abe seems like a character read into the plot from a different story, a story from long ago when a religious nationalism led Japan into a war wherein soldiers counted it an honor to sacrifice their lives for the Emperor. Yet there it was, a falling piano trying to injure every country in the region. This comes with the backdrop of another bit of slapstick, Japan's claiming of sovereignty over some uninhabited islands that are far from Japan, but just off the coast of Taiwan.

​

Someone once said that the only things that are untrue about fiction are the places, names and dates; the rest is true. That same person said that the only things that are TRUE about NONfiction are the places, names and dates. Fiction is able to capture the essence of real life, because it deals with the spiritual world -- or, for those spooked by the term "spiritual", it's equivalent meaning: the unseen world. B-52 bombers flying over Vietnam and aircraft carriers deployed in the Persian Gulf are real, tangible things: They are nonfiction. The reasons they are in their respective places, however, are unseen things, what the Bible calls "spirits". Most of us have seen ships and airplanes; but none of us have ever seen "Communism", or "Ba'ath Socialism" or "Shi'ite Islam". Those are not tangible things; they are ideas, things that implant themselves in people's minds and produce results in the real world -- sometimes results that cause incredible damage and loss of life.

This is what is going on today in Japan. The Chinese have accused Abe of conjuring up Valdemort from his horcrux in a Shinto shrine; and the Japanese have accused the Chinese of the same; but the life of this demon is not in any horcrux; it is in the mind, in the historical narratives of these people; and it is real and deadly.

Are there any other horcruxes in the world? Put another way, are there other places we should expect to see pianos falling from high buildings? I can name a few: Iran, "Palestine", Venezuela and Washington, DC, to name just a few.

Valdemort
​

 

[BlandOatmeal]

AL QAEDA VICTORY IN IRAQ

I am not going to say what some may think I am about to say: No, Al Qaeda-linked ISIL fighters have not broken out of Fallujah, which is surrounded by US-built tanks and under fire from American-supplied helicopters and drones; and yes, allied Al Qaeda-linked ISIS forces in northern Syria have had to turn over their positions to other anti-Assad rebels, sometimes with considerable fighting. And yes, in Afghanistan, and all Asia and Africa, Al Qaeda-linked groups have scored no siginificant victories.

So, where is their victory? The victory of Al Qaeda is that by occupying Fallujah and Ramadi in Iraq, the Al Qaeda forces have shone a light on US-Shi'ite complicity, a complicity that puts them on the same side as Syrian dictator Bashir al Assad and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. In other words, ISIL has linked the Syrian and Iraqi conflicts. I wonder how that will wash in the US Congress, once the senators and congressmen realize what's going on.

In Syria, a major pullout by ISIL-linked ISIS forces (in at least some cases, to reinforce ISIL in Iraq) has led to their takeover by forces of the Jaysh al-Mujahideen (JAM). This begs the question of just who these newcomers are:

Religious in the nature, the Mujahideen Army takes on a more nationalist tone in its rhetoric. The militant group is believed to have an ideology similar to that of fellow Iraqi insurgent group, the Islamic Army in Iraq (IAI). In May 2006 the Mujahideen Army released a statement condemning Iraq's ethnic and sectarian infighting and urged Iraqis to work "with a sense of national and religious responsibility for the sake of future generations." In late January 2006 the Mujahideen Army issued a communiqué calling for attacks against Denmark and Norway in response to the publication of cartoons depicting the Islamic prophet Muhammad in several Danish newspapers.They also threatened attacks following controversial comments made by Pope Benedict XVI in September 2006. They announced their intention to "destroy their cross in the heart of Rome… and to hit the Vatican...

-- Mujahideen Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[The Syrian Jaish al-Muhajireen wal-Ansar] is composed of diverse nationalities. While the commander is a Chechen, other fighters are French and Turkish. Many of them are veterans from other conflicts. The Syrian rebels refer to them as "Turkish brothers." The Chechen rebel news agency, Kavkaz Center, has described the Brigade as being made up of Mujahideen from the Caucasus Emirate, Russia, Ukraine, Crimea, and other CIS countries

-- Jaish al-Muhajireen wal-Ansar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In other words, "Exit Tweedle-dee, enter Tweedle-dum". In neighboring Ar-Raqqah Province, ISIS was expelled by a coalition of rebel forces. A spokesman credited much of the success in both Aleppo and Raqqah to a group called Liwa al-Tawhid. Let's see who THEY are:

Liwa al-Tawhid, or the al-Tawhid Brigade (Arabic: كتائب التوحيد‎, English: Unity Brigade) is a unit of the Syrian Islamic Liberation Front which was involved in the Battle of Aleppo. The brigade was formed in order to coordinate the battle for Aleppo and was originally composed of three subunits: the Fursan al-Jabal Brigade, the Daret Izza Brigade and the Ahrar al-Shamal Brigade. According to international news agencies like Reuters, or newspapers like Al-Ahram or As-Safir, al-Tawhid is a Qatari-backed brigade which had ties with the Muslim Brotherhood.

-- Al-Tawhid Brigade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is noteworthy that although the press has dubbed the ISIL fighters in Fallujah as "Al Qaeda", Al Qaeda itself recently divorced itself from them:

"The Nusra Front, Al-Qaeda’s official affiliate in Syria, was established in mid-2011 with help from ISIL’s Iraqi precursor. The Iraqi group’s chief later sought to merge with Al-Nusra, but they rejected the alliance and pledged allegiance directly to Al-Qaeda chief Ayman Al-Zawahiri..."

-- Syrian fighters capture Al-Qaeda HQ in Aleppo | Arab News

Even if ISIL and ISIS were completely wiped out, then, Al Qaeda would still stand tall. Also note that Jayish al-Muhajireen is connected with Turkey (which borders their main area of activity, and is probably a vital supply link); and that its leaders are veterans of the Chechen insurgency against Russia. As I have been saying, this war is not a local matter; it is a strategic battle being carried out by proxy, much like the Vietnam War of the 1960s and 70s -- only this time, we are on the same side as the Russians.

Notice that I have treated Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood as being seamlessly connected to one another. In Egypt's Sinai Peninsula, the anti-government insurgency is being conducted by the Muslim Brotherhood, operating out ot HAMAS-controlled Gaza, and an Al Qaeda affiliate. In Syria, the recent takeover of ISIS positions by Jayish al-Muhajireen and al-Tawhid and others was a personal matter, triggered by the killing of an Ahrar al-Sham commander, Hussein Suleiman (known as Abu Rayan) by ISIS. Up until this point, ISIS had a close working relationship with Ahrar al-Sham, al-Tawhid and al-Nusra. Turkey and Qatar have tried to distance themselves publicly from Al Qaeda; but where it matters on the battlefront, they are of one cloth.

The Saudis, by the way, are not enthusiastic about what's going on in either Iraq or Syria, as they've been largely left out of the action.

This is a tough conflict to follow. I hope this has been helpful.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

ZECHARIAH 14 IN ACTION

Zechariah 14 talks about the united nations of the world (read, "the UN") attacking Israel. If General Assembly resolutions were bombs, Israel would have disappeared by now.

2013 at the UN: 21 resolutions against Israel, 4 on rest of the world
Published on November 25, 2013 in General Assembly

-- http://blog.unwatch.org/index.php/2...esolutions-against-israel-4-on-rest-of-world/

Did someone here say the world isn't focused on the Middle East? They certainly are; but their eyes are unable to focus on lack of religious freedom in Saudi Arabia, imprisoned journalists in Turkey and chemical weapons in Syria. If the size of Israel were proportional to the UN resolutions against it, it would occupy most of the continents.

It is no exaggeration, to say that the UN lives in an alternate reality, divorced even from the national policies of its member countries. IN this altered reality, there is a bloc of countries consisting of the United States, Canada, Micronesia, Palau and Israel; and another bloc centered on the Arab League. In this altered universe, the Syrians love the Saudis, the Egyptians love the Turks, the Pakistanis love the Indians, The Chinese love the Japanese, the North Koreans love the South Koreans, the Georgians love the Russians and the Iranians love almost everyone; but Israel is actively at war with nearly the whole world.

The UN vote seems like a fantasy, when matched up against today's realities of competition, wars and conspiriacies; but there will come a time, probably in only a few years, when the UNGA vote will translate into a military attack; and in that day, the US, Canada, Micronesia and Palau will not be standing with Israel. In the meantime, life goes on.

Zech 14
[1] Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.
[2] For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

SPENDING ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS

As hundreds of millions of people across the globe go hungry, the nuclear-armed nations spend close to US$300 million a day on their nuclear forces...

Country 2010 2011
United States $55.6bn $61.3bn
Russia $9.7bn $14.8bn
China $6.8bn $7.6bn
France $5.9bn $6.0bn
United Kingdom $4.5bn $5.5bn
India $4.1bn $4.9bn
Israel $1.9bn $1.9bn
Pakistan $1.8bn $2.2bn
North Korea $0.7bn $0.7bn
Total $91.0bn $104.9bn

-- Spending on nuclear weapons | ICAN

For a world whose only significant enemy is apparently Israel, isn't that a lot of spending? Do all those countries think Israel will attack them? That's a lot of money to throw down the drain, for a world at peace!

BTW, Zechariah 14 seems to indicate that these weapons will not be used against Israel, but against one another:

Zech 14
[12] And this shall be the plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.
[13] And it shall come to pass in that day, that a great tumult from the LORD shall be among them; and they shall lay hold every one on the hand of his neighbour, and his hand shall rise up against the hand of his neighbour.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

HOW TO MAP ALLIANCES: LOOK FOR THE WARS.

The best way to understand strategic alliances in the world, is to map the wars they engender. For instance, at present, we have active conflicts going on in the following places:

​

SRC: List of ongoing armed conflicts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The hottest action at the moment is in, from R to L, with some meandering:

1. Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is an outgrowth, as some may no longer remember, of our attempt to catch the perpetrators of the attack on the World Trade Center, etc. 0n 9/11/2001. We fingered CIA-funded Osama bin Laden as the culprit, and went after him with guns blazing. Nine years later, we actually killed him -- not in a court of law, which could have unveiled his involvement, but in a covert assasination by US Navy Seals. That was two years ago, and we are still there.

2. Yemen: Muslim on Muslim. Al Qaeda, Saudi Arabia and Iran all seem to be involved -- besides, of course, Barack Obama and his drones.

3. Somalia: Muslim fanatics, with piracy as a sideline. It's a proxy war, fought along tribal lines. All the competing sides are Sunni Muslims.

4. Sudan-South Sudan-Central African Republic. This was, replete with genocide and cannibalism, appears to be about diamonds and other minerals, despite occasional attempts of both sides to use religion. The big victor so far, besides the smugglers, seems to be Cholera.

5. Iraq-Syria-Lebanon, where the main action is Sunni-on-Shi'a violence and visa-versa. We are backing the Shi'ites, as are the Iranians and Russians. Up until last September, we were backing the Sunnis. These things change -- Read Orwell's "1984".

5. Muslim-Christian strife in Nigeria. The main instigator is Boko Haram (q.v.). These are conservative Muslims, who want to shield their faithful from their arch-enemy, the teaching of modern science.

7. Mexico. This may come as a surprise, since Mexico is not a Muslim country. It is involved, however, in all the above conflicts.; because it involves the drug trade.

The drug trade, along with "blood diamonds", slave-trading and many other illicit activities are of friends of wars. One symptom of the current conflict, is the recent heroin epidemic in rural Vermont. The epidemic is fueled by cheap heroin flooding the market from US-controlled Afghanistan. Ironically, the Taliban, Muslim extremists whom we have sought to eradicate in that country, had largely stopped Afghanistan's part in that trade until the Americans and others came. Now, Afghanistan produces over 80% of the world's heroin. Something similar happened during the Vietnam War, when Laos, Thailand and Burma were the center of heroin production. The following article tells about the connection between war, terrorism and illegal drugs:

What Everyone Should Know About Legal Pot And Terrorism
By Zack Beauchamp on January 8, 2014 at 1:50 pm

​

-- What Everyone Should Know About Legal Pot And Terrorism | ThinkProgress