The Division of the Ottoman Empire; Pan Arabs and WWII Allies, containment and fuel. Draft

BR regionally located; Sykes- Pico: russia – north Iran Brit s Iran Fr – Iraq but taken by Br with Palestine, Jordan (cont land to Indian colonies)

Pan Arab flags

Fr left with Syria Lebanon.Russia believe Br cant take Iran alone, Arabs hope for break away ottomans SA/palestine/iraq/iranian muslim empire
So all these plans were thwarted by realities of regional nationality, geog and economics – sides drawn from the powerful west, for oil deals. lawrence Arabia the arab/br race to damascus taking jerusalem…then the Br sabotage arab functioning state (water etc) meanwhile fr invade lebanon into syria 1920, planes tanks v cavalry, Iraq rebels v br br bombs bagdad planes (1st time ever)Lloyd George
Faisal loses kingdom syria – brits buy him with kingdom iraq

thus two fake states Iraq and Syria, iraq as a name invented by br

turkey created with persian kurds; buffer russia in caucus, kurds divdied into 3 states iran iraq syria (turkey), thus stopped from uniting, also why create Lebanon? Divide and rule borders.

backdrop – ghndi Irish Egypt rebel against br empire, communicating campaigns, within cairo unrest coptic christians develop ideal of pan arabism, United arab reps, secular and socialist, by 1920 br hand regional control to
ww2 france falls fast, Vichy rule means syria is technically a Nazi ally. Br invades Syria blodily, and they supress the news from reaching home of this agression. Iraq rebels. to quell issues liberal indep promises emerge to lebanon and syria. 1946 indep syria, dem elections and hope, multicultural and affluent region; but cia get involved and assassinate elected president in 1949. This breaks down cohesion between sides and 20 years of political unrest follow, with little recourse to dem principle. Syrian gov request egyptian annexe in 1958 worried in case of communist incursion, Nassar creates United Arab Republic lasts to 1961 (meanwhile suez and israeli egypt war?) because of Nassar misrule, but they are interested in pan arab state – Yemen and Sudan had joined egypt and syria between these years.
War plan red sentiment; and anti pan arabism were arguably USA’s main strategies before fighting communism after 1950 and the weakening of the Truman doctrine. As a result the Americans and Russians funded the communist movements across the region and especially in Iraq, to keep British influence to a minimum, and stop socialist pan arabism (this also follows why USA supported Israel when brit supported palestine. and no support came for suez, with NATO keeping European issues focussed on division)
In Iraq the socialists controlled a shaky deal with the communists; thus they either want unity in an arab rep or soviet, and retake kuwait taken from the region by br in 1900, (1958). So eisenhower invades Lebanon under humanitarian lies of deescalating an impending civil war. This serves to stop their entity in the pan arab state and divide territory with a beach head and prove that willing to act in Iraq/Egypt/Syria. Iraq was told if they take KUwait then the US will use nuclear war. see pan arab flag states today. Gossum was assassinated by the CIA as a result in 63(they put him there); thus Iraq spends a period of over ten years without stability on government and paves the way for Saddam Hussein.

1970 syria stabilizes, but:

Israel – created 48 by UN by dividing regions of Palestine into 8. giving the central 3 regions to the Jewish settlers )already there recreating Judea) with Jerusalem as UN administered city. BUT PAlestine was to be secular for the three religions to live together, hypocritical because the JEwish state is anomalous.  war ensues in the region and the Israeli state takes much more territory than originally pledged, 72percent.  There is a natural balance between Israeli policy and the US anti pan arab policy, with Britain out of their way finally, after Nassar, Suez, the failed palestinian mandate, loss of control in Syria Lebanon, and Iraq, (Jordan and Iran? Yemen, Aden? Kuwait? Afghanistan?)(NOrth African influences? MOrocco Libya and tunisia) (Arab Spring therefore is in line with the anti us arab unification policy, but also favors replacing embedded rulers of Syria and Libya, (Kingdoms of Jordan and Saud, failure of Shah)

Gossum Iraq (reiterated the cause to united arabs (Egypt Sudan Syria Iraq and Yemen all have the UAR flag)
(Dr Roy Casagranda

Br navy switch to oil power

Advertisements

Yemen: a geographical human story.

middle-east (1)

Geography:

  • In terms of the human story a crossing point with relatively short distance of sea between two continents and the first departure point of Africa in the human migration story.  The coastal area of the Arabian peninsula the most likely to support life in the region, with the seas proximity for food and better climate conditions.  Than the northern mountain range along the red sea and the desert conditions of the peninsula itself.
    • central between the landmasses of North/Central Africa and the near or M east.
    • With a natural migratory route between them and also heading north towards the Russian Steppe and SE Europe.
    • It is an isolated pocket, and has played a strategic role throughout history.
    • The British port of Aden being a vital link between the northern and southern oceans and a logistical support for potential empire in Egypt and north into the Levant.
    • US ‘red’ plan indicates their policy desires of dismantling the British empire; thus is Aden and it’s locality a desirable location for a future US Base, or linked by a Saudi base.
    • Ethnicity – Houthis’ mountain state, separates the lowland governance from the hinter lands.  Naturally cannot control mountainous areas, perfect for guerrilla war and discreet settlements.
    • https://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/08/yemen-houthis-hadi-protests-201482132719818986.html
    • Saleh’s western leaning government challenged by a Shia protest and popular rising: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Abdullah_Saleh

Draft The Six Day War; a lack of resolution and recurring tensions.

southeastern_mediterranean

 

lost territories lingering injustices revival foundation stories cultural movement failure of politics

pre status quo int doubt on israel, oil popularity post war holiday

US post truman doctrine economic geostrategy quasi imperiaists

post sq british decline egypt too isr status capital invest saudi woo russian contain, arab interference afgh iran iraq

US Fears of Nuclear Tension, Allied policy, and international momentum.

kim sk pres
source

Macron returns tho Europe to add to confusion about the strength of the Iranian Nuclear Deal, with renewed UK, French and German support, added to by Russia and a call between Putin and Macron, with a coming visit by Netanyahu to speak to the Russian Premier about Iranian affairs, with emphasis perhaps on Rusia’s support for the Arab Republic.  Elsewhere, Kim Jong Un has been puting detail to the initiatives by him and the South Korean premier in the surprising new bid for peace between the two states. They will synchronise the NK timezone to fall in with Soul this week.  His change of heart came after visiting China in the Spring, with international tensions between the USA and NK at an all time high.  Trump’s fans are crying for his nomination for Nobel, despite the bad reaction North Korea had from his earlier attempt’s at persuasion, sending missiles over Japanese airspace in the most extreme act of nuclea instabiity since the height of the Cold War.

The US will deny the deal’s soundness however, and Trump has been busy claiming accoloation for changing Macron’s stance on the deal, while Macron is said to have persued Trump of it’s gravity.  The Trump PR campaign is on a roll since the Syrian strike, and his implicit claims of brokering the peace deal between the Korea’s, despite the US not having taken part in negotiations, only military exercises.  In the latest development, Trump has also contacted Britain’s PM, if not to persuede against the Iranian deal , then to assure a guarranteed joint stance in the overall initiative to de-nuclearize the emerging enemies of the Allied Coalition of the west.  Johnson voiced these sentiments ahead of a trip to the US to discuss international policies.  He said,

“united in our effort to tackle the kind of Iranian behavior that makes the Middle East region less secure – its cyber activities, its support for groups like Hezbollah, and its dangerous missile program, which is arming Houthi militias in Yemen,”

To reinforce the US position overall, while retaining the European consesus for the deal with Iran.

It is certainly difficult to read US policy and current affairs; at times they seem distinctively separate. While Trump entered office against the establishment candidate, he is bound by certain American premises: militarism is economically beneficial, and powerful as a diplomatic tool; that no other state should act independently in world affairs, post suez crisis and the threat of loss of control in Asia and the Middle East. But with the Cold War won the latest moves against Russia and the continuity of its Rogue shaming has highlighted a growing movement away from Pax Americana; and with the world less likely to trust American and Western European policing, largely through media revelations and government policy revelations from post war history; the nuclear question is unclear. Added to it is technological advancement, paranoid states are devising more effective personnel free defense systems.

Centennial militarism is here – the world has progressed to a new post ideological age without a philosophy emerging from postmodern utopia; states developing ideals in the last century have struggled to reconcile the distrust apparent in western governance models, and the alternative failure of socialism in developing states. Foreign policies of the great powers still Balkanize regions world wide but have less dominance and thus leave a dearth of direction and control.

Two camps and economies are emerging and America knows this and deems it will destabilize the opposition. Skeptics defer to history and political failures. While we trust in our governments they trust in unscrupulous friendships and covert interference. Perhaps we know longer hold the post war trust and fear international and personality motivations.

The emerging direction of the Chinese led move from American dominance holds greater meaning than the demise of the Breton Woods solution to international chaos. Can proliferation solve these empirical threats? Probably not. Is economic currency fluidity the thin line between major conflict and distrustful peace? Probably.

As domestic political stability reels from polarization, we are not reading our founding treatise anymore. We are not forging ahead. We are stagnating with the dangerous consequences waylaid by modernist escape in the present. Well those in the first world, the rest hold faith still in Utopianism that ranges violently between political and religious philosophies.

Netanyahu, Iran: rhetoric and silence while the US pledges support and withdrawal.

img_6005-1

Netanyahu has outlined a briefing and attack on Iranian military nuclear motivation, ahead of Washington’s decision later this month as to whether to refute the hard fought deal secured by international negotiators. He came under attack around the media for yet another self styled presentation, and for the hypocrisy as a leader of a nuclear state.

Unmentioned was his navigation of the reception of Pompeo recently – in light of the now widely suggested belief that it was Israel that struck Syrian military bases on Sunday, with reports of Iranian military casualties.  Iran has not leveled any accusations as they did earlier in April when the two states clashed over Syrian airspace.  All eyes are towards Israel’s actions in the region, with Israel intent upon stopping supply lines to Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon.

However, there was an announcement yesterday of a change to the US defense objective in Syria; largely to show that Trump is against overseas policing objectives, thus the Republican Administration’ policy and objectives may not run parallel, nevertheless they are serving his support base.  The new units will be targeting Islamic State pockets of resistance in the loosely controlled eastern areas of Syria. We must accept that though the unclaimed strike occurred before Pompeo arrived, he did not seem to show displeasure meeting the Israeli leader, and all is, therefore, in concordance to the new joint Saudi, Israeli and US direction.  Pompeo is aligning states against an Iranian led Shi’ite dominant policy, it looks like continuity of policy to destabilise or dis-unite neighbouring states – from the Eisenhower to Carter eras away from Pan Arab initiatives.  The border regions to the South, East, and S.West of Syria could see more interesting reportage in the future.

Syria-Area-Map

US rhetoric against Iranian influence is high, with Yemen, Syria, and potentially Lebanon, to bare the regional conflict the US policy supports. What is Jordan’s position in all this, does it control its vast countryside?

It is a useful retreat by IS into the border areas, in many respects, for US policy makers, they must drive it away, or risk criticism for allowing another desert hideout, thus they can maintain influence in the region through friendly forces, and they are able to approach the Iraq government with more support to block the natural affinity with shi’ites in Iran.

Iran did not acknowledge the attack and kept its rhetoric to firm assurances of retaliation, in the face of now aggressive targeting of its forces in Syria, and perhaps Yemen – Iran’s networks have seemingly grown in the vacuum of power left by war in Iraq and Syria since 9/11 .  With IS all but defeated in the urban south and now the north east, the US pledged to withdraw its IS fighting forces, leaving the ambiguous presence of assistance to its allied rebels and the Iraqi army.

Pompeo Middle East visit in line with past US geo-strategy.

gaza protest
source

Pompeo has visited Saudi Arabia, Israel and today is in Jordan.  Speaking publicly about the need to withstand Iranian influence in the region in preparation for Trump’s coming denunciation of the Iranian nuclear deal and the onset of more US sanctions.  Pompeo referred to the ongoing issues of Jerusalem’s borders and aligned this with a commitment to seeking two party solutions in that region, but is perhaps not signalling his support for the now silent ‘two party state’ solution.

Pompeo’s tour however is less PR campaign for clarity and candidly an anti Iranian move, and potentially a discussion of the progress in Syria, or lack of it.  He made no mention of the Gaza situation, and we can only surmise the assurances he might have given Israel on future acts in the Syrian sphere as the US spotlight moves from the embarrassment of the Syrian state’s progress against its jihadis and rebels, and squarely onto Iran, who’s influence in Syria, Yemen, Palestine and perhaps Jordan seems to be strengthening since Russia has become a middle eastern protagonist again.

Iranian moves away from dollar trading, as more countries are signalling the lack of will to continue to hold vast amounts of US currency reserves.   Both Iraq and Libya attempted similar moves previously, and the Chinese and Russian economies are investigating home currency trades and other initiatives in oil futures.  With more sanctions and US protectionism on the way, the economic camps are delineating between US friends and foes, while military budgets increase and live manoeuvres are becoming usual news features, threatening to numb our response to brinkmanship.