CENTCOM report: talking to Hamas and Hezbollah

Seems like the US military is leading innovative thinking: in a report by the Central Command (CENTCOM), Gen. Petraeus old working place, a study group called Red Team evaluated the pains and gains of talking to Hamas and Hezbollah.

The reason why Israel is furiously blocking this move is also mentioned in the report:

The Red Team also claims that reconciliation with Fatah, when coupled with Hamas's explicit renunciation of violence, would gain "widespread international support and deprive the Israelis of any legitimate justification to continue settlement building and delay statehood negotiations."

Seems like the US military is leading innovative thinking: in a <a href="http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/06/29/red_team?page=0,0">report</a> by the Central Command (CENTCOM), Gen. Petraeus old working place, a study group called Red Team evaluated the pains and gains of talking to Hamas and Hezbollah.<br /><br />The reason why Israel is furiously blocking this move is also mentioned in the report:<br /><blockquote>The Red Team also claims that reconciliation with Fatah, when coupled with Hamas's explicit renunciation of violence, would gain "widespread international support and deprive the Israelis of any legitimate justification to continue settlement building and delay statehood negotiations."</blockquote>

Some worrying developments in the Middle East

It is difficult to assess whether the situation in the Middle East is getting worse or whether it is stable and all current developments are just a smoke screen. Here are some news that combined could lead to a new situation in the region:

EGYPT:
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak went to Germany to get a surgery. He is 81 years, so the question of succession becomes interesting. So far, no successor has been designated. A future president has to meet certain criteria, such as loyalty towards the US, collaboration with Israel, willingness to suppress brutally the population. The most prominent contender for the post is Muhammad Al Baradei, the former head of the IAEA.

Judging upon his performance in his previous job, Al Baradei is unlikely to continue the Mubarak's policy of suppression and compliance. And this would render him an opponent of the US and Israel, who were already not happy with him at the IAEA. It is likely that they will do everything to take him out of the campaign.

However, it seems that the West will loose with Mubarak also its grip on Egypt. The Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmend Aboul Gheit was quoted of calling Israel an 'enemy state'. Although he said that he was misunderstood, this small incident could be a first sign of Egypt moving away from Western domination.

Another problem of Egypt is the Western value of democracy or rather the necessity of dictatorship. So far, the problem doesn't exist because there is no democracy whatsoever. If the West would ask for democratic elections the outcome would very probably be a landslide victory of the Muslim Brotherhood. That would be a problem for Israel, because they could not count on the complicity of Egypt in their fight against the Palestinians. But it would surely also pose problems to the West as a whole, bearing in mind the crucial position that Egypt holds as the most important country of the Muslim world, the Suez Canal, adjacency to the Gaza strip etc.

One positive effect of sticking to Western values and demanding free elections would be that an Egyptian government lead by the Muslim Brotherhood would ease tensions with Al Qaeda and affiliates. Ayman Al Zawahiri, the second in command and chief ideologue, is Egyptian himself. He was very active in the resistance against the Egyptian dictatorship before endorsing the violent international struggle against the "far enemy" that was soon to become the ideology of Al Qaeda.

HEZBOLLAH:
Israel alleged that Syria supplied Hezbollah with Scud missiles. No other government support Israel in this claim, but it was stated by US and other officials that Hezbollah has an improved arsenal of missiles. Israel and the US said that Scuds for Hezbollah could "turn or disrupt the very delicate balance in Lebanon", as Ehud Barack expressed it. Of course, with "delicate balance" Barack means the overwhelming military superiority of Israel. The US even threatened Syria with its "full range of tools" available to halt any smuggling of Scuds.

May there be Scuds or not, fact is that Hezbollah acquired an organisational structure and military capabilities that bother Israel. So far, Israel regularly violates Lebanese airspace in defiance of UN resolution 1701, but also Hezbollah violates this resolution by acquiring sophisticated weapons. Both sides seem to prepare for the inevitable showdown.

THE AXIS BEIRUT-DAMASCUS-TEHRAN:
In case of a showdown between Hebollah and Israel, the Lebanese Prime Minister Hariri stated that an attack on Hezbollah would be regarded as an attack on Lebanon. End of February 2010, Hezbollah General Secretary Nasrallah met Syrian President Assad and Iranian President Ahmadinejad in Damascus.

It looks like the coordinated resistance against Israel and its Western supporters is forming. Statements, such as "the next military conflict should solve the Israel question once and for all" or "the next war will be a regional war", indicate that Israel's enemies are confident that they can prevail in a war. The predominant feeling towards Israel used to be the feeling of inferiority - if that changed to a feeling of equality, it could change the tides in the Middle East.

ISRAEL AND THE WEST:
A lot has been written on the rift between Israel and the US. Recently, also France made headlines when President Sarkozy criticised Netanyahu for foot-dragging on the peace process. Although it is unlikely that the Western criticism of Israel will change its attitude towards Israel, it could empower the militant forces in the Middle East.

OUTLOOK:
I think that the situation for many participants is good as long as the conflict is boiling on a small flame. But the accumulation of developments could set fire to the fuse. The EU should start talking about what to do when the situation is going belly up.

It is difficult to assess whether the situation in the Middle East is getting worse or whether it is stable and all current developments are just a smoke screen. Here are some news that combined could lead to a new situation in the region:<br /><span class="fullpost"><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">EGYPT:</span><br />Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak went to Germany to get a surgery. He is 81 years, so the question of succession becomes interesting. So far, no successor has been designated. A future president has to meet certain criteria, such as loyalty towards the US, collaboration with Israel, willingness to suppress brutally the population. The most prominent contender for the post is Muhammad Al Baradei, the former head of the IAEA.<br /><br />Judging upon his performance in his previous job, Al Baradei is unlikely to continue the Mubarak's policy of suppression and compliance. And this would render him an opponent of the US and Israel, who were already not happy with him at the IAEA. It is likely that they will do everything to take him out of the campaign.<br /><br />However, it seems that the West will loose with Mubarak also its grip on Egypt. The Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmend Aboul Gheit was quoted of calling Israel an <a href="http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1165702.html">'enemy state'</a>. Although he said that he was misunderstood, this small incident could be a first sign of Egypt moving away from Western domination.<br /><br />Another problem of Egypt is the Western value of democracy or rather the necessity of dictatorship. So far, the problem doesn't exist because there is no democracy whatsoever. If the West would ask for democratic elections the outcome would very probably be a <a href="http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/eric_margolis/2010/04/23/13697251.html">landslide victory of the Muslim Brotherhood</a>. That would be a problem for Israel, because they could not count on the complicity of Egypt in their fight against the Palestinians. But it would surely also pose problems to the West as a whole, bearing in mind the crucial position that Egypt holds as the most important country of the Muslim world, the Suez Canal, adjacency to the Gaza strip etc.<br /><br />One positive effect of sticking to Western values and demanding free elections would be that an Egyptian government lead by the Muslim Brotherhood would ease tensions with Al Qaeda and affiliates. Ayman Al Zawahiri, the second in command and chief ideologue, is Egyptian himself. He was very active in the resistance against the Egyptian dictatorship before endorsing the violent international struggle against the "far enemy" that was soon to become the ideology of Al Qaeda.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">HEZBOLLAH:</span><br />Israel alleged that Syria supplied Hezbollah with Scud missiles. No other government support Israel in this claim, but it was stated by US and other officials that Hezbollah has an <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8647909.stm">improved arsenal of missiles</a>. Israel and the US said that Scuds for Hezbollah could "turn or disrupt the very delicate balance in Lebanon", as Ehud Barack expressed it. Of course, with "delicate balance" Barack means the overwhelming military superiority of Israel. The US even threatened Syria with its "full range of tools" available to halt any smuggling of Scuds.<br /><br />May there be Scuds or not, fact is that Hezbollah acquired an organisational structure and military capabilities that bother Israel. So far, Israel regularly violates Lebanese airspace in defiance of UN resolution 1701, but also Hezbollah violates this resolution by acquiring sophisticated weapons. Both sides seem to prepare for the inevitable showdown.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">THE AXIS BEIRUT-DAMASCUS-TEHRAN:</span><br />In case of a showdown between Hebollah and Israel, the Lebanese Prime Minister Hariri stated that <a href="http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=116746&sectionid=351020203">an attack on Hezbollah would be regarded as an attack on Lebanon</a>. End of February 2010, Hezbollah General Secretary Nasrallah met Syrian President Assad and Iranian President Ahmadinejad in Damascus.<br /><br />It looks like the coordinated resistance against Israel and its Western supporters is forming. Statements, such as "the next military conflict should solve the Israel question once and for all" or "the next war will be a regional war", indicate that Israel's enemies are confident that they can prevail in a war. The predominant feeling towards Israel used to be the feeling of inferiority - if that changed to a feeling of equality, it could change the tides in the Middle East.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">ISRAEL AND THE WEST:</span><br />A lot has been written on the rift between Israel and the US. Recently, also France made headlines when <a href="http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1165923.html">President Sarkozy criticised Netanyahu for foot-dragging on the peace process</a>. Although it is unlikely that the Western criticism of Israel will change its attitude towards Israel, it could empower the militant forces in the Middle East.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">OUTLOOK:</span><br />I think that the situation for many participants is good as long as the conflict is boiling on a small flame. But the accumulation of developments could set fire to the fuse. The EU should start talking about what to do when the situation is going belly up.<br /></span>

Hezbollah's strategic thinking

In this piece, Nicholas Noe analysis the strategic thinking of Hezbollah. After the percieved victory in the July War of 2006, Hezbollah and its secretary general Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah are confident that the next military confrontation will lead to the destruction of Israel. This confidence brings Nasrallah to say that Hezbollah "craves war but we do not want it".

The proliferation of military technology enables weak states and organisations to challenge states far more powerful than themselves. By investing in anti-air, anti-ship, anti-satellite and cyber-war capabilities, those states and groups seek to restrict the freedom of movement of the superior armed forces. This access denial strategy could restrict the movement of dominant military powers to a point, where the military superiority becomes irrelevant, because the strike capabilities cannot be brought to action. The Chinese call this strategy the "assassin's mace" or shashaojian, where cyber attacks, missile barrages of supersonic anti-ship ballistic missiles and submarines deny potential aggressors access to the Chinese sphere of influence. Iran trains its navy in the swarm tactic, where dozens of small boats overwhelm the defence systems of enemy vessels by their sheer numbers. India just successfully test-fired the world's first super-sonic anti-ship cruise missile. And Hezbollah acquires sophisticated anti-tank and surface-to-surface missiles that challenge any Israeli military superiority.

In times of tight financial budgets, the development of protection-measures to undermine the access denial strategy could prove to be too expensive. In consequence, a superior military could not guarantee power projection capabilities any more. States will have to find other ways than military force alone to protect and enforce national interests. For Hezbollah, the consequence is that it perceives itself as equal to the Israeli armed forces and ready to engage them. And that means that there is no need for Hezbollah to carve in or accept any compromise but fight until their goals are achieved.

In this <a href="http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LC20Ak01.html">piece</a>, Nicholas Noe analysis the strategic thinking of Hezbollah. After the percieved victory in the July War of 2006, Hezbollah and its secretary general Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah are confident that the next military confrontation will lead to the destruction of Israel. This confidence brings Nasrallah to say that Hezbollah "craves war but we do not want it".<br /><br />The proliferation of military technology enables weak states and organisations to challenge states far more powerful than themselves. By investing in anti-air, anti-ship, anti-satellite and cyber-war capabilities, those states and groups seek to restrict the freedom of movement of the superior armed forces. This access denial strategy could restrict the movement of dominant military powers to a point, where the military superiority becomes irrelevant, because the strike capabilities cannot be brought to action. The Chinese call this strategy the "assassin's mace" or <span style="font-style: italic;">shashaojian</span>, where cyber attacks, missile barrages of supersonic anti-ship ballistic missiles and submarines deny potential aggressors access to the Chinese sphere of influence. Iran trains its navy in the swarm tactic, where dozens of small boats overwhelm the defence systems of enemy vessels by their sheer numbers. <a href="http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/315099,india-test-fires-brahmos-supersonic-cruise-missile.html#ixzz0iq7D9ZaK">India</a> just successfully test-fired the world's first super-sonic anti-ship cruise missile. And Hezbollah acquires sophisticated anti-tank and surface-to-surface missiles that challenge any Israeli military superiority.<br /><br />In times of tight financial budgets, the development of protection-measures to undermine the access denial strategy could prove to be too expensive. In consequence, a superior military could not guarantee power projection capabilities any more. States will have to find other ways than military force alone to protect and enforce national interests. For Hezbollah, the consequence is that it perceives itself as equal to the Israeli armed forces and ready to engage them. And that means that there is no need for Hezbollah to carve in or accept any compromise but fight until their goals are achieved.