Israel-Turkish Detente, An Important Turkish Motive for Seeking It Now

By Barry Rubin

There's an important and totally new piece of information explaining the Israel-Turkish rapprochement in what an Israeli diplomat told a Turkish journalist, Tulin Daloglu, regarding a key reason why Turkey wanted to move now in accepting the Israeli offer that it previously rejected for more than 18 months. In addition, to the motive of mutual worry about Syria's future and some other things:

“Turkish export routes to the east used to go through Syria, to the East and to the Gulf. That’s not possible anymore. Turkish exports are shipped to the port of Haifa, where they’re loaded onto trucks, which cross Israel and then go to Jordan, and then from Jordan, they are shipped to the Gulf and to the East. Israel has now become a [pivotal] point for Turkish exports. It’s good, but no one wants to talk about it publicly."

For my overall view of this issue, see here.

Why “Progress” Toward Israel-Palestinian “Peace” Is More Likely to Bring Regional Instability

By Barry Rubin

Secretary of State John Kerry has every what-should-be-discredited cliché about the Middle East firmly ensconced in his head. Of course, he is not alone. I just briefed a European diplomat who came up with the exact formulation I’m going to deal with in a moment. What is disconcerting—though long familiar—is that Western policymakers hold so many ideas that are totally out of touch with reality.

They do not allow these assumptions to be questioned. On the contrary, it is astonishing to find how often individuals in elite positions have never heard counter-arguments to these beliefs. It is easy to prove that many of these ideas simply don’t make sense, but it is nearly impossible to get elite intellectuals, officials, and politicians to open their minds to these explanations. 

Yet we can't just believe what we want to believe, what we'd like to see happen, what we hope for. Reality must be faced or things will be worse. Having unexamined utopian ideas dominate this topic does not serve anyone's interests.

Let me give a single example. Here are Kerry’s observations after touring the Middle East:

"I am intensely focused on this issue and the region because it is vital really to American interests and regional interests to try and advance the peace process and because this festering absence of peace is used by groups everywhere to recruit and encourage extremism."

Supposedly, then, the reason that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is so important and urgent to solve is that otherwise it is a powerful force in encouraging extremism. Of course, steps toward easing Israel-Palestinian tensions and stabilizing the situation are good but have no positive effect on the region.

Let’s stipulate that it would be a very good thing if this conflict would be resolved in a stable  compromise. Let’s further stipulate that this isn’t going to happen.

But there is another point which sounds counter-intuitive and yet makes perfect sense:

Resolving the conflict in some way will encourage even more extremism and regional instability. How can I say that? Very simple.

Islamist groups and governments, along with radical Arab nationalists, Iran, and others, are determined to prevent any resolution of the issue. Anything other than Israel’s extinction they hold to be treason. If—and this isn’t going to happen—Israel and the Palestinian Authority made a comprehensive peace treaty those forces would double and triple their efforts to subvert it.

The government of Palestine would face determined domestic opposition, including assassination attempts on the “traitors” who made peace. Palestinian factions would claim to be more militant than their rivals and would seek to use the new state as a basis for attacking Israel in order to prove their credentials and advance their political fortunes.

What would the government of Palestine do once cross-border attacks inevitably began against Israel? It is highly likely it would disclaim responsibility and say they cannot find those responsible or even proclaim that these people are heroes.

Of course, the Hamas regime in the Gaza Strip would not accept the deal, thus ensuring that it could not be implemented. That last factor, which is a huge and impassable barrier is simply ignored by the "peacemakers." Israel would have to make major territorial concessions and take heightened risks in advance that would bring zero benefits from a Hamas government that would increase its attacks on Israel. Hamas forces on the West Bank, perhaps in partnership with Fatah radicals, would seek to overthrow Palestine’s government.

There would be attempts to carry out atrocities against Israeli civilians to break the deal, just as happened by Hamas alone during the 1993-2000 “Oslo peace process” period. Hizballah from Lebanon would also increase attacks on Israel to prove that the treasonous peace could not hold.

The ruling Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Syria would do everything possible to help Hamas. There would be outrage in large sectors of public opinion and especially among the armed Islamist militias who would try to lever their countries into war, stage cross-border attacks against Israel, and back Palestinian insurgents.

Of course, the fact that they understand all of the points made above is one of the main reasons why the Palestinian Authority's leadership isn't interested in making a peace deal with Israel, and not even negotiating seriously toward that end.

Ironically, then, the recruiting and encouragement of extremism would be at far higher levels than it is now.

But that’s not all. Who would be identified as the architects of this terrible setback for Islam and Arab nationalism? The United States and the West, of course. Imagine the increase of anti-American terrorism for having permanently “stolen” Palestine, perpetuated “injustice,” and so powerfully entrenching the “Zionist entity.”

Kerry, no doubt, thinks that the Egyptians, Syrians, Lebanese, and Iranians would applaud the wonderful U.S. achievement. This is sheerest nonsense, especially at a time when Islamists feel they are riding the crest of a tidal wave of victory.

While the parallels are inexact, some aspects of such a situation remind me of what happened at the end of World War One. Many people in Germany were convinced that their country was not defeated but merely suffered a “stab in the back” by its foreign enemies and the Jews at home. Out of this soil arose the Nazi movement, to avenge this betrayal and defeat. You can make of that parallel what you will.

Remember, too, that the 1990s “peace process” effort came at a time when Arab regimes were weak, repeatedly defeated by Israel, having lost their Soviet superpower ally, been riven by the Iran-Iraq and Kuwait wars, and with a bankrupt PLO. Now we are in a new era when, for example, the most important single Arab pillar for peace—the Husni Mubarak regime in Egypt—has been driven out to the cheers of those Westerners who also claim to recognize the value of an Arab-Israel peace.

Whether or not I’ve convinced you, I assume that you must understand that a serious case can be made for the argument stated above. Yet none of these points will appear in the mass media or the high-level debate. The assumption is, as Kerry stated, that Israel-Palestinian peace will make things better and no idea will be considered that contradicts this notion.

Let me again emphasize that I am not making an “anti-peace” argument here. If it was possible to secure a lasting, stable compromise peace between Israel and the Palestinians, that would be a great achievement. That might be possible some day but, dangerous wishful thinking aside, that isn't true now.

Yet instead there could only be—and, again, it isn’t going to happen at all--a rickety, unstable arrangement which either the Palestinian Authority would be determined to overturn in a stage two effort to destroy Israel. And if those who signed the treaty would not lead such an effort that would only be because they are consciously—and they say so publicly—leave the task to their successors. To different extents, the governments of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, and others would push that agenda.

And, as we have seen in the past, “diplomatic progress” would produce a regional political firestorm. Such thinking is counter-intuitive but that's only because the intuition is wrong.

If you are interested in reading more about the Arab-Israeli conflict, current regional situation you're welcome to read my book Tragedy of the Middle East online or download it for free.

If you are interested in reading more about the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict, you're welcome to read my book The Arab States and the Palestine Conflict online or download it for free.

This article is published on PJMedia.

Please be subscriber 31,330 (among more than 50,000 total readers). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com

 We’d love to have your support and work hard to earn it. See our new feature with 13 free books at http://www.gloria-center.org. Why not make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center by PayPal: click here.

By credit card: click here. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line and send to: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.

For tax-deductible donations in Canada and the UK, write us here.

--------------------

 --------------------

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His next book, Nazis, Islamists and the Making of the Modern Middle East, written with Wolfgang G. Schwanitz, will be published by Yale University Press in January 2014. His latest book is Israel: An Introduction, also published by Yale. Thirteen of his books can be read and downloaded for free at the website of the GLORIA Center including The Arab States and the Palestine Conflict, The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East and The Truth About Syria. His blog is Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.

Syria: Everything You Wanted to Know About Islamist Rebels Who Can Shoot Down Planes

By Barry Rubin

Advanced anti-aircraft missiles in the hands of Syrian Islamist rebels could be used, after they win the civil war there, against neighboring countries and even against commercial passenger planes. It seems as if the attempts to get back advanced weapons from Libya played a central role in the mission that led to the Benghazi incident. As Libya also showed, once rebels overthrow a government, U.S. attempts to ensure its arsenals aren't opened to terrorists abroad are unlikely to succeed fully.

On how fear of Syrian Islamist rebels getting advanced weaponry and attacking the country's neighbors in future has shifted U.S. policy see here. On the spread of weapons from Libya, see here.

So what is this issue all about? Fortunately, there’s a remarkably useful site in the UK called Brown Moses that professionally assesses this and other weapons’ issues in the Middle East. If you are interested in such things by all means go there.

Briefly, the story is this. The weapons are generically known as Manpad for Man Portable Air Defense Missile. The equipment captured in Libya and from the Syrian army in Syria or obtained by other means consists of four types.

The SA16 is a short-range version which has been captured by the rebels, specifically when they took the giant Syrian army base in Aleppo.

The only weapon from Libya is the older SA7, since the Libyans didn't have more advanced versions. It has been reported--though all such figures are not necessarily reliable--that about 5000 SA7 missiles were destroyed by the U.S. and other forces but that about 15,000 remained missing. The missiles are not usable forever, and some of those in the Libyan arsenal were very old, but apparently many of them would still work. Here's an example of a reasonably reliable report saying that a large number of SA7s were delivered to Syrian rebels through Turkey last September.

Joel Silva/Folhapress, via Reuters. A rebel fires a rocket at a Libyan air force jet near on March 2, 2011.

 Then there's the Chinese FN-6 , standard for the Chinese air force, which was used to shoot down a Syrian transport helicopter at Menagh Air Base near Aleppo. How did that one get there, through the U.S.-Turkish-Saudi-Qatari arms supply program or another way? It is claimed that Syrian rebels shot down two military helicopters with this weapon.

FN6 fired by Chinese soldiers

And this brings us to the best of all, the SA24. While some have been misidentified, they were obtained from the 46th Syrian regiment base west of Aleppo.

  SA24 with rebel sending a message to the Assad regime

There are a number of videos available though in many cases it is not clear whether the rebels also have the grip stick without which the missile is inoperable. Some videos that purport so show operational SA24s are merely training equipment that cannot be used in combat.

Nevertheless, the rebels definitely have such equipment. As the Brown Moses site points out, new MANPADS have arrived through Turkey recently. The Guardian,quotes an opposition leader as claiming that "a Syrian army helicopter and a Mig warplane had been shot down in the past two days, for the first time by imported missiles...`released from the Turkish warehouses. These are weapons the opposition had purchased previously but had not been allowed to take across the border.'" Reuters quotes several rebel commanders and fighters as saying the same thing.

New information:  According to the UN experts' report on smuggling from Libya, SA-24s were found--contrary to other sources--among weapons being sent to the Syrian rebels on the intercepted Letfallah II ship.

Now these more advanced weapons were reportedly bought in Croatia by the Saudis. The Saudis back the Salafists so presumably the new arms are in the hands of forces more extreme than the Brotherhood.

Finally, the Brown Moses site makes some important points about the military situation in Syria:

 "Generally the opposition in the south have been poorly equipped compared to the groups in the north.... As the opposition in the north captured more bases and more equipment it allowed them to attack increasingly heavily defended bases, with the capture of anti-aircraft weapons, like MANPADS, allowing them to defend from attacks from the air, which in turn meant they could deploy captured artillery and tanks, which were essential in attacking heavily defended bases."

The rebel groups in the north are dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafists who are better armed than the non-Islamist sections of the opposition. If things go on this way--and they probably won't change--when (not if) the rebels win (which might take a long time), the well-armed, anti-American, anti-Christian, and antisemitic Islamists will take over Syria.

And, more immediately, what kind of MANPAD system are the rebels getting through Turkey--with U.S. approval--and exactly which groups hold these weapons? The al-Qaida affiliates? Salafis? Muslim Brotherhood?

Incidentally, while Jabhat al-Nusra, the Syrian affiliate of al-Qaida has not been seen with MANPADS, it has been shown to have obtained some of the Croatian heavy weapons distributed within Syria. These were supposedly to be kept out of its hands due to U.S. policy of not letting the arms coming into Syria through Saudi-Turkish efforts get to such dangerous enemies.  The new proclamation by the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, that Jabhat al-Nusra is part of his organization is worrisome. Even though it has long been known that Jabhat al-Nusra was affiliated with al-Qaida, if this statement is true it is now directly under an organization responsible for the deaths of scores of American soldiers and civilians in Iraq.

The earlier declaration from two dozen insurgent Salafist groups in Syria which defended Jabhat al-Nusra against a U.S. attempt to isolate it is worrisome. How can Jabhat al-Nusra be isolated when it has so many allies? How will advanced weapons be kept out of al-Qaida's hands when it is being given to friendly Salafist militias? In other words, in a real sense, albeit unintentionally, U.S. policy is backing al-Qaida. It is not true that the United States supported Usama bin Ladin in Afghanistan, since it was backing different groups and at the time bin Ladin's backing was coming from Saudi Arabia. But now, after September 11, the United States is not only again involved in an insurgency where bin Ladinist forces are as well but also many of the other groups are sympathetic to them.

What is most dangerous is not that Salafist groups, including al-Qaida, will take over Syria politically but that they will be given a relatively free scope to act as they please. The U.S. government is basically putting its hope on a Muslim Brotherhood-led coalition or even a Muslim Brotherhood regime restraining al-Qaida, which might happen if Jabhat al-Nusra attacks the new Syrian regime and thus faces repression at its hands.

If you are interested in reading more about Syria, you're welcome to read my book The Truth About Syria online or download it for free.

This article is published on PJMedia.

Please be subscriber 31,330 (among more than 50,000 total readers). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com

 We’d love to have your support and work hard to earn it. See our new feature with 13 free books at http://www.gloria-center.org. Why not make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center by PayPal: click here.

By credit card: click here. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line and send to: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.

For tax-deductible donations in Canada and the UK, write us here.

--------------------

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press. Thirteen of his books can be read and downloaded for free at the website of the GLORIA Center including The Arab States and the Palestine Conflict, The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East and The Truth About Syria. His blog is Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.

A Letter to Israel from American Jewish Leaders Shows The Problem with American Jewish "Leaders"

By Barry Rubin

The April 3 letter which 100 leading American Jews sent Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is distressing. There’s nothing wrong with the letter’s specified intention to ask Netanyahu to cooperate with President Barack Obama and facilitate confidence-building measures to try to buy a Palestinian Authority willingness to negotiate, as long as those measures are reciprocated by the other side. 

The problem is that the language used parallels the misrepresentation of Israel’s situation and positions. By the way it is written, this letter seems to be not about influencing Netanyahu or Israelis but about enhancing the social and political credentials of those involved, Israel’s security and interests be damned.

In addition, the letter accepts the concept that the Palestinian Authority must be paid benefits to be willing to talk so that it can receive bigger benefits, that it must be begged--using "painful" and potentially dangerous Israeli concessions--to accept a Palestinian state. Since the Palestinians are doing Israel such a big favor by making peace, this concept goes, Israel should make concessions first and hope for some compromise from the other side later.

I support a two-state solution based roughly on the pre-1967 borders with relatively minor modifications, which is supposedly the same thing the signers want. But--and here's where the letter misses the point--only based on a real deal which must be based on mutual compromises, an eagerness by both sides to make a lasting peace, and a structure that seems likely to make the peace lasting.

In fact, a deal is either impossible because the PA doesn't really want one, which is why they need to be begged with treats to talk and why even if there are a few talks they won't succeed. And at a time of growing radicalization in the region, a theoretical deal based on "painful" concessions would endanger Israel's strategic situation.

The implication of the letter, in contrast, is that a peace deal is so urgent for Israel that it must be desperate to get one no matter what the cost; that nothing can go wrong with the new situation an agreement can create; and that Israel's prime goal must always be to keep the current president happy despite any judgment or considerations of its own.

Yet those who signed the letter--remember, they didn't write it--are all good people, none of whom are anti-Israel. That’s why these people should have known better and written this letter differently. None of this was necessary and the matter could have been handled with dignity and much greater effectiveness.

There are left-wingers, more powerful than ever before in U.S. history, who loathe Israel and want to see it greatly weakened or wiped out; there are conservatives who are pro-Israel though some want to exploit it for partisan purposes. 

By the way, it should be noted that the main group, the conservative Emergency Committee for Israel, is hypocritical since its leadership includes people who support Obama's dangerous pro-Islamist policy which is more dangerous for Israel than anything Obama is doing on the "peace process."

But where are the liberal pro-Israel forces who should be speaking out sensibly, not merely rubber-stamping Obama’s policy and mass media stereotypes?

Here is the letter’s text:

Dear Prime Minister Netanyahu: 

As Americans deeply committed to Israel’s security, we were heartened by President Obama’s recent historic visit and his unequivocal assertion that “so long as there is a United States of America, Ah-tem lo le-vad.” We also are encouraged by the rapprochement with Turkey, which was achieved in great measure due to your leadership.

We believe that this is a compelling moment for you and your new government to respond to President Obama’s call for peace by taking concrete confidence building steps designed to demonstrate Israel’s commitment to a ‘two-states for two peoples’ solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We urge you, in particular, to work closely with Secretary of State John Kerry to devise pragmatic initiatives, consistent with Israel’s security needs, which would represent Israel’s readiness to make painful territorial sacrifices for the sake of peace. 

Your leadership would challenge Palestinian leaders to take similarly constructive steps, including, most importantly, a prompt return to the negotiating table.

We join with President Obama in expressing our steadfast support for your efforts to ensure Israel’s future as the secure and democratic nation state of the Jewish people.

What is wrong with this text?

--Israel is shown merely as responding to Obama’s orders, without pointing out that Israel has been trying to get negotiations restarted for 12 years.

--The tone of the letter suggests, “Look at us! We’re the good kids! We don’t defend Israel’s past actions, we don’t criticize U.S. policy or the Palestinians! The job of Jewish leaders is to criticize their own side and urge it to be nicer, even if that costs the lives of other Jews (Israelis) while they risk nothing.

--The outrageous reference to “painful territorial sacrifices.”  It is revealing of the cringing nature of the letter that this phrase is totally unnecessary since the letter is about immediate, short-term confidence-building measures and not about a final peace treaty. Why focus on a huge Israeli concession when the issue is just to get talks restarted?

--The word “painful” communicates to me that Israel should have to undergo pain and take risks while signers of this document won’t even risk criticizing anything that Obama has done toward Israel. In other words, they want Israel to suffer real risks and pain while generally--there are exceptions on the list--not even be willing to themselves suffer the minor pains of being a dissenter to the dominant narrative in the America elite today.

“Painful” in this case should mention that the last time Israel made painful concessions  about 2000 Israelis died from terrorism and the country’s security was badly damaged.

--How can such a letter not mention this Oslo era experience or Israel’s other sacrifices for peace,  the way, say, a New York Times editorial might do it?

--The letter maintains the absurd approach that first Israel makes painful and risky concessions and only afterward are the Palestinians required to do so. This suggests the typical anti-Israel narrative that the Palestinian leaders are moderate and want peace while Israel is the barrier to successful negotiations.

--It openly says that Israel need make big concessions even if the Palestinian leadership gives nothing back.

One thing that is sad about this is that the letter could have been written differently--to support both Israel and show their support for Obama's new "friendly" policy toward Israel--and I would bet that all the same people would have signed it. It could have gone like this:

Dear Prime Minister Netanyahu: 

As Americans who have been and continue to be long-time supporters of Israel’s prosperity, security, and reputation, we were heartened by President Obama’s recent historic visit and his unequivocal assertion that “so long as there is a United States of America you are not alone.”

We believe that this is a compelling moment for you and your new government to continue to strive for peace, as you and other Israeli leaders have done for decades. We know you and Israel have long shown a commitment to a ‘two-states for two peoples’ solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

We are also aware that the 1993 Israel-PLO agreement marked a courageous effort to resolve the conflict. We know that the Palestinian leadership did not live up to its commitments at many points during the 1993-2000 peace process era. Hundreds of Israelis were killed and wounded as a result of this sincere effort and in 2000 PLO and Palestinian Authority leader Yasir Arafat rejected the offer of President Bill Clinton and Israel for a two-state solution. Instead, Arafat turned to a violent revolt that often used terrorism and lasted for six years.

We also remember how you responded to President Obama’s requests during his first term, including for a ten-month-long suspension of construction on existing settlements. We know that the Palestinian leadership did not negotiate seriously despite your efforts.

Nevertheless, without illusions and by taking minimal risk, it is worth continuing this effort for peace and cooperation with the United States. Of course, Israel should make no concessions—whether confidence-building or otherwise—without concomitant concessions by the Palestinian side. We will work to make sure that President Obama and the American public understand this point.

Among other things, your leadership would challenge Palestinian leaders to take similarly constructive steps, including, most importantly, a prompt return to the negotiating table. If the Palestinian leaders do not so respond we will be loud and clear in explaining to the U.S. government and American people that while Israel seeks peace, the current Palestinian leadership does not do so.

We believe that either way a flexible policy--which you also followed during President Obama’s first term--would be best. It will show President Obama and the American people Israel’s cooperation and true goal of achieving peace and it will challenge the Palestinian leaders to follow suit or be exposed for rejecting peace. 


This article is published on PJ Media.

 Please be subscriber 31,324 (among more than 50,000 total readers). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com

 We’d love to have your support and work hard to earn it. See our new feature with 13 free books at http://www.gloria-center.org. Why not make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center by PayPal: click here.

By credit card: click here. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line and send to: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.

For tax-deductible donations in Canada and the UK, write us here.

--------------------

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press. Thirteen of his books can be read and downloaded for free at the website of the GLORIA Center including The Arab States and the Palestine Conflict, The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East and The Truth About Syria. His blog is Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.

MERIA Journal (Spring 2013): Israel elections/Lebanon/Arab armies/China/Azerbaijan

The Spring 2013 issue of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal Volume 17, Number 1, Spring 2013 is now available. Read these articles free by clicking the link:

THE NINETEENTH ISRAELI KNESSET ELECTIONS: LACKLUSTER ELECTION, SIGNIFICANT RESULTS

BY JONATHAN SPYER

For the first time since the 1970s, there was no serious dispute as to who would emerge as prime minister from the 2013 Israeli elections campaign.  Despite the lackluster campaign, the election results and the government that emerged from them do represent a certain change. Most notably, the election campaign focused on internal issues. This is because a core, centrist consensus on external and national security affairs now exists among a critical mass of Israeli Jews.  This is also reflected in the new government.  The governing coalition consists of the entire center, right and national religious bloc (with the exception of the rump Kadima party, with 2 seats, which has not entered).  Labor, the largest opposition party, is centering its criticism of the government on internal, socioeconomic issues, on which it (rightly) perceives the new government to have a fairly united and coherent identity.

TWILIGHT LEBANON, 1990-2011

BY WILLIAM HARRIS 

This extract from William Harris, Lebanon: A History 600-2011 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011) discusses the most recent period in that country's history, from its devastating era of civil war and striff (1975-1990), the period of Syrian control, after 1990, and the present-day implosion of neighboring Syria in its own civil war. 

THE RISE OF NATIONALISM AMONG IRANIAN AZERBAIJANIS: A STEP TOWARD IRAN’S DISINTEGRATION?

BY EMIL SOULEIMANOV, KAMIL PIKAL, AND JOSEF KRAUS

  This article deals with the Azerbaijani minority in Iran and its potential and real security threat for the country’s internal affairs and for the entire Caspian region. The article opens with an introduction on the ethnic and religious identities of Iranian Azerbaijanis and the community’s historical development in Iran--with a particular emphasis on the 1990s and onward. Next, it reviews the current situation in the region and the group’s primary motives and goals

WESTERN INFLUENCE ON ARAB MILITARIES: POUNDING SQUARE PEGS INTO ROUND HOLES

BY NORVELL B. DE ATKINE

This article is a personal account of retired U.S. Army Colonel Norvell De Atkine’s experience in dealing with Arab militaries for over 40 years. Based on observation and study of Arab military establishments, he concludes little of significance has happened to change the deeply embedded character of the Arab militaries.

ISRAELI-AZERBAIJANI ALLIANCE AND IRAN

BY MAHIR KHALIFA-ZADEH 

This article discusses cooperation between Israel and the Republic of Azerbaijan in order to neutralize foreign threats and ensure regional security. Expanding and improving ties with Azerbaijan has been part of Israel's newly adopted strategy toward non-Arab Muslim states. Also addressed is Iran's attitude towards Azerbaijan and the political and ideological opposition between the two mainly Shi'a-populated countries. 

CHINA’S STRATEGIC SHIFT TOWARD THE REGION OF THE FOUR SEAS: THE MIDDLE KINGDOM ARRIVES IN THE MIDDLE EAST

BY CHRISTINA Y. LIN 

Since the Arab Spring, China has been quietly asserting its influence and fortifying its foothold in the Middle East, while the United States pivots to the Asia Pacific after a decade of war.  It is aligning with states that have problematic relations with the West and are also geo-strategically placed on the littoral of the “Four Seas”--the Caspian Sea, Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea, and Arabian Sea/Persian Gulf.