How the Syrian Civil War and Egyptian Coup Positively Transform Israel's Strategic Situation

[This article has been reworked and I apologize for poor proofreading which derives from a temporary problem.]

By Barry Rubin

There are some subtle issues coming out of the Syrian civil war for Israel. It is clear that Israel is neutral regarding the war, that it won't get dragged into the civil war, and that the longer the war goes on it is better as long as it doesn’t damage Israeli national security.

It should be equally clear, however, that in the end Israel wants the rebels to win. Syria’s regime is supported by Hizballah, Iran, and the Assad government. These are the greater of the two evils. The coup against Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood regime greatly reduced the threat of Sunni Islamism.compared to that of Iran.

Again, it should be underlined, however, that the difference isn’t perceived as huge. Military institutions are generally more favorable to the rebels, given their anti-Iran nuclear weapons’ emphasis. Other agencies remember, however, that a Sunni Islamist Syria would still be a problem.

There are several other aspects, however, of the Syrian situation for Israel.

Hamas: With Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood thrown out of office, Hamas poses  much less of a threat. Instead of having Egypt as a patron, Egypt is now a greater enemy than it was under Mubarak. That then breaks up the issue of a Brotherhood Egypt, Hamas, and Syria.

Egypt: And speaking of Egypt, the transformation for Israel's strategy almost approaches the victory of the 1967 war except this is not a victory over Egypt but a tremendous enhancement of cooperation. The threat of the dissolution of the peace treaty and a potential new war has been replaced by a prospect of deeper peace and more strategic help.

The draining of terrorist resources and energies. Syria is now a target, as well as Iraq for Sunni terrorists; and now so does Egypt, too.

The Golan Heights:  Israel will not come down from the strategic Golan for  "forever."  With either Sunni or Shia extremists in charge of Syria, the anti-Israel stance of Syria is going to be strong under any conceivable government. At the same time, that Syrian government will be weaker. The United States is in temporary or permanent eclipse and cannot possibly—and will not—exercise major leverage on Syria. You can bet that without a utopian transformation of the region Israel will remain on the Golan.

Lebanon: It seems equally clear that Hizballah has very much reduced support from the Lebanese, Syria, Sunni Islamist leaders, and others. Given this situation, Hizballah cannot attack Israel, certainly not while its best troops are tied down in Syria. And if the rebels win in Syria, they will take on Hizballah, also supporting Lebanese Sunni Islamists.  Hizballah will be too busy fighting against fellow Arabs to start a war with Israel.

Kurds: This is the best moment for Kurds politically in modern history, with a ceasefire with Turkey and its help in Syria; a de facto state in northern Iraq though it will not be a full-fledged state; and autonomy in Syria.  Central and southern Iraq are booming with terrorism but Kurdistan (the Kurdish Regional Government) is booming with prosperity.

The fact is that the Kurds do not share in the Arab blood feud with Israel. In both Iraq and Syria, the Kurds want good relations and commerce with Israel. Whether the dealings would be overt or covert, this new political relationship is going to be a significant factor in the Middle East.

Druze: The Druze have a tougher time since they do not have a strategic boundary with a friendly country as do the Kurds. Nevertheless the Druze are at a historical turning point. They have given their loyalty to the Syrian regime, with the Golani Druze showing special devotion fueled largely by fear that some day the Golan would be returned to Syria and the treatment of relatives on the other side of the border if they did not support the dictatorship.

Now, however, they see the Assad regime in trouble. At this point the loyalty must be questioned. Would a Sunni Islamist regime be so kind to them? On the one hand, the Druze have served not with the rebels but with the regime. Second, when all is said and done the Druze are infidels, even worse former Muslims centuries ago.Of course, the Druze still in Syria will claim their devotion to the Sunni Islamist regime in the hope of not being massacred.

But Druze from the Golan have asked Israeli authorities about bringing in refugees from Syria. Might persecuted Druze take Israeli citizenship and take the step of joining their fate, as individuals or collectively, with Israel as their cousins across the border did in 1948?

Iran: Obviously, if the regime loses in Syria that will weaken Iran. But there’s something more here. If Iran loses the civil war any thought of Tehran bidding for Arab hegemony will be unrealistic because the split between Sunni and Shia is so bloody and passionate. But, if Iran wins the bitterness has the same effect. The dominant conflict in the region is now the Sunni-Shia one.

And with Middle East hegemony out of Iran’s reach, Iran has less reason to threaten Israel or to consider using nuclear weapons against it. Why would Tehran do so when it will not impress the Arabs anyway and in fact Tehran is in the middle of an all-out battle with the Sunni Arabs?

Christians: While Israel only has about a 2 percent Christian minority (about 150,000 people), there seems to be some change. A priest and a young woman have spoken for support despite harassment and an Arab Christian party is forming. These will probably not catch on with large numbers of people but with the conflict against Israel being joined by the conflict against Christian Arabs--including real intimidation of Christians on the West Bank by Muslims must have some effect. This has been added to with a war on Christians in Egypt (Copts will be big targets in the coming Islamist insurgency and the new government won't provide much protection), Syria, Iraq, and the Gaza Strip. Where else do Christians have a safe haven in he region?

Finally, Syria has done something momentous in regional terms. It has broken the myth of the “Israel card” or of “linkage.” You can't still argue that an Arab ruler can make political capital by blaming Israel or that solving the Arab-Israeli or Israel-Palestinian conflict will fix everything in the region.

Given the peculiarities of Western diplomacy, this doesn't seem to put much of a dent in "linkage," the idea that the "Arab-Israeli conflict" (perhaps we should start putting it in quotation marks, is the prime problem, passionate priority, and always the key to solving the Middle East. Lots of people in the West believe this idea but surely it must be fewer though still numerous due to misinformation, diplomatic interests, and misunderstanding of the Middle East?

This article is published on PJMedia.

The Battle of Gettysburg, Refought150 Years Later

By Barry Rubin

On they came, closer and closer, pouring over and through the sturdy fence, the flood of thousands of grey and homespun uniforms, mostly from the division of General George Pickett, (12,500 in the original; about 5,000 this time). Stopping to fire, their volleys popped in a string like fire-crackers, returned by the Union forces, about 6,000 strong, standing behind a knee-high stone wall. The smoke turned the air hazy.

The cannon crews went about their work calmly, at a steady pace, knowing any mistake might blow up barrels already too hot to touch. The gunner pulled out the lanyard held it as if he had all the time in the world and then shouted, “This gun is ready!” To which the officer responded, “Fire!”An astonishingly loud boom rang out, followed by a white cloud. The smoke from the cannons and muskets grew thicker and thicker.

The Provost Guard, the Third U.S. Infantry Regiment, stood patiently about twenty yards behind the front line. We were well-rested, having sat in the shade for about forty minutes away from the stifling heat that the deployed line units faced. We went at a run to the right, spacing ourselves out at five yards distance. It’s the point marked as “The Angle” on this map.

The Provost was the infantry unit belonging to First Division Headquarters, part field intelligence, part military government when needed, and protecting the general staff’s camp. Sometimes we went into the line; sometimes we took prisoners, and we were always visible lest someone thought of deserting ready to shoot the man if he didn’t stop running. Fortunately, no one did.

The headquarters’ staff include the Major General Allen Baldwin, the Gettysburg and now Winchester, MDfire chief, Tony Allen; the chaplain, surgeon, quartermaster Captain Willard Longnecker, and the canteen which using nineteenth century methods made the best bread and butter I’ve ever tasted, Provost, and Signals Corp.

Suddenly, as the still-alive Confederates reached the Union line, we charged forward to go into action. I ran up, sighting the tall form of Sergeant Ross “bayoneting”a Confederate who refused to surrender, I went toward the line. As I got there, an officer I didn’t know told me to escort a Confederate prisoner to the rear. He was a general, part of General Lewis Armistead’s staff. I had stumbled into the central scene of the battle.

[Photo: Armistead carried off the field of battle. Soldier on ground with red shirt is artilleryman; I'm standing immediately to his left.]

Lothario Armistead was born in February 1817, less than two years after his uncle, George, had commanded Fort McHenry in Baltimore against the British bombardment that gave proof through the night that the Star Spangled Banner still waved, in the terms in which Francis Scott Key wrote the National Anthem. He commanded one of three brigades of General Pickett at the July 3, 1863, charge which was Robert E. Lee’s desperate and ill-advised attempt to win the Civil War in one day.

As men fell around him, Armistead put his hat on his sword, held it high and shouted for those left to follow him. And then he fell, mortally wounded next to the Union cannon, the furthest advance the Confederate army made. Today, this called the High Water Markof the Confederacy. Ironically, the commander of the Union forces who hadmortally wounded him was General Winfield Scott Hancock, Armistead’s best friend before the war separated them forever.

About half the Confederates who marched with Pickett that day were killed, wounded, or captured, though a lower proportion were killed than you would expect given the state of medicine at the time.  

Meanwhile,the stretcher-bearers carried Armistead back off the line, followed by his two staff officers and several guards. We came to a stop and they put him down. There were about ten Union soldiers standing around him, including Provost Guard commander Major Robert Shurts. An officer handed him a canteen and I leaned closer to hear his words, not in character, “Armistead”said something like, “This is one of the greatest moments of my life.”

I was genuinely touched, whether he was speaking as Armistead or as a re-enactor. He had worked years for this moment, working his way up through the ranks. The sensory element alternated between feeling that one had been transported back to July 1863 to a notion—reinforced by a look up to the packed stands—that we were very much in the present moment.

Then, after a brief pause, which in historic-time might have been attributed to “Armistead” trying to catch his breath from two wounds, he continued, “How did we do?” Nobody wanted to hear a private’s opinion of course, A Union officer who was kneeling at his right side, I’m glad to say I didn’t know him, said, “Well, you’re timing was off and…” going onto a critique of his army’s performance.

It’s a well-known fact in re-enactor circles that the Confederates are always slow but I was shocked by the Union officer’s insensitivity. I murmured that they had done great but as I noted above nobody listens to a private. And then, as if awaiting a signal, the heavy, driving rains poured down on myself, my son Daniel the drummer, and my friend, Joshua Withrow.

The irony is that Armistead in real life did not die of his wounds but of exhaustion. Given the heat of the reenactment one can understand why. Just crossing that huge field in 90 degree heat was an ordeal. But the 150^thanniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg was like a Woodstock for re-enactors, assuming almost mythical proportions. In some sense, being there was somewhat closer to being at the 125^th or even 100^th anniversaries.

Why are people re-enactors? A lot are interested in history, of course, and a surprising number have ancestors who fought in the Civil War. Duane Carrell’s great-grandfather was in the 49^th Virginia and fought at Gettysburg in 1863, as he did in 2013. His wife, Gloria, who re-enacts as a civilian and is very knowledgeable about the costumes of the kind, is descended from a Union colonel.

There are people who love the outdoors and those want to immerse themselves in a different era. Believe me, you will never have understood American history as well before you have re-enacted it and had to deal with its customs, ideas, costumes, and tools. You meet a lot of great people that you’d never have encountered otherwise, at a time in history when society has just narrowed to the point when different groups usually don’t interact at all. And at a time when CSPN is now going to broadcast video game tournaments perhaps hobbies and sports are becoming a bit too physically slothful.

But the simple overarching truth is that they are people who deeply love their country and want to be intimately close to its history; people who respect their ancestors who fought for freedom and who are those who they stand indebted to. And the people who come to such events feel the same way. The overall theme was a taken-for-granted patriotism and respect for those who have gone before, from the moment of silence for the firefighters killed in Arizona to the “Star Spangled Banner”and the reverential playing of “Taps.”

Maybe more of that wouldn’t be so bad.

Thanks to Willard Longnecker for photos. This article is published on PJMedia.

And here are more photos.

Below, Union forces advance as reinforcements. Photo: Daniel Rubin

Below, Company B, Third U.S. Infantry

Scoop: Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan Racist Against Obama; So Why Does Obama Idolize Him

By Barry Rubin

One of the key factors about revolutionary Islamism is that it is an innately ant-American and racist doctrine. Usually this is seen through antisemitism or ant-Christian views (since in the case of Islam, religion now seems to have been reintepreted as a race when convenient) but sometimes there are different, but not highly publicized examples, such as the racism employed against Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in Palestinian and other Arabic newspaper cartoons.

Can you imagine how the United States would react if someone said something like what Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan has just said. Remember that President Barack  Obama has flattered endlessly the radical Turkish leader, ignoring insults and the subversion of U.S. interests.  Erdogan seems to be Obama’s ideal leader, a “moderate Islamist.”  Obama has turned over U.S. Syrian policy to Turkish regime direction.

Yet despite Obama's pro-Islamist policy, Erdogan is blaming him for the fall of Egypt's government!

This is despite the fact that the increasingly repressive Erdogan has publicly blamed the opposition to him as a Jewish plot. Perhaps with the U.S. government supporting the Muslim Brotherhood antisemitism is no longer a detriment to Obama Administration backing.

But what does Erdogan really think of Obama?

As customary last Tuesday Erdogan addressed his AKP party group  in the parliament.

As usual, part of his speech was devoted to ridiculing Kemal Kilicdaroglu, leader of the opposition, secular-oriented Republican Peoples Party (CHP).

But this time he ended that part of his speech with these words:

“Kilicdaroglu is striving every bit he can to raise himself from the level of a black person (zenci in Turkish, which is the same as “Negro’) to the level of a white man.” 

Might that be offensive? Might that be reported in the American mass media?

Incidentally, Kilicdaroglu is a Kurd and in a Politically Correct country that would also raise questions of whether Erdogan is a racial supremicist. One might reflect that if not for the Obama Administration the Turkish army would have acted like the Egyptian one.

Instead, dozens of Turkish military officers and journalists, among others, are in prison for years without trial. Intellectuals are intimidated. Turkish democracy is headed the same way that Egyptian democracy was.

Yet where is the Western sympathy for the Turkish opposition? Ironically, Kilicdaroglu is a social democrat yet he can expect no support compared to Erdogan's extreme reactionary stance  Obama only supports the far right when it is Islamist. The violent repression of recent demonstrations broke the media silence about ignoring Erdogan's increasingly repressive state.

Last year the Turkish ministry of education was caught running a viciously antisemitic website and there are hundreds of other misdeeds. Millions of Turks are desperate at the tightening noose.

But not a betrayal of the United States on the Iran issue, not the Islamization of Turkish life, nor the massive arrests, nor repression, and even the subordination of U.S. Syria policy to Turkish interests, nor antisemitism is sufficient to wean Obama from his Erdogan-worship.

And neither is anti-black racism.

This article is published on PJMedia. 

At last, The Secret of President Barack Obama’s Middle East Policy Revealed, No Kidding

By Barry Rubin

Note: I beg you to read this article and I've never said that before. I think in the wake of the Egyptian coup, everything has come clearly together on U.S. Middle East policy. This is the most important article I've written in 2.5 years, since predicting the first Egyptian revolution in October 2010. Here is the story.

A statement by two National Security Council senior staff members has revealed the inner thinking of President Barack Obama. It is of incredible importance and I plead with you to read it. If you do you will comprehend fully what's going on with U.S. foreign policy. 

Egypt, Egypt, Egypt…There are more words written about this event than demonstrators in Tahrir Square. But, to quote a recent secretary of state on Benghaza, what difference does it make? A great deal indeed. 

First, let’s remember that in the face of advancing totalitarianism in the Middle East, U.S. policy completely y failed. Imagine, if you wish, what would have happened with the Nazis without Winston Churchill and Great Britain in the 1940s. The U.S. government of this day was not only ready to leave Middle Easterners to their fate; it even sided with their actual or potential oppressors.

So who has been waging the battle meanwhile? The people of Iran and Turkey, who have not won because in part the United States failed to encourage the former and did not encourage the Turkish army to do what the Egyptian army did do; the embattled Tunisian and Lebanese anti-Islamists; the Saudis (at times) and the Persian Gulf Arabs (except for Qatar) and Jordan. Oh yes, and also Israel the most slandered and falsely reviled country on earth.

Second, the Benghazi affair was the model of the Obama Administration worldview: If you allow a video insulting Muslims, four American officials will be killed. If you support the overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, thousands of Americans might die. This is the result of placing not politics but counterterrorism in command. 

And this leads to…Barack Obama’s Big Decision

Is President Obama going to come down on the side of the Islamist ex-regime, remember this includes the Salafists in objective terms, or the new regime? What a remarkable irony that Obama endlessly apologized for past U.S. support for dictators and ended up adding a new chapter to that history and heightened anti-Americanism! Remember that one of his last conversations with ex-President Muhammad al-Mursi, 

Obama told him that he still regarded him as the democratically elected president of Egypt.

Of course, Obama will have to end up recognizing the new government. The question is how much and how long he will resist that? It is pitiful to know that the best possible result is that he will accept the rulers in Cairo and continue the economic aid. In fact, he should increase it. We should not be talking punishment for the coup but in fact a rich reward, to show others which way the wind blows.

Specifically, U.S. diplomats were urging a deal: a coalition government in Egypt in which the Brotherhood has part of the power.   You can imagine how well that would work and how grateful the Brotherhood (much less the Salafists) and their opponents will be to Obama for proposing they surrender. So in other words, the army, the former opposition, and the Islamists--in short, all of the Egyptian people no matter which side they are on, will see America as their enemy. 

 And will Obama learn more lessons from this situation?  Will he stop seeking to install a regime in Syria that is worse than Mursi’s? Will he increase support for the real Iranian, Turkish, and Lebanese oppositions? Will he recognize the true strategic realities of Israel and stop seeking to install a regime like Mursi’s in the territories captured by Israel in 1967 (I refer here to Hamas, not the Palestinian Authority which might well give way to Hamas after a state would be established?)

So far though, it looks like Obama is determined to be the protector of oppressive dictatorship in Egypt. Isn’t that what Obama complained about what previous presidents had done? The Obama Administration has called on  Egyptian leaders to pursue, “A transparent political process that is inclusive of all parties and groups,” including “avoiding any arbitrary arrests of Mursi and his supporters,” Bernadette Meehan, a spokeswoman for the National Security Council, said July 4 in a statement.

I don’t recall such a statement being made in criticism of the Mursi regime. According to Bloomburg News, “Two U.S. officials who asked not to be identified commenting on[Obama\s]private communications—I assume it was really because they were too ashamed-- said the administration is concerned that some in the military may want to provoke the violence and provide a rationale for crushing the movement once and for all.”

Then comes a critical statement that explains Obama Middle East policy. Pay close attention to this:

“Such a move would fail and probably prompt a shift to al-Qaeda type terrorist tactics by extremists in the Islamist movement in Egypt and elsewhere, the U.S. officials said.”

What is this saying? Remember this is a  White House policy statement for all practical purposes. That if the Muslim Brotherhood or perhaps the Salafists are denied power in Muslim-majority countries they cannot be defeated but that they will be radicalized so that they will launch September 11 style attacks on America.

In other words, the United States must surrender and betray its allies or else it faces disaster. This is called surrender and appeasement. And, besides, such a move would fail. There is a coherent Obama policy. Inquire no more, that is it.

And that’s why, for example, it wants the Turkish and Egyptian armies to  accept an Islamist regime; and Syria for getting one, too; and Israel making whatever risks or concessions required to end the conflict right away no matter what the consequences. American officials say that the actually illusory demographic issue--which is simply nonsense--means that Israel better make the best deal possible now.

 American allies cannot win and if they try they’ll just make the Islamists angrier. The White House, it is forgotten now, even wanted to overthrow the pro-American regime in Bahrain and might have helped them replace it if the Saudis hadn't stopped them.

 I am not joking. I wish I were. 

Remember what the two NSC staffers said, in representing Obama policy because they deserve and may well go down in history:

“Such a move [fighting the Islamists in Egypt would fail and probably prompt a shift to al-Qaeda type terrorist tactics by extremists in the Islamist movement in Egypt and elsewhere.”

Remember what the two NSC staffers said, in representing Obama policy because it deserves ti go  down in history:

“Such a move [fighting the Islamists in Egypt would fail and probably prompt a shift to al-Qaeda type terrorist tactics by extremists in the Islamist movement in Egypt and elsewhere.”

The Obama administration, on the basis of the current CIA director John Brennan's Doctrine  has given up the battle. The Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists are holding the United States for ransom. The demand for releasing (which means not attacking) the United States is the Middle East.

The Obama Administration, on the basis of the John Brennan Doctrine—the current CIA director—has given up the battle. The Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists are holding the United States for ransom. The demand for releasing (not attacking) the United States is the Middle East.

 Naturally, this is also involved in domestic politics since the Obama Administration will be largely judged by voters—including in the 2014 congressional elections—on whether they can prevent such (imaginary) attacks. The theme is consistent, just another way of protecting the American people while accumulating more votes.

 It should be emphasized that aside from everything else, this is a ridiculous U.S. strategy because the Brotherhood and Salafists haven’t even thoughtof this tactic This isn't just a surrender; it's a preemptive surrender.

• See also, Barry Rubin, "Egypt: A Teachable Moment in World History"

GREAT MOMENTS IN U.S. DIPLOMATIC HISTORY! A Quiz

The young Teddy Roosevelt studying foreign policy from his cat, Slippers. Speak softly but carry a big claw.

In this test, find which entry does not belong on this list.

1917: President Woodrow Wilson allies with Britain and France to fight autocracy in World War One and “make the world safe for democracy.”

1941: President Franklin Roosevelt allies with Britain, France, and the USSR to fight fascism and destroy it.

1947: President Harry Truman allies with the Free World to fight Communist aggression and liberate captive nations.

1950: President Harry Truman confronts Communist aggression in South Korea with the UN as allies.

1991: President George Bush leads an international alliance to repel an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

2001: President George W. Bush leads the American people in retaliating to the September 11 attacks on America in Afghanistan against totalitarian Islamist groups.

2013: President Barak Obama forms an alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood to install an anti-American Islamist state in Syria to join such U.S. "allies" as Egypt, Tunisia, Lebanon and Turkey on behalf of the Sunni Sharia World; to make the world safe for authoritarian religious dictatorships, antisemitism and those who would wipe Israel off the map, unrepentant Nazi allies, jihad against Christianity, subjecting women to second-class status, and murdering of gay people. Then to forge these ties stronger he defends an overthrown Egyptian Islamist regime insisting that it should at least participate in a coalition government  earlier just to make sure that it has a share of power so that, no doubt, American values should be represented.