Iran

When IS This ISIS Thing Going To End?

/ softballpolitics / Leave a comment

By Sal Bommarito

The possibilities for ISIS are numerous. Depending upon the actions of its opposition, the rebels may survive and/or morph into yet another manifestation of Al Qaeda or another Arab Spring; the former is more likely than the latter.

The surest way to “destroy and degrade” ISIS is for the U.S. to employ ground troops. There seems to be no impetus to do this on a grand scale, but over time, President Obama may approve the deployment of more Special Forces units to help root out ISIS. This action would make bombing missions more productive and give pause to ISIS fighters. Special Forces could also be used to assassinate ISIS leaders, which might destabilize the rebels.

By some miracle, or with the help of Iran, the Iraqis may make some progress in repelling ISIS and recover land absconded by the insurgents. Many are not sanguine about the motivation or the courage of Iraq soldiers, so significant Iranian intervention may be necessary to impact ISIS. Obviously, a mass Iranian intrusion could have a material effect, but there is no reason to believe that the Ayatollah’s army will be more inspired than the Iraqis.

A more significant issue is that the potential influence of Iran will increase in Iraq, as does its military involvement. This contingency will surely affect the tenuous Shiite/Sunni situation in Iraq. The more the Iranians interfere, the less chance Sunnis will ever achieve any significant political power or access to natural resources.

At some point, other countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey may reach a breaking point and finally become active members of the coalition. This possibility is doubtful unless ISIS threatens the stability of these nations. For instance, unless ISIS recruits large groups to commit terrorist acts, or ISIS grows strong enough to cross the Iraq or Syria borders, neighboring nations will probably refrain from any aggressive actions.

ISIS may try to establish a new religious state on Iraqi and Syrian territory. This is truly a pipe dream. With the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the last caliphate ended in 1924. It was overseen by a select group of Imams, but ruled by local leaders. Today, ISIS could never muster the resources to build a secure central government. The chances that any other nations would recognize this new entity are zero. ISIS squandered whatever political capital it had by murdering, immolating and torturing innocent men, women and children.

The final possibility is that the ISIS rebels tire of fighting. Constant bombing threats and months away from home will have an impact on the enthusiasm of the group. It just might dissipate over time leaving a massive, social, political and financial disaster in its wake.

After the hostilities subside, the problems are not over. Civil wars are likely in several places in the region. In particular, the Shiites and Sunnis will be at each other’s throats in Iraq. And, the world will once again be demanding that Assad in Syria abdicate. We can all look forward to continuing issues emanating out of the Middle East including the possibility that Iran may have a nuclear weapon in a few years.

Iran Will Effectively Annex Iraq After ISIS Is Defeated

/ softballpolitics / Leave a comment

By Sal Bommarito

Iran is assisting the government of Iraq and fighting side by side with Iraqis against ISIS on the battlefield. This turn of events that is documented in a New York Times story will likely lead to the effective annexation of Iraq by Iran after the war ends.

Iran has filled a void created by President Obama’s decision not to employ ground troops against ISIS. Recent successes on the ground throughout the country have stemmed, to a degree, the advances of the enemy.

There is a method to Iran’s actions that will greatly impact the direction of Iraq after ISIS is neutralized. Iran’s hegemonic behavior is recognized by all Arab nations. Its desire to control Arabs and assist Shiite regimes is infamous. This latest ploy to stem the tide of ISIS on the ground could very well lead to even stronger bonds between these two Shiite-controlled governments as they jointly oppress Sunnis throughout Iraq.

A civil war is inevitable in Iraq post ISIS. In order to gain total control, the Iraqi government must exterminate the ISIS insurgents and marginalize Sunnis who remain in the country. Oppression is virtually guaranteed. In fact, Shiite militia groups have already violated many Sunnis during the campaign against ISIS.

After a decade of support given to Iraq by the U.S. that included the end of Saddam Hussein’s reign of terror, a trillion dollars of financial assistance and thousands of American casualties, Iraq will likely yield to Iran politically.

Could this have been avoided? Yes, if the president had sent in ground troops to take the fight to ISIS, Iranians would not have asserted themselves upon the Iraqis. The price of assisting Iraq after the war might have been prohibitive and could have led to another nation-building adventure, something that most Americans eschew.

The bonds between Iraq and Iran have now strengthened materially and perhaps a puppet government that ruthlessly oppresses the minority religion will result in a tenuous peace.

The subordination of American leadership and military support may be the direction future presidents adopt. But, the impact of such a policy will enable hegemonic nations like Iran to increase their influence in surrounding nations and decrease the chances for democracy.

Why Has ISIS Been So Difficult To Eradicate?

/ softballpolitics / Leave a comment

By Sal Bommarito

The ISIS imbroglio is beginning to create extreme anxiety in the Middle East, among western nations and in America.

At first, the U.S. and Arab Nations did not give ISIS the respect it deserved. This horrendous miscalculation has enabled ISIS to become a cult that is admired by young and disenfranchised people around the world. The group’s expertise in using social media and to recruit new fighters has been spectacular. All this has evolved into a phenomenon- a fighting force that has held its own in spite of U.S. air attacks and continued confrontations on the ground. ISIS is repelling offensives by Iraqi forces, Syrian forces, Shiite militias and most recently Iranian fighters.

ISIS started out as a junior varsity imposition (to paraphrase a comment by President Obama) and has grown into a formidable group of fighters with a strong, although warped, ideology that is attracting many followers, affiliates and imitators.

But, something is amiss. ISIS, in spite of growing coverage by the media, is still an enigma. The public knows very little about the leadership of ISIS or its ultimate objectives. Surely, ISIS cannot believe it is capable of establishing a new Islamic nation. It does not have the resources or the experience to govern and service several hundred thousand or a million citizens. ISIS will never become a real threat to the west beyond its ability to conduct limited terrorist acts. And yet, to some Americans, the threat is growing every day.

One of the great frustrations surrounding ISIS is that information about the organization and its true potential is not being reported with any enthusiasm. The U.S. government’s operations are shrouded in secrecy, although Obama thought it wise to broadcast to the enemy that U.S. ground troops would not be deployed in the region. The U.S. mission has become a complete mystery- degrading and destroying the insurgents may be the slogan, but it’s not happening.

Exacerbating the affair is that the Obama administration is acting like a deer in the headlights. It is spending too much time trying to convince the world that ISIS is just a run of the mill terrorist organization and not a radical Islamic threat. It should be developing a battle plan to kill off the cockroaches that have destabilized the Middle East.

Maybe Obama’s grand plan is to force Arabs to clean up their own mess. All things being equal, this tactic sounds reasonable. It is the Arabs who are under siege, so why should America pay for a war and put its young people in harm’s way?

The answer to the question traces back to the role of the U.S. in the world. In simple terms, should America step aside while ISIS immolates, beheads, tortures, rapes and displaces millions of people? Should America stand by and enable ISIS to commit egregious crimes against humanity? What is going to happen to the 5 or so million displaced Syrians and Iraqis? The writer believes America cannot turn its head in good conscience.

While we are on the sidelines dropping bombs from 15,000 feet, evil forces are imposing themselves. For instance, it has been reported that Iran is supporting Iraq ground forces and making points with Iraqi Shiites that control the country. Looking ahead, if ISIS is ever “neutralized,” Iran will have great influence over Iraq- the cost of the support it is now providing.

Other issues in the Middle East are muddying the water for the Obama administration. The president is determined to give Iran a nuclear capability in ten years. Prime Minister Netanyahu thinks this is an insane thing to agree to. Israel is preparing to go to war with Iran if it gets its way. More than any other issue, Iran’s nuclear program is diverting the U.S. from the task of dealing with ISIS.

Affiliates of ISIS are popping up all over the Middle East and murdering innocents. Lone wolves are planning nefarious acts in countries around the world. Why isn’t the U.S. leading a response to all these events? Is our country now just a spectator, a follower of other nations that have the courage to battle evil forces?

There is still time for the Obama administration to act decisively and prove that America can lead the free world.

Natanyahu Ready To Present His Perspectives To Congress

/ softballpolitics / Leave a comment

By Sal Bommarito

The Middle East continues to be a powder keg, literally, exacerbated by the milquetoast response of the U.S. and its coalition to the ISIS threat and an impending deal with Iran that would enable it to build a nuclear bomb in the near future.

This blog has lambasted the administration and Arab countries opposing ISIS for underestimating the potential of the insurgency and by responding in a manner that has allowed it to become a phenomenon attractive to young people around the world. More aggressive action is necessary immediately to prevent ISIS and its affiliates from becoming an existential threat to the Middle East.

But, this week, the Iran nuclear deal is front and center. Two New York Times articles will be referenced in this post. The first addresses the advocacy of Secretary of State John Kerry for an Iran treaty. The second outlines the growing conflict between the Obama administration and Israel pertaining to Iran’s nuclear program.

John Kerry is desperate to win a significant foreign policy victory. He has, unsuccessfully to this point, invested in personal relationships with several individuals in the Middle East, Europe and Russia trying to bring peace to the world. The Times states, “ . . . [because of] Kerry’s inordinate attention to [the Iran nuclear negotiations], there is an impression that he wants this agreement more so than the Iranians.” And, his “eagerness” is an “open invitation” for Iran to demand more concessions. The article references Kerry’s unsuccessful Middle East efforts that ended in “bitter recriminations between Israel and Palestine,” along with little progress to end the civil war in Syria. Regarding Russia, the U.S. is not even at the negotiating table in talks to end the violence in Ukraine.

Couple Kerry’s zeal with Obama’s obvious legacy ambitions and the situation could be explosive for the Middle East. If Kerry and Obama had their way, Iran would surely have a nuclear weapon in the near term. Fortunately, Congress will not allow the administration to give away the ranch because two U.S. politicians are worried about how history will remember them.

This all leads us to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who has arrived in Washington to address Congress, without endorsement by the Obama administration, to discuss the dangers associated with an Iran nuclear deal. Netanyahu considers an Iranian nuke an existential threat, and he should know given his country’s proximity to Iran and Iran’s longstanding anti-Semitic posture and objective to annihilate the State of Israel.

In a Times article, the White House offered a number of unconvincing arguments that suggest a deal with Iran is the best course of action. Unfortunately, the administration is not revealing pertinent information because it does not believe Americans are capable of understanding the gravity of the negotiations, or there are no strong factors supporting a deal.

The Times story is chock full of squishy comments by the administration and a number of contradictions. The purpose of the White House comments was to discredit Netanyahu by implying that he does not appreciate the process. This is a curious tact given Israel’s concerned about how Iran would use a nuclear in the region in the next year, in ten years and forever. The basis of the prime minister’s perspective is Israeli intelligence on the matter, which is likely more substantive than U.S. information.

The U.S. stated that Netanyahu “has failed to present a feasible alternative [to the American proposals, which are current not known in any detail].” Really? Israel wants to ensure that Iran never has a nuclear weapon, which was the original intent of the U.S., if memory serves me correct. Obama is just not listening to Netanyahu or anyone else that would interfere with his deal to improve relations with a mortal enemy of America.

The U.S. indicated, “that even an imperfect agreement that kept Iran’s nuclear efforts frozen for an extensive period was preferable to a breakdown in talks . . .” When dealing with nuclear proliferation, imperfect treaties are could be deadly. If the U.S. objective is no nukes for Iran, this deal does not make sense.

“The alternative to not having a new treaty is losing inspections.” This comment is contradicted in two other parts of the story. Iran has not answered “a dozen questions by the Atomic Energy Agency about the ‘possible military dimensions’ of Iran’s program.” And, “last week Iran stonewalled inspectors on answering most of [their] questions.” Clearly, Iran is not cooperating before the deal is signed, meaning that it will not cooperate afterwards either. Without verification of compliance, Iran will be free to do many things in secrecy.

The balance of the article addresses time schedules and how quickly Iran could develop a bomb if it opts out of a treaty. This all nonsense. The Obama administration is prepared to give Iran the ability to produce a bomb in about ten years, or sooner if it cheats. Congress should trash this proposal and step up sanctions against Iran until it agrees to indefinitely defer its nuclear ambitions. This would benefit the Middle East, Israel, Sunnis in the region and the U.S.

Iran Cannot Be Trusted With A Nuclear Weapon

/ softballpolitics / Leave a comment

By Sal Bommarito

A New York Times story about Secretary of State John Kerry’s testimony to a Senate committee is anything but comforting. Kerry is essentially the chief negotiator in talks with Iran about restricting its ability to build a nuclear weapon. Additionally, Kerry is the chief responder to the objections of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu relating to said nuclear discussions.

The implication of the Iran nuclear negotiations is the most important issue facing the U.S. and the Middle East, far outdistancing ISIS. It appears that the administration is intent on striking a deal and suddenly foisting it on Congress for approval without giving our lawmakers a chance to study the terms or debate them.

One particular comment in the Times article is particularly striking: “A major American goal in negotiating an accord is to slow the Iranian nuclear program to the point that it would take Iran at least a year to produce enough fuel for a nuclear weapon if it decided to ‘break out’ of the accord.”

I thought the original objective was to never allow Iran to develop a nuclear device, not to just delay its development by one year. The implication is that the U.S. might take military action during this period of time. This is not a good idea. Iran cannot be trusted to live up to any agreement, and they cannot be trusted to be a responsible nuclear power.

Iran has been a mortal enemy of the U.S. ever since the Shah was deposed in the 1970s. Radical Islamic fundamentalists orchestrated a take over of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979 and held Americans hostage for 444 days, just as Ronald Reagan was sworn in as president. Since then, Iran has sponsored many terrorist organizations that have destabilized the region.

Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon in the near future is without a doubt one of the most dangerous contingencies for the Middle East, far greater than ISIS. Will Iran use this new power to bully its neighbors and antagonize Israel and Saudi Arabia, its worst enemies? No doubt.

The President is trying to deal with a nation that hates America and wishes to exterminate the State of Israel. Is this something Obama wants to do to solidify his already crumbling legacy? Is putting the Middle East in mortal danger a sensible foreign policy move?

The optimum strategy in Iran would be to continue economic sanctions and effectively bankrupt the country. Lower oil prices together with crushing trading restrictions will create great internal strife in Iran and either lead to a more conciliatory Iranian government or a civil war. If Iran needs to contend with domestic problems perhaps it will be less intrusive into the affairs of other Arab nations.

The Obama administration is secretly trying to sign an accord with the vilest country in the Middle East. These overtures are going to backfire, or Congress will oppose inane treaties. Radical Muslims will not honestly negotiate with America. Promises, accords, pacts and treaties mean nothing to them.

Obama’s Middle East Legacy

/ softballpolitics / Leave a comment

By Sal Bommarito

In defense of President Obama, it’s obvious he really wants peace in the Middle East. Unfortunately, his non-confrontational approach has made it clear that he does not wish to engage any evil forces with the full military and diplomatic might of the U.S.

The problem with this strategy is that our adversaries are playing by different rules. This is a function of several issues. The Shiite/Sunni feud is responsible for the intransigent attitudes of many Arabs. Neither sect will rest until the other is annihilated. Iran and Saudi Arabia lead the two groups of combatants.

The U.S. cannot negotiate with one of the sects without offending the other. Each group relishes the thought of the U.S. engaging militarily and/or diplomatically against the other. This is the reason why the Iran nuclear negotiations are so profound. If the U.S. spurns the Iranians, plays hardball regarding the production of nuclear material and increases economic sanctions, the Saudis will be overjoyed. Conversely, if the U.S. deals with Iran, the Saudis will be dismayed.

The ISIS war has surfaced many of the contradictions prevalent in the Middle East. The U.S., Iran, Russia, Turkey, Jordan and Saudi Arabia oppose ISIS. Yet, Iran and Russia support the Assad regime in Syria. It has been difficult to coordinate military operations with such dramatically different perspectives pertaining to Syria.

The U.S. has chosen a seemingly benign approach to ISIS. It is prepared to kill ISIS fighters with bombs, but unwilling to engage them on the ground. Most observers and participants in the war believe that effective ground support is critical to defeating ISIS. Without it, ISIS will recruit, fortify, terrorize and survive.

It’s likely that most opponents of ISIS would prefer that the U.S. go all-in with a massive invasion and finish off the relatively impotent ISIS force, even though Arab countries would publicly criticize such an action. Obama has a dream that U.S.-trained Iraqi soldiers will be capable of providing ground support necessary to kill ISIS some number of years into the future, a questionable strategy to say the least.

The issue of leadership has been swept under the rug from the start of the ISIS crisis. Most observers expected the U.S. to lead the fight. This has not been the case; Obama is influenced by some combination of reticence and ambivalence about leading the charge against the insurgents; he probably fears another multi-year occupation. Bombing alone is more of a support function in this type of war. ISIS needs to be rooted out with foot soldiers.

Ironically, the brave King of Jordan has exhibited real courage in the face of the gruesome execution of his hero pilot. Many of us are wondering why the U.S. is not stepping up even as the threat of ISIS is proving to be greater every day.

The legacy of the American president will not be favorable. The U.S. is no longer considered a reliable ally by Arab countries and by Israel. The president has chosen to lead from behind, an absurd and ineffective way to prosecute a war. Negotiating with a charter member of George W. Bush’s axis of evil (Iran) could prove to be destabilizing. There are millions of refugees and those displaced by ISIS that are in dire need. This could result in a catastrophic humanitarian disaster that will be assigned to Obama and the U.S.

The principal problem with President Obama’s current plan is that he does not seem to appreciate the ramifications of not dealing with deadly forces now. By punting, he has allowed them to have successes, which will make them stronger and more difficult to defeat in the future.

The Middle East Will Be Safer If Iran Cannot Negotiate A Nuclear Agreement

/ softballpolitics / Leave a comment

By Sal Bommarito

The New York Times reported that President Hassan Rouhan came out swinging and criticized nuclear-armed nations on Wednesday. Naturally, he focused on the U.S. and Israel for being hypocritical about Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Considering that Rouhan was chosen to deal with Iran’s detractors and to negotiate a nuclear agreement with the United Nations Security Council, it was surprising that the president spoke so aggressively, especially since a deal is in the balance. In his speech, the Iranian leader indicated that his country does not “covet” nuclear weapons. This is the principal focus of the negotiations that are underway. Iran, he said, would use its nuclear capabilities only for peaceful purposes, a comment most do not believe.

Rouhan pointed out that several countries have nuclear weapons, and these weapons have not enabled any country to find peace. [This is a reference to the U.S. Even with its vast arsenal, it is always involved in conflict.] The U.S. has not actually used a nuclear weapon since World War II, and it has reduced the size of its inventory dramatically over time. The threat of a nuclear attack assisted the U.S. as it fended off the U.S.S.R during the Cold War.

Israel has never confirmed that it has nuclear weapons, but the Arms Control Association, a research group, says Israel has between 100 to 200 nuclear warheads.

It is likely that Rouhan was reacting to the grumbling by hawkish leaders and clerics in Iran. He wanted to assure his countrymen that he will negotiate assertively with the U.S. Additionally, he may be frustrated by difficult negotiations that are underway, and the possibility they will not be successful.

U.S. senators on both sides of the aisle have indicated that they are skeptical that any sensible agreement will evolve from the current negotiations. In fact, the Senate is ready to propose sanctions against Iran if a deal is not signed by March 24. The Security Council “has given themselves until [the same date] to reach the basics of a permanent agreement.”

The countries most interested in the negotiations, outside of the Security Council, are Israel and Saudi Arabia. Israel considers a nuclear Iran an existential threat. It is lobbying the U.S., the president and Congress to not provide flexibility to Iran regarding its nuclear program, and to increase sanctions.

Saudi Arabia has a similar attitude about Iran’s nuclear program, but it has been much less vocal. Iran is always at loggerheads with Saudi Arabia in their fight for dominance of the Arab world. If Iran produces a nuclear weapon, the Saudis will likely buy one. An arms race will ensue.

Some have argued that if other countries have nuclear arms, why shouldn’t Iran? These same people say that Iran will be responsible. On what basis? Given Iran’s attitude and disruptive behavior over the years, there is no reason to assume that it will not misuse a nuclear weapon, or wield it to bully other Arab nations.

Many observers are wondering why this agreement is such a high priority for President Obama, including a vast number of Americans. There are few nations in the region, if any, that are comfortable with the thought of a nuclear Iran.

Saudi Arabia Could Influence The Events In The Middle East By Manipulating Oil Prices

/ softballpolitics / Leave a comment

By Sal Bommarito

Bloomberg Quick stated, “Oil is so much more than a fuel. It’s a force even bigger than its $3.4 trillion market. It’s a weapon, a strategic asset, a curse. It’s a maker and spoiler of fortunes, a leading indicator and an echo chamber . . . ”

The price of oil was specially volatile in 2014 on the downside. The price per barrel decreased from $107.73/ barrel in June to $53.27 by year end, a 48% decline, even as Americans and Europeans drove less in more efficient cars. Today the price of oil is approximately $48. The volatility of oil prices prior to the current precipitous drop was always affected by world affairs, economics, supply and demand and OPEC, which is dominated by Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia has a new leader, King Salman. Will he adopt new policies towards the U.S. and other Arab countries, or will he follow in the path of his predecessor? The answer to this question could have a dramatic impact on events in the Middle East and regions surrounding it.

The world is closely monitoring the actions and comments of the Saudis relative to oil prices. The price of this commodity and the commodity itself represents the power of this Sunni state. For years, Saudi Arabia impacted the price of oil to its benefit. Vast accumulation of wealth has enabled the kingdom to maintain domestic tranquility in the face of increasing religious fanaticism and influence. The Saudis bribe other nations to do their bidding. They unleashed insurgents to Shiite controlled nations to create instability. And now, they have a unique opportunity to dramatically impact three very important countries involved in the ISIS conflict.

There are some very interesting oil conspiracy theories floating around the marketplace. It should be noted that Saudi Arabia is the largest producer of oil in the Middle East, and it has experienced a huge drop off of revenues because of declining prices. Yet, the Saudis have resisted the urge to cut back production and create an artificial shortage, which would drive prices up. While prices and revenues are low, the country can draw upon very significant monetary resources.

The Saudis have stated that if they cut back production, other producers will step in,  fill the vacuum and prices will not increase. Additionally, they say that oil prices should be established by supply and demand, not on the whim of one producer or another.

Back to conspiracies. One is that the Saudis are not increasing prices because they want to deter the production of oil in the U.S. Production in the U.S. has increased from 5 million barrels in 2008 to 8.5 million barrels in 2014 spurred principally by hydraulic fracking in shale deposits. This has enabled the U.S. to dramatically decrease its dependence on foreign oil and made it a producer equal in size to Saudi Arabia. Some say that the Saudis are keeping prices low to discourage  new production in the U.S. High cost producers in this country are currently shutting down operations rather than producing oil and selling it a loss.

Another theory is that Saudi Arabia is reveling in the problems facing both Russia and Iran. Both are large producers who are highly dependent on  oil revenues. Russia and Iran are also dealing with economic sanctions imposed by the U.S.

Russia is being punished because it annexed Crimea  and continues to support rebels who are destabilizing Ukraine. Iran is being sanctioned because it has continued its nuclear program.

Saudi Arabia is in a position that is very familiar to it. By manipulating oil prices, it can significantly impact other nations. In the case of Russia, the Saudis want it to encourage Bashar al-Assad of Syria to abdicate. Russia has been supportive of Assad and has given him military assistance as he fights with ISIS and moderate rebels. Most believe Vladimir Putin will not cave to these demands.

Iran is Saudi Arabia’s principal antagonist in the region. It is the leader of the Shiite world;  Saudi Arabia leads the Sunni world. They regularly are at loggerheads when one supports a regime and the other works to destabilize it. Iran is having serious financial problems because of oil prices and sanctions. Its ability to create unrest in Sunni nations will be diminished if revenues are squeezed. Exacerbating its relationship with Iran is Saudi Arabia’s concern about the ability of Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. Like Israel, the Saudis believe that this contingency is an existential threat. It is highly probable that the Saudis are conferring with the U.S. to maintain sanctions and not permit the Iranians to move forward in their nuclear program, while the Saudis keep oil prices low.

Saudi Arabia is in the driver’s seat relating to several important situations. We can be sure that they will use their influence and money to take advantage of these situations.

Middle East Predictions: ISIS, Civil War, Terrorism

/ softballpolitics / Leave a comment

By Sal Bommarito

The prospects for peace in the Middle East are not favorable in the near future. The ISIS conflict and several other ongoing problems will continue to plague the Arab world during the next year. This essay will examine some of the more pressing issues and their effect on the geopolitical landscape.

 

The ISIS caliphate will begin to take shape as hostilities wane between ISIS and its enemies. It will be a monumental achievement for the interlopers to establish a new nation on stolen ground. The brutality of ISIS will not subside. In an effort to solidify its dominance, ISIS will execute opponents as well as non-Sunni Arabs. These actions will serve to exacerbate the refugee crisis and increase the number of displaced Arabs.

 

The immigration of refugees to countries neighboring Syria, including Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon, will create dire circumstances for the lost souls and for the countries that have been so receptive to those in need. Refugees will encounter worsening living conditions and be ostracized by citizens of countries to which they immigrated. It is likely that thousands will perish from starvation, cold weather, unsanitary conditions and genocide.

 

The coalition’s plan to train and arm Iraqi soldiers and moderate rebels in Syria will be unsuccessful. This contingency will create a stalemate if the U.S. does not send ground troops. Ground force support of bombing operations is critical as ISIS fighters fortify their positions in populated areas. Pilots have not been able to identify and destroy targets without experienced controllers on the ground.

 

At some point, the U.S. will be forced to abandon its objective to destroy ISIS. There is no reason to expect that President Obama will change his battle plan during the final two years of his administration, even if Congress petitions him to do so.

 

The extraction of U.S. forces from the region is a significant goal of the Obama administration. This coupled with resistance of Americans against ground troop utilization should ensure another unsuccessful American military escapade.

 

Iraq will continue to be a battleground where Shiite government forces encounter persistent Sunni opposition and ISIS fighters. The current leader of Iraq will eventually cave into hard line pressure and increase the oppression of Sunnis not under the control of the ISIS caliphate.

 

The Shiite/Sunni feud will escalate throughout the region as each sect employs insurgents to destabilize nations governed by the other sect. Yemen is the latest victim, where Shiite fighters have deposed Sunni leadership.

 

The consensus among nations determined to dethrone Bashar al-Assad of Syria will dissipate as domestic conditions in each Arab country worsen. The U.S. has already deferred its earlier objective to topple Assad, so he will survive for the time being. Iran must deal with western sanctions and oil-inspired economic instability, so it will be diverted. Turkey has a gargantuan refugee problem that is taxing its financial condition and a growing Kurdish push for independence. The only state that will likely pressure Assad is Saudi Arabia. Nevertheless, Syria will continue to be a killing field as ISIS protects its gains and Syrian rebels battle against Assad.

 

Iran will not be able to negotiate a deal with the U.S. to produce a nuclear weapon. The U.S. Congress is going to resist any inane deal that would make the Middle East more dangerous and encourage others to develop or buy a nuclear weapon.

 

Saudi Arabia will be the only country with relatively stable conditions. Low oil prices will decrease its revenues, but it has significant monetary assets on hand. The inability of Iran to develop a nuclear weapon will be a great relief to the Saudis. The new king will attempt to increase his country’s influence by bribing other nations and unleashing Sunni insurgents into Shiite countries.

 

The big question relates to terrorism. Will all the upheaval in the Middle East create new problems for the west? Will ISIS encourage new lone wolf atrocities throughout the world? Is global terror on the rise and being encouraged by ISIS’ success? Will ISIS refocus on building a new nation based upon terror, cruelty and fanatical religious ideology?

 

Recent Issues Exacerbating Middle East Problems

/ softballpolitics / Leave a comment

By Sal Bommarito

The bad news emanating from the Middle East and neighboring countries has been non-stop for quite some time. At first glance, the events seem unrelated and pose little risk to those of us who live thousands of miles away. Recently, there have been new developments, which demand closer scrutiny because they could destabilize the Middle East further along with many nations throughout the world.

 

Essays published by this blog have analyzed every conceivable issue relating to the ISIS conflict. For those of you, who need background, please click here to access Softball Politics. You may read earlier articles of interest to you.

 

It’s time to once again reconsider the implications of the ISIS conflict from a global perspective. Initially, a group of unorganized bandits ravaged large tracts of land in Iraq and Syria. The leaders indicated their objective is to establish an Islamic caliphate. In fact, the group immediately began to murder innocent people who were not Arab, were Shiites or did not ascribe to the most fundamental precepts of Islam.

 

During their reign of terror, the renegades absconded more and more land along with oil reserves and antiquities, which they sold to finance their fighting force. ISIS uses social media to broadcast their propaganda and to recruit new fighters. Yet, most world leaders did not consider ISIS a great threat, including President Obama. Soon, the president changed his perspective and initiated a bombing program intended to stem the tide of ISIS.

 

ISIS has held its own while fighting against an inferior Iraq army, “moderate” rebels in Syria and Kurds near the border of Syria and Turkey. The latter group has had the most success to this point. American bombing sorties have been relatively unproductive, as many planes return to base with all their munitions because the pilots have not been able to find suitable targets, or they could not obtain permission to drop their loads.

 

ISIS has been fortifying its position in populated areas. This will hamper the current bombing tactics, as the U.S. is concerned with collateral damage. The need for qualified ground forces has never been direr. Most experts believe that the Iraqi army will never be able to effectively deal with the ISIS force embedded in cities and towns, even after the U.S. trains them.

 

More importantly is the fact that the ideology of ISIS is becoming more popular every day. The rebels have been boasting about their ability to withstand American assaults, made possible because assaults are exclusively from the sky. Recruits have been streaming in, as disenfranchised young people want to become affiliated with a winning group that defies the international establishment.

 

An outgrowth of this phenomenon is the continuing lone wolf threats popping up around the world, such as the attack on Charlie Hebdo in Paris, and more recently bomb threats to commercial airlines. A global destructive revolutionary spirit is growing rapidly, which is so diverse and widespread that it will be difficult to fend off.

 

After following events in the Middle East for an extended period of time, many have concluded that the hostilities between the two major sects of Islam (personified by Iran and Saudi Arabia) are the most perverse cause of conflict in the region. This is not a new development, however, three issues have caused the relationship between Shiites and Sunnis to deteriorate even further.

 

The first relates to ISIS and Syria. Even though Iran and Saudi Arabia are fighting ISIS, Iran continues to support the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria, while the Saudis are dead set against it. This is a part of a growing and continuous indirect confrontation between the two most important countries in the Middle East that represent opposing Islamic perspectives. Further, fighters backed by Iran have just toppled Yemen and the Saudi-backed (and U.S. backed) government has been deposed. Iran and Saudi Arabia are forever supporting provocateurs in countries that are Sunni and Shiite, respectively.

 

Another development is the decline in oil prices. Saudi Arabia in effect controls the lion’s share of oil exported out of the Middle East. Its policy is to maintain current levels of production even if they foster lower oil prices. This has a serious impact on all of the oil producing countries around the world, especially Iran.

 

Some are speculating that the Saudi strategy is to severely damage Iran economically by keeping prices low. This will ultimately affect the ability of Iran to buy the loyalty of other Arab nations and conduct covert operations in Sunni controlled states. The Saudis are in a much better financial condition and can easily weather lower oil revenues.

 

Exacerbating the oil issue is Iran’s obsession with producing a nuclear weapon. This ambition causes great consternation in Saudi Arabia. It is likely that Iran will bully other Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia, when and if it can deliver a nuclear device.

 

On the other side of the coin, the Saudi’s are certainly pressuring the U.S. to maintain sanctions against Iran and to not allow the Iranians any flexibility in their nuclear program. The sanctions will weaken Iran.

 

The dynamics of the Middle East are becoming more complicated every day. There are many similar, but less strategic issues facing other Arab nations, most notably are Egypt, and its new secular government, and Turkey, which has been tepid in its response to ISIS. Other problems have been caused by U.S. policies.