tdaxp

Earlier, after terrorists exported trouble from Pakistan to India, I urged readers to view the event through PNM Theory and particularly the PNM/tdaxp synthesis that sees the world divided into several zones

1. The Old Core (North America, Western Europe, Japan)
2. The New Core (Brazil, India, China, etc)
3. The Seam (Cuba, South Africa, Philippines, etc.)
4. The Non-Integrating Gap (Congo, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, etc)

The higher your country up in this list, the nicer your citizens' lives are, the less likely they are to die of starvation, the less likely your women are likely to be raped as a tool of warfare, the less likely your child will die of starvation. All in all, it's fantastic to be born in the Old Core, pretty good to be born in the New Core, somewhat acceptable to be born in the Seam, and a Hobbesian nightmare in the Gap.

Part of the Terror of the Gap is that it exports terrorism, death, and disease from the Gap to the Seam and the Core. Lebanon's Civil War's envelopment of Israel is yet another example of this example. We are not seeing in Lebanon "collective punishment" or a "lethal care wreck." We are seeing something that has always existed in the world: the attempted destruction of the good by the bad. Lebanon's export of violence and death to Israel is analogous to Afghanistan's export of violence and death to America, or any of the other recent acts of terrorism against civilized countries.

Fortunately, the success of global capitalism teaches us how this will end: the spread of the Core to the four corners of the world, and the eradication of war as we know it. Between now and that end of history good decisions can be made, and the nature of that final peace can be tweaked this way and that. Much work is to be done, and billions of lives hang in the balance.

Yet when we see specific cases like the current Lebanon-Israel conflict, we know what's going on: the Gap is exporting violence to the Core. If you want a true end to this mess, don't worry about shuttle diplomacy and magic bullets. Instead: Shrink the Gap, primarily through structural economic and security connectivity.

Earlier today a former student of mine asked me for my thoughts on Israel's invasion of Lebanon. I responded directly to him, and decided that because Chirol, Mark, Tom, and everyone else is chatting about the subject I will post my thoughts on the blogosphere as well.

The context is the Lebanese civil war, which was fought by the three largest ethnicities in Lebanon

Shia: ~40% (client of Iran)
Sunni: ~30% (client of Saudi Arabia)
Catholic: ~30% (client of France)

When the French decolonized they left the Catholics in charge with Sunnis as deputies, and for the first thirty years things went relatively well. (The Shia were poor, but no one really cared about them.) A lot of Catholics moved to France or America, decreasing their numbers, but in spite of that things remained stable.

Around 1980 Yasser Arafat's PLO invades Lebanon (if that seems stupid, it was)...

... when Chinese letters are seen all over the place"

Quote courtesy of Catholicgauze over at Coming Anarchy. (Map courtesy of Sun Bin).

"Praise be to God who gives strength to Islam with His victory....," by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, U.S. Central Command, 9 January 2006, http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom1/Shared%20Documents/What%20Extremists%20Say.aspx?PageView=Shared (from ZenPundit).

Long before he began his blog, or even guest blogging here, tdaxp has focused on al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. He often knows better. Note this time, though.

Zarqawi should follow the Muslim Brothers. He should think different.

"Syria, Iran and the Power Plays over Iraq," by George Friedman, Stratfor, 25 October 2005, http://junkpolitics.blogspirit.com/archive/2005/10/26/syria-iran-and-the-power-plays-over-iraq.html.

The U.S. invasion of Iraq was in the direct interest of two countries, in addition to the United States: Iran and Israel. Other countries had a more ambiguous response. The Saudis, for example, were as terrified of Iran as of Iraq. They, more than anyone, wanted to see the balance of power maintained and viewed the American invasion as threatening to their interests.

...

For the Iranians, this was the golden moment. Their dream was of a pro-Iranian Iraq -- or, alternatively, for Iraq's Shiite region to be independent and pro-Iranian, or at least to have a neutral Iraq. The Sunni rising put the Iranians in a perfect position: Using their influence among the Shia, they held the cards that the Americans had dealt them. They adopted a strategy of waiting and spinning complex webs.

The Syrians saw themselves in a much less advantageous position. They were in their worst-case scenario. They could not engage the United States directly, of course. But the only satisfactory outcome to their dilemma was to divert U.S. attention from them or, barring that, so complicate the Americans' position that they would be prevented from making any aggressive moves toward Syria. What Damascus needed was a strong guerrilla war to tie the Americans down.

...

The United States had two possible strategies. The key to controlling Iraq lay in ending the guerrilla war. One part of the guerrilla war -- not all -- was in Syria. The United States could invade Syria -- not a good idea, given available forces. It could ask Israel to do it -- which would be a bad move politically, nor was it clear that Israel wanted to do this. Or, it could use a strategy of indirection.

...

The thing that Syria wants more than anything is Lebanon. The United States has set in motion policies designed to force Syria out of Lebanon. It is not that the United States really cares who dominates Lebanon -- in fact, its Israeli allies rather like the control that Syria has introduced there. Nevertheless, by threatening its core interests, the United States could, leaders thought, begin to leverage Syria.

The Syrians were obviously not going to go quietly into that good night -- not with billions at stake. The assassination of Rafik al-Hariri was the answer.Even when Syria drew its overt military forces out of Lebanon, covert force remained there perpetually. The result of the assassination, however, was overwhelming pressure on Syria -- coupled with a not-too-convincing threat of the use of force by the United States.

For Iran, the fate of Syria is not a major national interest. The future of Iraq is. Iran's view of events in Iraq is divided into three parts: First, a belief that Syria is an important but not decisive source of support for the Sunni guerillas; second, the view that the United States has already maneuvered itself into a de facto alliance with a faction of Iraq's Sunnis; and finally, the belief that Iran's interests in Iraq were not endangered by evolving politics in Lebanon.

tdaxp's view?

• It's almost as if America and Iran is trading something for something
  
• Iran is supporting a government in Iraq that Syria is attacking ... Iran's actions have been consistent with the thesis that they are trading Syria
  
• If only Iran had something it could trade in exchange for Atlantic interference in Greater Syria (it is happening anyway).
  
• Iran is realstic. They believe that a functioning nuclear weapon will improve their position in the Middle East. And they know an Iraq-Iran Axis allows them to begin the liberation of East Arabia.

Iran is selling Syria out. Good.

New Yorker in DC and I are having a cross-blog conversation. See Barnett v. Cole on Iranian Involvement in Anti-Iraqi Terrorism here at tdaxp and A defeat for the Iraqi Constitution is a victory for Iraq over at Nykrindc. For a taste:

tdaxp @ tdaxp

Appeasement of the "Arab street" was chucked pretty early in the GWOT. And happily, the "Arab Street" doesn't exist anyway, the cries of State/CIA Orientalists notwithstanding...

nykrindc @ nykrindc

I would question the morality of a government that went into a country to replace a brutal dictator only to cut and run when things got too hot. Leaving us not only less secure, but also leaving the Iraqi people worse off than they were before (the DRC, Somalia being some of the most important examples).

Elsewhere, Syria Comment looks at regime change (or not) while Dawn's Early Light sees Syria cornered.

What is regime change, anyway? Or encirclement?

"Syria signals change in policy toward Iraq," Associated Press, 1 May 2005, (from Blogs for Bush).

American-Iranian agent given high-ranking Iraqi government job? Check.

Iranian client state open relations with American-Iranian client state? Check.

American-Iranian Connectivity continues to grow...

Syria announced plans to restore diplomatic relations with Iraq more than two decades after ties were severed, boosting regional hopes for securing borders and signaling a willingness to change its policy toward the violence-torn country.

With Iraq’s neighbours concerned that violence and ethnic instability in Iraq could spread throughout the region, they pledged on Saturday to cooperate with Iraq’s newly elected government on “overall border security.”

..

But Syria’s decision to re-establish ties after 23 years of severance could be key to easing the insurgency in Iraq and boosting regional security, given Syria’s 310-mile (499-kilometer) shared border with Iraq and its strong ties with Iraq’s Sunni tribes, analysts said.

It's almost as if America and Iran is trading something for something Almost as if America wants stable Shia regimes around the Persian Gulf.

If only some blogger had predicted this...

Hmmm...

"The attacks of September 11th," by Dan, tdaxp, 24 March 2005, http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2005/02/15/may_allah_protect_the_syrians_-_or_-_the_wolfowitz_plan.html.

"US 'will risk' Middle East reforms," Aljazeera, 13 April 2005, http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/31ADB105-68FC-4BE8-BC40-90107F2678EF.htm (from Liberals Against Terrorism).

Me, last month:

The attacks of September 11th showed that the United States is very "close" to the Middle East -- in some ways closer than Europe. As far as America is concerned the middle east has "blown up" -- we experienced a catastrophic failure of our Greater Middle East foreign policy. (The U.S. pre-9/11 policy was heavily influenced by Atlanticism and European-style Realism, but I disgress.)

American Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Doha, J Scott Carpenter, yesterday:

He said the US policy was not to interfere in every detail of the democratic process, but only help the pro-reform forces in the region. Referring to the Arab Human Development Report, he spoke about three possible scenarios - the worst being maintaining the status quo and the best being people reforming themselves.

Now if only we encourage the Muslim Brothers to run

"At the task force meetings of this forum, many raised the question whether America is prepared to accept the consequences of democracy in the region.

"The answer is yes," he said, indicating the possibility of Islamist forces coming to power in Arab countries through democratic elections.

"We didn't interfere in the election results in Iraq. The person who has now been elected president is an Islamist," Scott said in reply to a query from the audience about the US stance towards groups such as Hamas and Hizb Allah.

Woot. Apparently tdaxp is conducting a shadow foreign policy. This blog is going great!

"Syrian Muslim Brotherhood slams Baathists," AFP, 5 April 2005, http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=13996 (from Liberals Against Terrorism).

Those famous democrats, the Muslim Brothers, want elections now

The Muslim Brotherhood, banned in Syria on pain of death since 1980, called on Monday for an end to the ruling Baath party's 42-year grip on power and for the organization of free and fair elections. The movement, which was behind an armed uprising in the 1980s that marked the biggest challenge to the Damascus regime to date, called for a national congress of all political parties to ward off what it said was a "threat of invasion," an allusion to growing U.S. pressure on the government.

"The Muslim Brotherhood urges the organization of an inclusive national congress that would represent all political tendencies and religious and ethnic groups, whether based inside Syria or in exile, to form a national force capable of facing the challenges," the group said in a statement

Bush has invented Baghdad Rules -- government change through free and fair elections in the Arab countries.

Baby Assad's father invented another type of rules -- Hama Rules. After Daddy Assad was almost assassinated by the Muslim Brothers, he destroyed the fourth largest city of his own country to root them out.

Of course, if Baghdad Rules don't work -- the Muslim Brothers can play that game, too

The Baath party, which has led the country for 42 years, bears the sole responsibility for the destruction it will cause if it insists on continuing its policies and ignoring honest appeals." The group said it was acting "not out of fear that the regime might fall but out of concern for the losses to the country if it slides into anarchy." Washington has stepped up its pressure for democracy in Syria in recent weeks, receiving a small U.S.-based opposition group at the State Department and calling for democratic reforms.

Praktike says this is a threat disguised as a warning. Praktike's right.

"Lebanon Pro-Syria PM to Stay: Parliament Speaker," Reuters, 1 April 2005, http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=633013 (from Roth Report).

After quitting, and coming back, and promising to quit again, Flip Flop Prime Minister Omar Karami is now vowing to stay on:

Lebanon's pro-Syrian prime minister will not step down and will try again to form a unity government to lead the country to elections due in May, the country's parliament speaker said on Friday.

"Those meeting have unanimously declared their refusal to give up on their demand for a government of national unity lead by Prime Minister Omar Karami," Nabih Berri told reporters after a meeting of pro-Syrian politicians.

In a move that threatened to delay the polls, Karami had said this week he would resign after failing to persuade anti-Syrian opposition figures to join a national unity cabinet.

Omar Karami? More like Prime Minister Senator John F. Karami.