facility:washington institute

Three Months After U.S. Freeze, Syrian Recovery Stuck in Limbo – Foreign Policy
▻https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/06/29/three-months-after-u-s-freeze-syrian-recovery-stuck-in-limbo-isis-tru

Short on funding, U.S. and European programs designed to help rebuild after the Islamic State are faltering.

Nearly three months after the White House froze roughly $200 million earmarked to help fund recovery in Syria, U.S. and European officials trying to stabilize the country’s north are scrambling to plug the gaps left by the near-complete withdrawal of American assistance.

Critical programs meant to restore power and clean water and to clear land mines out of urban areas have been disrupted, and the much-needed networks of local assistance are melting away without funding. Other countries are reluctant to cover the difference while Washington is missing in action.
[…]
“People are very upset in Raqqa because everything is destroyed and there is no help,” said Fabrice Balanche, a visiting fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, who visited the region this year. “They say, ‘You came here to expel [the Islamic State], you destroyed everything, and you don’t rebuild anything and you don’t help us.’”

The Angry Arab News Service/وكالة أنباء العربي الغاضب: You rarely see such a #WINEP disclaimer in a Western publication: they used to do that in the past
▻http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2018/05/you-rarely-see-such-winep-disclaimer-in.html

“The trend line that both countries are taking seems headed in the direction of a serious clash,” Michael Eisenstadt, director of military and security studies at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a think tank with close ties to the Israeli military , tells Newsweek. (thanks Basim)

▻http://www.newsweek.com/2018/05/11/syria-war-israel-iran-906959.html

The Race for Deir al-Zour Province - The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
▻http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/the-race-for-deir-al-zour-province

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/images/sized/uploads/Images/Feature/PublicDomain/SyriaMapBalancheDeiralZourSyrianStrategy-400x400.jpg

Août 2017 Fabrice Balanche

[...] rumors [are] circulating in Washington about a future U.S.-backed rebel offensive in Deir al-Zour province. According to such rumors, the Arab rebels and SDF will advance on the northern shores of the Euphrates, up to Mayadin, then cross the river and travel until Abu Kamal before seizing the Iraqi border area. Thus, the Syrian army will be limited to taking Deir al-Zour city and its nearby surroundings. Such a development would allow the United States to block the planned Iranian corridor and maintain pressure on the Assad regime. On the other side of the border, the Iraqi army, not the Shia militias, would eliminate the IS presence. The Sunni Arab tribes on both sides of the border would thus be under a U.S. protectorate and the Iranian corridor project rendered moot. Even excepting geopolitical considerations not discussed here, this rosy situation is unlikely to play out, as evidenced by various clues on the ground.

Not Money Alone: The Challenges of Syrian Reconstruction - The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
▻http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/not-money-alone-the-challenges-of-syrian-reconstruction

A dedication to rural residents, more-efficient farming techniques, and a focus on cities other than Damascus stand out among the tough requirements for building a new Syria.

#Balanche #Syrie

From Qamishli to Qamishlo: A Trip to Rojava’s New Capital - The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
▻http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/from-qamishli-to-qamishlo-a-trip-to-rojavas-new-capital

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/images/sized/uploads/Images/Feature/PublicDomain/syria-kurds-protest-400x400.jpg

I had not been to Qamishli for twenty years. As a Ph.D. student at the French Institute for the Near East, I went with two friends in the late 1990s to explore northeast Syria. This journey led us to Raqqa, Deir al-Zour, Hasaka, and Qamishli. Since 1997 I have returned to other Syrian cities on several occasions but did not have the opportunity to go to Rojava. Twenty years ago, I stayed in the venerable Semiramis Hotel. This luxurious Art Deco hotel was built in the 1950s, the ‘’Golden Age’’ of Jazira when Qamishli was the economic center of this rich grain and cotton producing area. The Semiramis welcomed the tradesmen, textile merchants, and millers of Aleppo who came to buy crops, and the restaurant hosted the high society of Qamishli who came to taste French wines and eat filet mignon. The city was mainly Christian, the rural exodus having not yet engulfed Qamishli. The Armenian and Syriac populations had fled Turkey for France after the First World War, and the French installed them in this almost empty region in order to limit the land claims of Mustafa Kemal in northern Syria. The Christians made the desert bloom using the land that was granted to them by the authorities.

Assad’s Chemical Attack Signals an Imminent Idlib Offensive - The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
►http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/assads-chemical-attack-signals-an-imminent-idlib-offensive

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/images/sized/uploads/Images/Feature/PublicDomain/SyriaJabhatNusraStrongholdsIdlib-400x400.jpg

The regime’s latest atrocity was spurred by clear military motivations, and the situation will likely worsen as the army begins a wider ground campaign against rebel strongholds in Idlib province.

Rojava Seeks to Break Out in Syria - The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
▻http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/rojava-seeks-to-break-out-in-syria

Despite their desire for greater independence, Syria’s Kurds have shown a willingness to broker agreements with the Assad regime in order to secure their near-term economic interests, and they may soon do the same with Iran.

Les soucis (et l’implacable logique) des sionistes du genre Andrew Tabler du Washington Institute for Near East Policy (#WINEP) : il faut bombarder la #Syrie pour éviter la venue de #migrants en #Europe
▻http://www.npr.org/2016/12/17/505996757/why-the-fall-of-aleppo-marks-a-turning-point-in-syrias-war?sc=tw

... to people like in the hometown that I’m from in Pennsylvania, the two things that really are going to continue driving this home and showing that President Obama’s policy was a failure is the combined threat of terrorism and that of migrants that are coming out of this fragmented and broken country.

And when these two streams crossed, they came to loosen up and to damage the societies throughout Europe that had been allies with the United States since the Second World War, brought Russia to the fore in the Middle East and even inspired, in the case of ISIS, a number of lone wolf attacks in the United States.

Farsnews
▻http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13950825000724

Extrait d’une dépêche qui accompagne la sortie d’un rapport par the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Juste après l’élection de Trump et peu avant le départ d’Obama, comme ça tombe bien !

Mohammed bin Salman’s ascension has been surrounded by a great deal of palace intrigue, including the grumbling protestations of royals angry about the prince skipping the lines of succession.

Saudi Sources revealed in late June that Saudi Arabia’s young deputy crown prince is being advised by the UAE on how he can win backing from the US and ascend to the throne by the end of the year.

Two “well-placed Saudi sources” have said that de facto UAE ruler Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan is advising Mohammed on a two-pronged strategy to become Washington’s preferred choice as the next Saudi ruler.

The first Saudi source said bin Zayed has told bin Salman that he must “end the rule of Wahhabism” if he wants to be accepted by the Americans.

Wahhabism is the radical ideology dominating Saudi Arabia which has inspired Takfiri groups such as ISIL and al-Qaeda-linked Nusra Front to wreak havoc in the Middle East.

Bin Zayed has also told bin Salman that he must open a “strong channel of communication” with Israel if he is to be Washington’s preferred candidate to be king.

#arabie_saoudite

The Case for (Finally) Bombing Assad - The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
▻http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/the-case-for-finally-bombing-assad

Les experts US ont tout plein de solutions et j’espère qu’ils se font payer très cher. Denis Ross, il est bien connu depuis le temps de Reagan, c’est dire ! Quant à Andrew Tabler, il a longtemps vécu à Damas en jouant les journalistes (il dirigeait un hebdo éco implanté dans une zone franche du temps où Assad était persona grata chez les Occidentaux.)

There is an alternative: Punish the Syrian government for violating the truce by using drones and cruise missiles to hit the Syrian military’s airfields, bases and artillery positions where no Russian troops are present.

Opponents of these kinds of limited strikes say they would prompt Russia to escalate the conflict and suck the United States deeper into Syria. But these strikes would be conducted only if the Assad government was found to be violating the very truce that Russia says it is committed to. Notifying Russia that this will be the response could deter such violations of the truce and the proposed military agreement with Moscow. In any case, it would signal to Mr. Putin that his Syrian ally would pay a price if it did not maintain its side of the deal.

If Russia does want to limit its involvement in Syria, the threat of limited strikes should persuade it to make Mr. Assad behave. Conversely, if the skeptics are right that Mr. Putin will get serious about a political solution only if he sees the costs of backing Syria’s government increasing, the threat of such strikes is probably the only way to start a political process to end the war.

Mr. Obama and Mr. Kerry have long said there is no military solution to the Syrian conflict. Unfortunately, Russia and Iran seem to think there is — or at least that no acceptable political outcome is possible without diminishing the rebels and strengthening the Syrian government. It is time for the United States to speak the language that Mr. Assad and Mr. Putin understand.

Military Situation in Southern Syria

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/uploads/Maps/Syria%20Conflict/MilitarySituationSouthernSyria-July_2016-thumb.jpg

#cartographie #visualisation #Syrie

From www.washingtoninstitute.org - Today, 6:16 AM
SOURCE : Fabrice Balanche, 2016, “The Islamic State Threat in the Golan Heights”, site du Washington Institute, 14 juillet 2016.

via @ville_en (twitter)

Angry Arab: The moral outrage of 50 US diplomats
▻http://angryarab.blogspot.fr/2016/06/the-moral-outrage-of-50-us-diplomats.html

How brave of them. 50 US diplomats defied the conventional wisdom and called for more US bombing of an Arab country. How much courage this has taken. I mean, for a group of US diplomats to toe the line of AIPAC requires an unusual amount of courage. In the past, the courage of US diplomat was (rarely) displayed when an individual—not group like this case—defied US policies in favor of Israeli aggression and occupation. Almost to a diplomat, those cases of courage (George Ball and others around the Washington Report) were displayed only after those diplomats retired from service, when their usefulness was quite limited. So this time 50 US diplomats (who deal with diplomacy) felt that their government was not doing enough in terms of bombing in the Middle East against yet another Arab country. Those 50 US diplomats—mind you—never bothered to utter a word against the Israeli war crimes in Gaza or Lebanon, and they never felt courage against GCC-US war crimes in Yemen. But they were so compelled to call for US bombing of Syria. Of course, those 50 US diplomats were never concerned about the inevitable civilians who die from US bombing of Arab countries. And can those 50 US diplomats point to one case in which US bombing advanced the cause of peace and democracy, or to a case where US bombing or even occupation replaced a dictatorship with a better form of government? Leave to the US to be able to replace Qadhdhafi’s dictatorship with a worse regime. The US has singlehandedly succeeded in turning many Iraqis into nostalgia for the regime of Saddam Husayn. But that does not matter: 50 US diplomats want US to bomb Syria, and they mean business. Here, an objective neutral observer speaks on behalf of the 50 US diplomats in the New York Times: “There is an enormous frustration in the bureaucracy about Syria policy,” said Andrew J. Tabler, a Syria expert at the Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy." Also, did any of the US diplomat speak against the US relations with the Syrian regime when the two sides were allies? Just as no US diplomats ever spoke against US alliance with Saddam Husayn during the honey moon years. Those 50 US diplomats have as much courage and as much moral fortitude as Hillary Clinton when she calls for more aid to Israel.

51 U.S. Diplomats Urge Strikes Against Assad in Syria
▻http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/17/world/middleeast/syria-assad-obama-airstrikes-diplomats-memo.html

Netanyahu, Obama’s Tense Relations Hinder U.S.-Israel Aid Deal -
Haaretz Apr 29, 2016 8:55 AM
▻http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.716978

Tense relations between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. President Barack Obama have had a part to play in the holdup in negotiations between Jerusalem and Washington over a renewed military aid agreement, The New York Times reported on Thursday.

“There’s a unique place of pique for the Israelis in certain places in the administration, and I think that hovers around this negotiation,” Robert Satloff, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy’s executive director, was quoted by the Times as saying. “It’s one of the reasons it’s taken so long to reach a decision.”

In 2007, Israel and the United States signed a military aid deal under which the latter promised Israel $30 billion over the next 10 years, or $3 billion a year. This deal will lapse at the end of 2018. American and Israeli officials have therefore been negotiating since November on a new 10-year deal that would define the level of military aid Israel will receive through the end of 2028.

Last week, Netanyahu noted that “significant gaps remain” in the negotiations. After initially suggesting he would prefer to wait until Obama’s successor takes office in January to conclude the aid deal, Netanyahu about-faced earlier this month.

Ilan Goldenberg, the director of the Middle East Security Program at the Center for a New American Security, was quoted by the Times as saying that “at the end of the day, it’s a numbers question and a political bet about whether the Israelis can get something better from the next administration, which I think would not be a wise gamble.”

The difficulty in finalizing a deal is in deciding between two alternative frameworks that the Americans have proposed.

Under Washington’s first proposal, Israel would initially get $3.7 billion a year, with the sum gradually rising to over $4 billion by the end of the decade. Under this proposal, Israel would receive a total of about $40 billion over 10 years – $10 billion more than it got under the current deal.

However, there’s a condition attached to this offer: Israel must promise not to lobby Congress for any additional aid during the decade that the deal is in force.

The second alternative doesn’t require any such Israeli commitment but also offers less money. Under this proposal, America would increase its annual aid by only $400 million a year, meaning the total over the 10-year period would come to $34 billion.

On Monday, 83 senators led by Republican Lindsey Graham and Democrat Chris Coons signed a letter urging Obama to quickly reach an agreement.

“In light of Israel’s dramatically rising defense challenges, we stand ready to support a substantially enhanced new long-term agreement to help provide Israel the resources it requires to defend itself and preserve its qualitative military edge,” said the letter.

Excellent article de Patrick Cockburn dans The Independent qui analyse la déconnexion médiatique et politique entre les affaires de terrorisme en Europe et les politiques étrangères occidentales qui ont favorisé ces phénomènes au Moyen-Orient (surtout) et ici (un peu), de l’Irak en passant par la Libye, le Yémen et la Syrie :
▻http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/how-politicians-duck-the-blame-for-terrorism-a6942016.html

There has always been a disconnect in the minds of people in Europe between the wars in Iraq and Syria and terrorist attacks against Europeans. This is in part because Baghdad and Damascus are exotic and frightening places, and pictures of the aftermath of bombings have been the norm since the US invasion of 2003. But there is a more insidious reason why Europeans do not sufficiently take on board the connection between the wars in the Middle East and the threat to their own security. Separating the two is much in the interests of Western political leaders, because it means that the public does not see that their disastrous policies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and beyond created the conditions for the rise of Isis and for terrorist gangs such as that to which Salah Abdeslam belonged.

Suit le détail par Cockburn de ces conflits, dans lesquels les dirigeants occidentaux portent une lourde responsabilité et qui ont permis l’aggravation de ces phénomènes terroristes :

A strange aspect of these conflicts is that Western leaders have never had to pay any political price for their role in initiating them or pursuing policies that effectively stoke the violence. Isis is a growing power in Libya, something that would not have happened had David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy not helped destroy the Libyan state by overthrowing Gaddafi in 2011. Al-Qaeda is expanding in Yemen, where Western leaders have given a free pass to Saudi Arabia to launch a bombing campaign that has wrecked the country.

Suit le témoignage de Balanche sur sa censure dans les médias qui se plaint d’un mc carthysme intellectuel :

It is worth quoting at length Fabrice Balanche , the French cartographer and expert on Syria who now works for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, about these misperceptions in France, although they also apply to other countries. He told Aron Lund of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: “The media refused to see the Syrian revolt as anything other than the continuation of revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, at a time of enthusiasm over the Arab Spring. Journalists didn’t understand the sectarian subtleties in Syria, or perhaps they didn’t want to understand; I was censored many times.
“Syrian intellectuals in the opposition, many of whom had been in exile for decades, had a discourse similar to that of the Iraqi opposition during the US invasion of 2003. Some of them honestly confused their own hopes for a non-sectarian society with reality, but others – such as the Muslim Brotherhood – tried to obfuscate reality in order to gain the support of Western countries.
“ In 2011–2012, we suffered a type of intellectual McCarthyism on the Syrian question: if you said that Assad was not about to fall within three months, you would be suspected of being paid by the Syrian regime. And with the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs having taken up the cause of the Syrian opposition, it would have been in bad taste to contradict its communiqués. ”
By taking up the cause of the Syrian and Libyan opposition and destroying the Syrian and Libyan states, France and Britain opened the door to Isis and should share in the blame for the rise of Isis and terrorism in Europe. By refusing to admit to or learn from past mistakes, the West Europeans did little to lay the basis for the current, surprisingly successful “cessation of hostilities” in Syria which is almost entirely an US and Russian achievement.
Britain and France have stuck close to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies in their policies towards Syria. I asked a former negotiator why this was so and he crisply replied: “Money. They wanted Saudi contracts.”

The Worst of the Syrian Refugee Crisis Is Coming for Europe - The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
▻http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/the-worst-of-the-syrian-refugee-crisis-is-coming-for-europe

... unless a major geopolitical shift changes the prevailing situation inside Syria, Europe has to prepare itself to welcome as many as a million new refugees in 2016. This estimate is extrapolated from several factors: the location of the populations most under threat from new regime offensives, their most likely routes of escape, the past migration patterns seen under similar conditions, and the recent trend of refugees leaving Turkey for the EU.

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/uploads/Maps/Syria%20Conflict/Potential-New-Migrations-Rebel-and-IS-Areas-FINAL-5-WEB-623x639.jpg

Range of #Frustrations Reached Boil as Turkey Shot Down Russian Jet
▻http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/26/world/europe/turkey-russia-fighter-jet.html

Turkey has been quietly seething ever since Russia began military operations against Syrian rebels two months ago, wrecking Ankara’s policy of ousting the government of President Bashar al-Assad. The Turks were forced to downgrade their ambitions from the ouster of Mr. Assad to simply maintaining a seat at the negotiating table when the time comes, said Soner Cagaptay, a Turkish analyst at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a nonpartisan research group.

“That would require Turkey-backed rebels to be present in Syria, and I think Turkey was alarmed that Russia’s bombing of positions held by Turkey-backed rebels in northern Syria was hurting their positions and therefore Turkey’s future stakes in Syria,” Mr. Cagaptay said. “So this is also an aggressive Turkey posture in the Syrian civil war to prevent the defeat of Turkey-backed rebels so they can hold onto territory and have a say in the future of Syria.”

[...]

The bombing was creating political problems for Mr. Erdogan, Mr. Cagaptay said. “In the days leading up to the incident, many newspapers, especially the pro-government publications, were running headlines highlighting the suffering of the Turkmens, who are closely related to Anatolian Turks,” he said. “I think the government felt that, in terms of domestic politics, it had to do something to ease some of this pressure that had resulted from the Russian bombardment against Turkmens in northern Syria.”

Escalating Violence in Israel, West Bank is the Result of Failed Peace Process

by Mitchell Plitnick and Matt Duss

In what has almost become an annual ritual, an upsurge in violence has again put Jerusalem on edge. Originally centered on the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount area in Jerusalem’s Old City, the clashes have now spread beyond, into the West Bank.

Soldiers at temple mount

Israeli journalist Amos Harel wrote yesterday that Israeli-Palestinian security coordination, which both Israeli and American officials have repeatedly credited with reducing violence in the past years, could now be breaking down. “It’s possible… that the current model is nearing its end,”wrote Harel. “One of the reasons is the Palestinian sense of despair with respect to the diplomatic process, which has been expressed in Abbas’ recent speeches.”

Speaking at a symposium at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Lt. Gen. Keith Dayton — who as United States Security Coordinator oversaw the training of Palestinian security forces — warned that, in the absence of meaningful progress toward ending the occupation and creating a Palestinian state, Israeli-Palestinian security cooperation was in danger. “There is perhaps a two-year shelf life on being told that you’re creating a state, when you’re not,” he said. This was in 2009. Since then, the Palestinians have received little in return except for a more entrenched occupation, and the relentless growth of settlements.

In the absence of a genuine political process that can conceivably deliver any change, both sides are engaging in provocative behaviors designed to appeal to their respective political bases. Whether it is Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas declaring that the Palestinians are no longer bound by signed agreements; the head of Israel’s Foreign Ministry, Tzipi Hotovely, bluntly statingthat Israel will not leave the West Bank no matter what the Palestinians do; or the inflammatory rhetoric on both sides about Jerusalem’s holy sites, there is a real danger of the violence escalating even further out of control. The international community must demand an end not only to violence, but also to the occupation that drives it, and back that demand up with action.

While both Israeli and Palestinian leaders continue to engage in unhelpful rhetoric, it’s important to recognize that the occupation itself is the most effective form of incitement there is. This reality is often overlooked in the day-to-day news coverage of the conflict, in which violence often tends to be reported as a problem only when it impacts Israelis.

The spread of violence, with the loss of civilian lives on both sides, is unavoidable as long as Palestinians live under a system in which they are denied basic rights, and no political process to give them a hope for a better future. The Israeli and Palestinian leadership, as well as the United States and its international partners, have all failed to provide that hope. All of these parties share responsibility to stem the tide of violence, and all of them have to work together to resolve this conflict, end the occupation and bring peace and security to Israelis and Palestinians.

To this end, it is particularly important for the United States, as Israel’s key ally and patron, to begin articulating consequences for Israel’s continued occupation and settlement construction, which violate both international law and specific commitments Israel has made to the U.S. In the absence of such consequences, we should only expect more of the same: a deepening occupation, more settlements, and periodic upsurges in violence year after year after year.

Mitchell Plitnick is Program Director at the Foundation for Middle East Peace. Previously, he was Director of the US Office of B’Tselem: The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories (2008-2010) and Director of Education and Policy for Jewish Voice for Peace (2002-2008).

Matthew Duss is the president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace. Previously he was a policy analyst at the Center for American Progress, where his work focused on the Middle East and U.S. national security, and director of the Center’s Middle East Progress program.

#israël #palestine #Moyen-orient #proche-orient

Latakia Is Assad’s Achilles Heel - The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
►http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/latakia-is-assads-achilles-heel
Fabrice Balanche maintenant dans un think tank américain, The Washington Institute (une boite proche de l’AIPAC, il va devoir batailler pour faire valoir ses idées, le garçon...) ►https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Institute_for_Near_East_Policy)

Over the past few months, the Syrian army has grown weaker and lost many positions, a development that explains Russia’s recent deployment of troops. Previously, Russia had sent only military advisors and technical staff to support the Syrian army. Another key question, however, involves why these troops are being sent to Latakia and not Tartus, site of the official Russian military base. Indeed, this new, strong Russian presence along the northern Syrian coast can be explained by the Assad regime’s weakness in the area, where Alawites no longer constitute a majority.

#Syrie #Lattaqieh

Latakia Is Assad’s Achilles Heel - The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
►http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/latakia-is-assads-achilles-heel

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/images/sized/uploads/Images/Feature/PublicDomain/SyriaMapLatakiaHomsHama-400x400.jpg

#Francis_Balanche, maintenant “fellow” au #WINEP...

Between ISIS and Iran: Bahrain Tweaks Washington - The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
▻http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/between-isis-and-iran-bahrain-tweaks-washington

For now, the prime minister’s age and reported ill health suggest that his reappointment may be a stopgap measure. Despite American officials counseling the king to remove him for decades, Sheikh Khalifa shows no desire to step down, and those close to him portray his possible departure in terms of “apres moi, le deluge.” A quiet campaign of support for him has been growing for several months, with big posters showing his photo and the words “The People. Khalifa bin Salman. The Red Line,” implying that getting rid of him would be a step too far. But if he were to go, several of the royal family members currently serving as deputy prime ministers could potentially replace him:

Crown Prince Salman, who would likely push his reformist agenda amid opposition from the hardliners.
Muhammad bin Mubarak al-Khalifa (age 79), the next most senior deputy prime minister after Salman, who is regarded as a conciliatory figure and was foreign minister for thirty-five years until 2005.
Ali bin Khalifa al-Khalifa, Sheikh Khalifa’s son.
Khalid bin Abdullah al-Khalifa, the favored candidate of the Khawalid hardliners.

Au Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East et au WINEP, on défend ouvertement nos amis d’Al Qaeda :
▻http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/10/02/241894_us-anti-assad-rebels-in-syria.html?sp=/99/200/111/&rh=1

“If indeed we end up hitting Nusra hard, then we’re forcing the opposition to choose a side,” said Faysal Itani, a Syria specialist with the Washington-based Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East. “And we’re depriving them of a key asset when, at the same time, we don’t have a plan to boost their capabilities fast enough to make up for the loss of Nusra.”

[…]

The risk of empowering an al Qaida affiliate is a small price to pay for Nusra’s contributions on the battlefield, said Jeffrey White, a former senior Defense Intelligence Agency analyst who’s now with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a think tank.

“We are degrading, by hitting Nusra, the capability of one of the most effective combat forces against the regime and against Hezbollah,” White said, referring to the Lebanese Shiite Muslim militia that has sent troops to help defend the Assad government. “Do we really want to do that? A broader campaign against Nusra needs to be carefully thought through.”

Yemen Crisis Spells Trouble in Saudi Arabia’s Backyard - The Washington Institute for Near East Policy

▻http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/yemen-crisis-spells-trouble-in-saudi-arabias-backyard

Washington’s Gulf partners in the coalition against ISIS are increasingly distracted by the takeover of the Yemeni capital by pro-Iranian Houthi tribesmen.

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/images/sized/uploads/Images/Feature/ReutersPerpetual/YemenSanaaHouthiShiiteRebelsRTR478MB-198x132.jpg

On October 1, the interior ministers of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman, joined by the head of Saudi intelligence, held an “emergency” meeting in the Saudi Red Sea port city of Jeddah to discuss the rapidly deteriorating situation in Yemen, where the government of President Abdu Rabu Mansour Hadi has lost control of the capital, Sana. The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states have been guiding an “initiative” to smooth political reform since the 2012 collapse of the regime of President Ali Abdullah Saleh. An official statement afterward, apart from platitudes like the “necessity to restore all official headquarters and institutions,” included the ominous phrase that the GCC states will not idly tolerate “foreign interference,” an obvious reference to Iran.

#yémen #arabie_saoudite #golfe

Poll: Palestinians overwhelmingly reject two-state solution, want Palestine ’from river to sea’ - D
By Haaretz | Jun. 30, 2014
▻http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.601938

By more than a 2-1 margin, Palestinians oppose the two-state solution, favoring instead the goal of a Palestinian state “from the river to the sea,” according to a recent poll by the centrist Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

At the same time, though, the poll found that a large majority of Palestinians favored the tactic of “popular resistance” – such as demonstrations and strikes – over violence to achieve their goals, Globes reported Sunday.

Interestingly, Gazans were more moderate when it came to tactics, but more hardline about the goal.

The survey also found that West Bank leader Mahmoud Abbas was a much more popular leader than Gazan leader Ismail Haniyeh – both in the West Bank (28.1 percent to 6.9 percent) and in the Gaza Strip (32.4 percent to 11.7 percent).

The poll, which questioned a relatively large sample of 1,200 respondents, was taken June 15-17 – following the abductions of three Israeli teenagers, the formation of the Fatah-Hamas unity government, and the collapse of the Kerry peace talks. However, it was conducted just before West Bank protests arose against Abbas for his cooperation with Israel’s search for the kidnapped boys and crackdown on Hamas.

Goals vs. tactics

Asked what political goal they favored over the next five years, 60.3 percent replied “action to return historic Palestine, from the river to the sea, to our hands,” while 27.3 percent answered “end[ing] the occupation of the West Bank in order to reach a two-state solution.”

Another 10.1 percent said the goal should be a "one-state solution, for the entire region, from the river to the sea, in which Jews and Arabs enjoy equal rights.”

If a Palestinian leadership were to reach agreement with Israel on a two-state deal, 64 percent said Palestinians should still continue to press on for a Palestinian state encompassing the territories and Israel, while 31.6 percent said they would accept a two-state solution.

On the question of tactics, again, the trend was toward moderation, with 70 percent of Gazans and 56 percent of West Bankers saying Hamas should observe a cease-fire with Israel. Asked if Hamas should go along with Abbas’ demand that the unity government publicly renounce violence, 57 percent of Gazans agreed, while West Bankers were split evenly.

Popular resistance won the support of 73 percent Palestinians in Gaza and 62 percent of those in the West Bank.

Indyk: Settlements could drive Israel into binational reality

By Haaretz | May 9, 2014
▻http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.589724

U.S. special envoy to the Middle East peace talks Martin Indyk issued a strong condemnation of Israel’s settlement activity in the West Bank on Thursday night, saying that it could “drive Israel into an irreversible binational reality.”

“Rampant settlement activity – especially in the midst of negotiations – doesn’t just undermine Palestinian trust in the purpose of the negotiations; it can undermine Israel’s Jewish future,” he said. “If this continues, it could mortally wound the idea of Israel as a Jewish state – and that would be a tragedy of historic proportions.”

Indyk was speaking at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy’s founders’ conference, where he gave a review of the nine months of peace talks.

In a carefully nuanced speech that blamed and praised both sides equally, the U.S. envoy said that, while both Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas had shown flexibility in the talks, the leaders “don’t feel the pressing need to make gut-wrenching compromises.”

If the U.S. is the only party with a sense of urgency, “the negotiations will not succeed,” he said.

“The fact is both the Israelis and Palestinians missed opportunities, and took steps that undermined the process,” Indyk stated. “We have spoken publicly about unhelpful Israeli steps that combined to undermine the negotiations. But it is important to be clear: We view steps the Palestinians took during the negotiations as unhelpful too.”

Indyk’s objective seemed to be the same as that of visiting U.S. National Security Adviser Susan Rice, who met both Netanyahu and Abbas earlier in the day: To prevent the situation deteriorating further and coax the sides back into negotiations.

“It is critical that both sides now refrain from taking any steps that could lead to an escalation and dangerous spiral that could easily get out of control,” he said. “Thus far since the negotiations been suspended they have both shown restraint and it is essential that this continue.”

Comparing the current negotiations with former secretary of state Henry Kissinger’s peace-making with Egypt, Indyk said that American President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry would never suspend military relations with Israel as Kissinger had done. “Those military relations are too important for both our nations,” he said.

He added that the U.S.-Israel relationship had changed dramatically since Kissinger’s day. “Only those who know it from the inside – as I have had the privilege to do – can testify to how deep and strong are the ties that now bind our two nations. When President Obama speaks with justifiable pride about those bonds as ’unbreakable’ he means what he says.”

Indyk said that he had seen many hopeful signs during the course of the negotiations – “moments of recognition by both sides of what is necessary.” But it had not been enough to bring the talks to a successful conclusion.

“I have seen moments when both sides talked past each other without being able to recognize it,” he said. “But I have also seen moments of genuine camaraderie and engagement in the negotiating room to find a settlement to these vexing challenges.”

Indyk concluded by saying that he didn’t know if or when the talks would resume, but he hoped that it would be soon.

“When [Netanyahu and Abbas] are ready, they will certainly find in Secretary Kerry and President Obama willing partners in the effort to try again – if they are prepared to do so in a serious way.”

Pour le pouvoir israélien actuel, mieux vaut avoir des ennemis que des amis...

Israel is sanctifying the status quo and ignoring the possibility of a new Iran - Diplomacy & Defense - Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper
▻http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/for-the-israeli-government-iran-will-never-change.premium-1.530015

A few hours before the unprecedented political drama unfolded on Friday in Iran, Israel’s Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon reported to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and laid out his philosophy.

The head of the Israeli defense establishment declared - without any reservations - that nothing will change as a result of the Iranian election and that, in any event, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei will decide on the country’s next president.

It did not take long for the depth of Ya’alon’s embarrassment of himself, and of those on whose behalf he flew to Washington, became clear. At best, Ya’alon’s remarks reflected a serious error in judgment on the part of Israeli intelligence and provided additional proof of the limitations of Military Intelligence and the Mossad in predicting internal political shifts in Iran and in Arab states. At worst, his words reflected arrogance, prejudice and shooting from the hip of the very worst kind.

But how can we complain about Ya’alon, when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced in Poland on Wednesdsay that Iran’s “so-called” election will not bring about any meaningful change. Netanyahu’s and Ya’alon’s Pavlovian responses, as well as the statement issued by the Foreign Ministry on Saturday night, reflect the overall approach of the Likud government which rejects all change, exaggerates the threats, plays down the opportunities and sanctifies the status quo.

The only thing missing was for Netanyahu and Ya’alon to call for extending the term of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as in the case of Egypt and former President Hosni Mubarak.

One thing is clear: Khamenei did not want Hasan Rowhani to win the presidential election. Iran’s supreme leader backed his national security adviser and nuclear talks envoy, Saeed Jalili. Jalilee was trounced, coming in third place and a distant 15 million votes away from Rowhani.

Another thing is clear, too: The election will change things in Iran. A hint of this could have been found a few days ago, when Reuters published the contents of a letter sent five months ago to Khamenei by Iran’s Foreign Minister, Ali Akbar Salehi, behind Ahmadinejad’s back. Salehi called on the country’s supreme leader to enter into direct talks with the United States as soon as possible. In his written response to Salehi, Khamenei said he was not optimistic about the prospects for success, but would not stop them from reaching out to Washington.

Rowhani, as former head of Iran’s negotiations team on the nuclear issue, called back in 2005 for direct talks with the United States, made the elimination of the international sanctions against Iran the central plank of his election campaign. He even slammed Jalili for being too tough in the talks with the West.

The post-election period could be an opportunity for a diplomatic breakthrough in Iran’s relations with the United States in general and on the nuclear issue in particular, especially in light of the results of the election.

One more point should be mentioned, as for Ya’alon. In his remarks on Friday, the defense minister also dismissed the Arab peace initiative, including the positive change introduced recently as a result of the efforts of U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, as nothing but “spin” by the media.

Ya’alon’s remarks, coming at a time when Kerry is endeavoring to restart the peace process, were much harsher than Netanyahu’s relatively moderate message to the Knesset ten days ago. “We listen to every initiative and are willing to discuss any motion that is not a requisition,” Netanyahu said at the time.