BRUSSELS — The EU reiterated its support for the nuclear deal brokered with Iran, also expressing concerns Friday that the escalating tensions in the region could lead to a resurgence of the Islamic State’s activities.

The EU’s top diplomat Josep Borrell called the urgent meeting of European foreign affairs ministers in Brussels after the U.S. killing of Iranian general, Qassem Soleimani, in a drone attack in Iraq on Jan. 3.

Tehran responded earlier this week with missile strikes at U.S. bases and announced it would no longer respect limits set under the 2015 nuclear deal on how many centrifuges it can use to enrich uranium, fuelling fears Iran could quickly start building a nuclear arsenal.

“We need to understand that the fight against Daesh is not over,” said NATO secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg, who attended the meeting in the EU capital and referred to an alternative name for the Islamic State group.

“We have made enormous progress but Daesh can return.”

In an attempt to avoid an escalation between Iran and the United States, EU leaders have intensified diplomatic activities, trying to keep alive the nuclear deal while making sure the U.S.-led anti-IS coalition continues to operate in Iraq. In the wake of the killing of Soleimani, Iraq’s parliament called for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from the country.

German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas reiterated Germany’s position that the fight against IS in Iraq needs to continue.

“I can’t rule out that, if the anti-IS coalition leaves Iraq then IS will regenerate so much that it can carry out attacks in Europe again,” said Maas, speaking to German broadcaster n-tv.

And Denmark’s foreign affairs minister, Jeppe Kofod, said IS is the threat for Europe.”

Despite calls from U.S. President Donald Trump to break away from the nuclear deal, the European Union remains committed to the treaty.

“Thanks to this deal Iran is not a nuclear power,” Borrell said.

Iran struck the deal in 2015 with the United States, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Russia, and China. It has, however, been damaged by Trump’s decision to unilaterally abandon it in 2018 and to impose sanctions that have hurt Iran’s economy.

Iran has gradually rolled back its commitment to the accord and the recent escalation of tensions between Iran and the U.S. has dealt further blows to the pact.

“We are of the opinion that this agreement makes sense because it holds Iran to not developing nuclear weapons, and so we want this agreement to have a future,” Maas said upon arrival at the meeting. “But of course it only has a future if it is complied with, and we expect that from Iran.”

Despite its decision to get rid of restrictions in relation to its enrichment capacity, Iran has not stopped collaborating with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and has made clear it is ready to return to its commitments if sanctions are lifted.

Delivering the meeting’s conclusions, Borrell urged Iran to get back “to full compliance without delay” to make sure the deal can be salvaged.

French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian continued to insist the accord “is not dead” and said Iran could get access to atomic weapons within “one or two years” if the deal continues to lose its substance.

In a phone call with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson also reaffirmed his support for the deal.

Borrell has invited Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif to Brussels for talks, but a date for his visit has yet to be set.

In front of Ghassam Salamé, the head of the UN Support Mission in Libya, the Council also addressed the current crisis in the war-torn country, with Borrell warning of an increased risk of terror activities if a cease-fire is not quickly reached.

Libya is currently governed by dueling authorities, in the east and the west, each relying on different militias. The east-based government is backed by the United Arab Emirates and Egypt, as well as France and Russia. The western, Tripoli-based government receives aid from Turkey, Qatar, and Italy.

Borrell said the presence of fighters coming from Syria and Sudan has been detected in Libya recently and insisted the conflict could lead to a new influx of refugees in Europe.

“This crisis may spiral out of control,” Borrell said.

———

Frank Jordans and Geir Moulson in Berlin, Angela Charlton in Paris contributed to this story.

Source: https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/eu-foreign-ministers-gather-brussels-salvage-iran-deal-68191220

The post EU ministers support Iran deal, fear IS resurgence first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

During a Tuesday press briefing at the State Department, Brian Hook, U.S. special envoy to Iran, revealed “based on declassified U.S. military reports, that Iran is responsible for the deaths of at least 608 American service members” throughout the course of the Iraq War.

Hook claimed that “this accounts for 17 percent of all deaths of U.S. personnel in Iraq from 2003 to 2011” and did not take into account “the many thousands of Iraqis killed” by Shiite Muslim militias allegedly trained by Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards.

While Iran has yet to respond to the remarks, its partner in neighboring Syria has deemed the claim suspicious amid President Donald Trump’s campaign to discredit the revolutionary Shiite Muslim power. Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova told reporters Thursday that she was “surprised” by the allegations, as “we haven’t heard of any clashes between Americans and Iranians on the territory of Iraq, so our Washington colleagues have to explain what exactly they mean by Teheran’s involvement.”

“There should be no doubt that American intervention against Iraq will remain in history as the gravest violation of international law and a de facto criminal act,”  added Zakharova. “We advise the United States not to look for excuses to start a new conflict, increasing the suffering throughout the world with its aggressive policy.”

U.S. Army troops take position as they come under sniper fire during sporadic fighting with Shiite Muslim militiamen, in Najaf, Iraq, on August 20, 2004. Though the U.S. was predominantly focused on battling Sunni Muslim groups such as Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State of Iraq—later ISIS—troops also confronted Shiite Muslim fighters allegedly backed by Iran.JOE RAEDLE/GETTY IMAGES

The U.S. invaded Iraq in March 2003, seeking to overthrow then-President Saddam Hussein, based on accusations that he possessed chemical weapons and harbored ties with Al-Qaeda. Though the goal of removing Hussein from power succeeded, the allegations he had weapons of mass destruction was later proven false. Troops subsequently faced insurgencies waged by Baath loyalists, ultraconservative Sunni Muslim groups such as Al-Qaeda and Shiite Muslim paramilitary forces said to have received Iranian support.

While the Pentagon counted over 3,500 troops killed in action from 2003 through 2011, Zakharova noted that “there is no exact figure” as to how many civilians died, though it may be in “the hundreds of thousands.” Lower estimates, like that of the Iraq Body Count project, placed the number of verified violent civilian deaths throughout these years at over 114,000. Higher estimates, such as a 2013 study published by PLOS Medicine, placed the toll of all Iraqis killed at in excess of 405,000.

These reports did not include tens of thousands killed in Iraq in the ensuing eight years, but the latter figure resembled estimates of the half-million believed dead in neighboring Syria since the outbreak of a 2011 rebel and jihadi uprising backed by the U.S. and its regional allies. By 2014, Al-Qaeda offshoot the Islamic State militant group (ISIS) had taken large parts of both Iraq and Syria and the Pentagon formed an international coalition to begin bombing the group in both countries.

At this point, the U.S. and Iran found themselves on the same side battling ISIS in Iraq, where they both supported the Shiite Muslim-dominated leadership in Baghdad, but waging opposing campaigns against the jihadis in Syria, where Tehran backed the same government that Washington had attempted to depose. Russia also entered the conflict in 2015, supporting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad—who, like Hussein, the West has accused of war crimes—and his allies against insurgents and militant groups alike.

With ISIS now mostly eradicated thanks largely to efforts by all three countries and their local allies, the U.S. has turned its attention toward expelling groups said to be under Iranian command from the region. Tehran’s alleged support for U.S.-designated terrorist organizations such as the Lebanese Hezbollah and Iraqi Hezbollah Brigades were cited as part of the reason that the White House left a landmark nuclear deal in 2015, enacting new sanctions designed to strangle the Iranian economy.

Syrians wave the national flag, along with those of Iran and Russia, as they ride in a vehicle carrying the flag of the Lebanese Shiite Muslim Amal Movement and portraits of President Bashar al-Assad, late Syrian President Hafez al-Assad and Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah as citizens gather at the Umayyad Square in Damascus on April 14 to condemn the strikes carried out by the U.S., U.K. and France.LOUAI BESHARA/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

Russia has been careful not to characterize its relationship with Iran as a formal alliance, but rather as a “strategic partnership” with the common interest of supporting Assad. Both countries had mutual grievances with the U.S. due to long-running rivalries and more recent economic restrictions, but their visions for the region as a whole diverged at times.

Ties between Russia and Iran’s sworn foes, Israel and Saudi Arabia, have particularly alienated Moscow from the so-called “Axis of Resistance” group comprising Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and other allied militias across the Middle East. The group’s name derived from President George W. Bush’s “Axis of Evil” speech that included Iraq, Iran and North Korea and was later expanded by then-Undersecretary of State John Bolton to include Cuba, Libya and Syria.

Bolton, now the U.S. National Security Advisor, has supported military action against all of these countries with the potential exception of Cuba, whom he has increasingly targeted in recent months as part of the Trump administration’s intensifying efforts to overthrow the socialist government of Venezuela.

Russia, Iran and Syria were among the countries supporting the government of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in the face of what they deem to be a coup attempt backed by Washington and its allies in support of the Venezuelan opposition. The U.S. and dozens of its allies do not recognize Maduro’s authority in Venezuela, and instead has backed opposition leader Juan Guaidó.

Source: https://www.newsweek.com/russia-warns-us-excuses-conflict-iran-1386525

The post Russia warns U.S. to not ‘look for excuses to start a new conflict’ after report claims Iran Killed 600 U.S. soldiers first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

A half-century ago, the author received his first real taste of how professionals viewed international relations — beyond the daily, often-scary headlines in the middle of the Cold War — from the vantage point of an introductory course at university. Besides a ton of weighty journal articles to digest, the class’s main textbook gave what seemed to this new reader in the field to be a revolutionary approach.

Aha! Here it was. International relations wasn’t just about those dastardly Soviets trying to take over the world through their proxies, those nefarious Chinese, Vietnamese, or North Koreans. International relations was actually built on a set of larger organizing principles and ideas that existed well beyond the specifics of a particular space or a unique time. These principles about balances of power, alliances, and zero-sum and non-zero-sum games were as true three millennia ago in the “Warring States” period of Chinese history as they were in the 19th and early 20th centuries’ hundred years of the “Concert of Europe”. In fact, they could just as easily be useful in understanding today’s world.

Now, apply that understanding and focus on the space on the map where Asia, Africa and Europe converge, to the place — sometimes confusingly — that is simultaneously called both the Middle East and the Near East. (The explanation to that puzzle is that 19th-century British geographers had used the Middle East to cover the area between the Near East and India. There. Now you know.)

So, pay special attention to a crucial quadrilateral of nations in the region, namely: Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. Secondarily, there are also Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and the gaggle of the Gulf states, operating in the background. By this point, this is already a pretty complex “warring states” system within that two-tiered roster. But that is still before the United States, Russia and a batch on non-state actors such as Daesh/IS/Isis and the Kurds inside the various states delineated by lines on maps are also stirred into the mix.

Now we really have a complicated diagram, but we still have to add a few more things. There is an ocean of oil and natural gas, lots of dangerous high-tech weaponry, a few nuclear weapons — and some really long-standing grievances, some of which go back 1,300 years or so. And also added to this mix are some tense, still-unresolved border issues, floods of refugees, and the usual miscellaneous, nihilist terrorists.

Back in the early 1970s, Iran was seen by some, along with a list of countries such as Brazil, India, Indonesia, South Africa, and Japan, as the mini-hegemons of their respective regions. They were countries that could be charged with keeping their regions stable from the depredations of would-be forces of instability, chaos, and disaster. Sometimes it might be through military capabilities, and in other cases, it could be from the sheer force of their economic heft, such as in the case of Japan. In the context of the Cold War, from the American point of view, the objective of this idea was to envision a key element in a more stable global system, right amid the larger, dangerous, overarching Cold War dynamic.

If readers haven’t already guessed, the intellectual force behind this conceptual system was a combination of then-president Richard Nixon and his secretary of state and national security adviser, Henry Kissinger. This is the team that, among other things, gave us the modern use of the idea of global triangulation. In this idea, the US would move adroitly to create a connection to China, amid that historic “Sino-Soviet Split” and even as the US was still fighting in Vietnam. But you knew the provenance of both those notions already, right?

With this history as preamble, now focus on today’s challenge: That strategically important quadrilateral of Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel. It may be surprising to some readers, but there was a time, not so very long ago — until 1979 in fact, where all four of these nations was closely tied to the US via various versions of an alliance partnership.

Iran

Once the prime ministership of Mohammad Mosaddegh had been overthrown back in 1953, the ruling Shah of Iran built increasingly close ties, over nearly two generations, with Americans. American companies flooded into the country to build the oil industry, modern telecommunications networks and other industries, and, naturally, for increasingly close military co-operation as well.

One thing this co-operation also achieved, however, was an increasing sense of dislocation for many in many parts of the country. Numbers of students opposed the heavy hand of the shah’s secret police, Savak; the Muslim clergy was repelled by the apparent ongoing westernization and secularization of the country; and the traditional population — out beyond the cosmopolitan nouveau riche of Tehran — located throughout the country’s small towns, villages and farms, was angered by the increasing concentration of new wealth in the capital.

By the time the students rebelled, the Muslim clergy was poised to hijack that revolt, and Americans quickly became the prime enemy by virtue of their ties to and championing of the shah and all his works. Result: No more close relationship with the Great Satan.

Turkey

Meanwhile, since the end of the Second World War, Turkey had become an increasingly key part of Nato’s “southern flank” against the Soviet Union, hosting major US air bases in the country. Among many Turks, after the end of the Cold War and the Soviet Union, there was a growing sense of interest in joining the expanding EU — and, simultaneously, frustration that the country’s modernized westernness and its role as a bridge between Europe and Asia was being less than enthusiastically embraced by the west.

Thereafter, to add strains to its politics, some in Turkey have been increasingly affected by the rise in radical Islam elsewhere even as there always has been a persistent problem in Turkey’s dealings with the Kurdish population in the eastern part of the country. These are people whom most Turks see as a rebellious force capable of causing much turmoil, even without connections to Kurdish populations in Syria, Iraq, and Iran.

In the current moment, the Turkish-US relationship has come under growing strains for reasons such as American co-operation with Syrian Kurds and a Turkish insistence that an expatriated, elderly cleric/teacher should be shipped home from America to face the music as a coup plotter.

Saudi Arabia

Meanwhile, to the south, the Saudis had been cautiously building closer ties with the US, ever since President Franklin Roosevelt’s meeting with King Ibn Saud during of World War II. Postwar, American petroleum exploration and lifting companies became increasingly prominent factors in the kingdom.

Eventually, the US built up a strong military presence there, and the fighting in Gulf War I — the 1991 liberation of Kuwait from Iraq and the concomitant humiliation of Saddam Hussein’s invading army — was launched from Saudi bases. The incumbent president’s first foreign visit was with the Saudi king (complete with that strange glowing crystal orb and sword dance), cementing a tightening tie via two ultra-ambitious men, the president’s adviser and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and the young Saudi crown prince, Mohamed bin Salman. That personal (and national) relationship seemed rock solid until Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi was assassinated inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul last year.

Israel

And then there is Israel. Since its inception as a sovereign state in 1948, the relationship with the US has grown much stronger. (Interestingly, at its birth, Israel’s major international state supporters included the Soviet Union and its new Eastern European satellites by virtue of Israeli founder politicians’ political and economic orientations as solid socialists. During the 1956 Suez War, then-president Eisenhower had demanded withdrawal of the UK, French and Israeli forces from the Suez Canal and the Sinai — or else. Thereafter, the ties have become ever closer.)

Especially since the 1967 and 1973 wars between Israel and its neighbours, Israel has become the pre-eminent regional military superpower and the most technologically advanced nation in the area (including its undeclared possession of nuclear weapons). While its occupation of the West Bank since 1967, and a continuing programme of new Jewish settlements in those territories have begun to soften American Jewish (and some other) support for Israel, political support for Israel among American Christian evangelical fundamentalists has actually grown stronger. That, in turn, has helped stiffen support for Israel among politicians in the US, in particular, those beholden to support from the evangelicals for their political fortunes.

The quadrilateral

And so, here are four powerful neighbouring nations, each of which has — or have had — close ties with the US — and frequently fraught ones with one another. But the 2011 Arab Spring in Syria changed the game. Initially, it seemed just possible that rebel groups might overthrow longtime dictator/president Bashar al Assad, that is until the Russians, eager to protect their naval and air power assets and their position in the Mediterranean, began to bulk up men and weaponry in Syria, and in conjunction with Syrian government forces, increasingly carried out combat missions against the various rebel groups. Predictably, the results have been especially dire for places like Homs and Aleppo, even as Assad’s forces gained the upper hand over much of the country.

Meanwhile, Syrian Kurds seized the moment (and territory) to stake out a claim for autonomy in the north and east, and Daesh/IS, expanding from their base in northern Iraq in the wake of the US’s substantive pullback of forces in Iraq, entered into Syria along the Euphrates River and nearby settled areas in the southeast.

The US sent in a limited number of advisers and tactical support forces, largely supporting the Kurds battling Daesh (backed up by those US ground and air forces still in Iraq). By that point, millions of Syrian refugees, fleeing the fighting, were entering southern Turkey. Amid all of this, Israeli forces were increasingly paying attention to Iranian military forces in Syria, the Quds Force, monitoring Syrian air force operations against the remaining rebels and the capabilities of Russian anti-aircraft missiles in Syria, and Russian air cover for Syrian operations. Occasionally the Israelis have attacked some facilities of one or another of the forces supporting the Syrian government, just in case.

Meanwhile, the airspace over Syria has been alive to the possibility that fatal accidents or clashes could bring the various nations operating in that space into a hot confrontation — or worse. Stuff like that can happen, almost without warning, even though there is a kind of informal heads-up system over airborne operations.

While all this was occurring, the Saudis and Iranians have simultaneously engaged in a particularly vicious proxy war for dominance in Yemen. The Saudis are backing what passes for the established government, and the Iranians are supporting the Houthi rebels. In their efforts, the Saudis are largely dependent on the US for much of its hi-tech weaponry, midair refuelling, and signals intelligence. Regardless of who has done the attacking, this war has produced a staggering human toll on Yemen’s civilians, from the collateral damage of bombing errors to famine and on to outbreaks of epidemic diseases such as typhoid and cholera.

As things stand now, the four nations — Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, and Israel — remain locked in jockeying for greater security and influence in the region, even as major Russian forces remain in Syria, smaller numbers of American forces are also in the country (even as Donald Trump had announced their immediate withdrawal, having defeated Daesh), and a small number of US forces are still based in Iraq as well. The US airbase in Incirlik, Turkey remains in service, but given the tensions between the US and Turkey its forces have been precluded from operations against Turkish forces or their proxies — or to carry out operations in support of the Kurds in Syria, lest the Turks take umbrage over that.

Meanwhile, the Saudis and the Israelis have — despite decades of non-recognition, strong Saudi hostility towards Israel in international forums, and near-hostilities on the battlefield — formed a tacit alliance against Iran’s actions in the region. Along the way, various other Gulf states have increasingly fallen in line with this connection, and, as a result, any former obsessions on the Palestinian cause have significantly faded into the background — in view of the current larger struggle for dominance in the region.

There is no regional or international body empowered to bring these rivalries under control. Save for that transactional, tacit Saudi-Israeli tie, the objectives of the national players remain divergent. The Iranians want to be able to exercise their desired dominant place from the southern Arabian Peninsula to Syria (in alliance with the Alawite strain of Islam in Syria that is very similar to Iran’s Shia beliefs). The Saudis, meanwhile, are insistent on reasserting their own sense of dominance as the region’s leader and moral guide for the Middle East’s main religion (and here, in opposition to Iran’s Shia allegiance).

Meanwhile, Turkey, too, has intentions to reassert its own historic sense of superiority in the region. It did, after all, rule virtually the entire region, even including chunks of modern Iran, for half a millennium, and its economic power has great weight as well. As for Turkey’s most immediate goals, the key for them is in keeping Kurdish nationalism in check wherever it is located, lest that inspire the Turkish Kurds; and simultaneously in keeping Iranian influence in Syria within the narrowest possible limits. While Turkey under President Recip Erdogan has moved closer to Russia in several ways, it would also hope to have the Russian presence in Syria kept within limits as well.

And for the Israelis? The present moment is alive with both danger and possibilities. The danger comes in having a potent array of Russian and Iranian anti-aircraft and other missiles along its northern border, together with those experienced, battle-hardened Quds Force fighters, a possible force to contend with in the years ahead. Its formerly close ties with Turkey have attenuated, even as it now has informal, but real connections to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. But from their perspective, the real strategic challenge comes from Iran and its arsenal of middle-range and longer-range missiles.

But the Israelis also have an election coming up, and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his one-vote majority in the Israeli parliament may be coming under pressure by the rise of Benny Gantz, a genuine military hero and, at least in contrast to the incumbent, a man who may be able to overturn decades of political and international stalemate. If he wins, perhaps he can find some path forward among the quadrilateral.

Quo Vadis, the Americans?

And then there is the future of the Americans in the region. While there is much public endorsement of Israel and the move if the embassy to Jerusalem, there is also a visible disengagement from the region, besides a drumbeat of criticism towards Iran. Under President Trump, the American pullback from Syria and Iraq (and Afghanistan), and the idea that the days of any US boots on the ground in the area are numbered may create further instability. It is a reasonable argument that that initial intervention in Syria was poor policy, or worse. But that does not necessarily mean their absence will be better.

Conservative internationalist columnist Max Boot, writing in The Washington Post the other day, argued: 

“These kinds of deployments are invariably lengthy and frustrating. Think of our Indian Wars, which lasted roughly 300 years (circa 1600-1890), or the British deployment on the North West Frontier (today’s Pakistan-Afghanistan border), which lasted 100 years (1840s-1940s). US troops are not undertaking a conventional combat assignment. They are policing the frontiers of the Pax Americana. Just as the police aren’t trying to eliminate crime, so troops are not trying to eliminate terrorism but, instead, to keep it below a critical threshold that threatens the United States and our allies. This isn’t as satisfactory as pursuing unconditional surrender, but, as we may discover before long, it beats the alternative.”

Regardless of whether Boot or Trump is right, what is stunningly clear is that Trumpian decision making is being made on a whim, rather than listening carefully to the strategic professionals in government (including those he appointed) and then thinking through consequences.

Those professionals are the very ones he has once again ridiculed in public because they failed to parrot his faux facts about Iran’s supposed noncompliance with the nuclear accord signed in the waning days of the Obama administration. Will they be more prepared to tell the emperor unpalatable facts in the future, or let him live with his own fantasies? DM

Source: https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2019-02-01-the-middle-east-vortex-may-become-even-worse/

The post The Middle East vortex may become even worse first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

Christians have been rooted in the Middle East as minority communities since the birth of the religion, but their numbers are dwindling amid conflict and jihadist attacks.

Today they make up only four percent of the region’s population, down from 20 percent before the First World War, Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, said this month.

Pope Francis on Saturday voiced concern that Christians will eventually disappear from the regionamid “murderous indifference” to their plight.

Here is a breakdown of the main Christian presence in the Middle East.

– Egypt –

Coptic Orthodox is the largest Christian denomination both in the region and in Egypt, where its members make up some 10 percent of the population.

They have little representation in government though, and have been targeted in anti-Christian attacks that have multiplied since the Islamic State group appeared.

Since December 2016 more than 100 people have been killed in anti-Christian attacks in Egypt claimed by IS.

The overwhelming majority of Egypt’s Christians are Coptic Orthodox    Mohamed El-Shahed (AFP)

In April 2017 Copts were targeted in bombing attacks on two churches on Palm Sunday, killing 45 people.

The following month, gunmen shot dead about 30 Christians who refused to renounce their faith.

– Iraq –

Chaldean Christians numbered 1.5 million in Iraq before the 2003 fall of Saddam Hussein but their numbers have since plummeted to less than 500,000, according to Chaldean Patriarch Louis Raphael Sako, appointed cardinal by the pope in June.

Many fled from the sectarian violence that followed Saddam’s ouster.

Chaldean Christian Adnan Saglamoglu, a jeweller, lights a candle in a church in Mardin, south-eastern Turkey, on November 17, 2014   Ozan Kose (AFP/File)

The post Christians in the Middle East: dwindling despite deep roots first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

WASHINGTON DC (Kurdistan 24) – Two Iraqi Shiite groups have threatened the US and Israel following airstrikes Sunday night on a militia position in the Syrian town of Albu Kamal, close to the border with Iraq.

The attack may have killed as many as 52 fighters from the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), a coalition of groups that fought the Islamic State (IS), following its 2014 assault on Iraq.

The PMF first blamed the US for Sunday’s strike, but the US firmly denied any involvement, and CNN, along with Kurdistan 24, reported that Israel was likely responsible.

An Iranian-backed group, Kata’ib Hizbollah, was stationed in Albu Kamal. It was established, with Iranian backing, during Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and attacked US forces then. Consequently, the US designated it a terrorist organization.

In last month’s elections—the results of which many Iraqis charge were rigged by Tehran—Kata’ib Hizbollah won 15 parliamentary seats.

On Tuesday, Kata’ib Hizbollah threatened, “The crime of the bombing” at Albu Kamal “will reopen the confrontation with the Zionist entity and the US schemes.”

The PMF are formally part of the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) and Kata’ib Hizbollah was joined by another Iranian-backed militia, Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq, which demanded that Baghdad take “decisive action” against the “international and regional” plans that threaten Iraq and Syria—implying that Baghdad should tell US forces to leave, now that IS has been largely defeated in Iraq.

As the militias issued their threats and demands, however, the US denied any knowledge of key details of Sunday’s attack, suggesting it was not relevant to the US mission in Iraq.

Col. Sean Ryan, Spokesperson for the US-led Coalition against IS, formally known as Combined Joint Task Force-Operation Inherent Resolve (CJTF-OIR), speaking to Pentagon reporters by teleconference from Baghdad on Tuesday, was questioned about the strike on Albu Kamal.

Asked if Israel had carried out the attack, he replied, “I can’t comment,” adding that it was not the Coalition or the Iraqis, “and that’s really all we’re concerned about at this point.”

“It bothers me that a coalition spokesman can say something like that,” Paul Davis, a former Pentagon analyst, retired from the US Army, told Kurdistan 24, because the question of “who was behind the attack is relevant to your mission.”

When asked about possible retaliation for Sunday’s strike, Ryan responded that given the good US relations with the ISF, “I don’t think that’s ever going to be a concern”—as if there were not an extended history of Iranian-backed groups attacking US troops, whether in Lebanon in the 1980s or in Iraq during OIF—by some of the same groups that are now part of the ISF!

In February, Iraq’s Interior Ministry—headed by Qasim al-Araji, a senior member of the Badr Organization, another Iranian-backed group—announced that Iraq would soon open the border crossing with Syria at Albu Kamal.

The Middle East Institute’s “IranObserved Project” reported that Albu Kamal is a “strategic prize for Iran and its allies,” which had succeeded in capturing the border crossing ahead of a US-backed force.

“For the first time, Tehran will have land access to the Mediterranean coast and Beirut,” an online publication of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) claimed, describing it as “an unprecedented development in Iran’s several-thousand-year history,” the MEI reported,

That would have been extremely troubling to Israel, of course, and would explain Sunday’s strike.

Ryan also sought to minimize the significance of the attack by claiming the force in Albu Kamal was not sent there by Baghdad.

Kurdistan 24 pressed as to who, then, had sent those forces there? Under whose authority were they operating?

Ryan provided no answer. They were Iraqi forces, he acknowledged, but once they crossed the border, they were “no longer under ISF control or direction.”

Michael Pregent, an Iraq expert at the Hudson Institute and formerly an adviser to US commanders during OIF, expressed his concern about the US position.

Pregent noted that the head of Kata’ib Hizbollah, Abu Mehdi al Muhandis, “is a designated terrorist,” yet he “controls the PMF budget.”

“He does not answer” to Iraqi Prime Minister Haidar al-Abadi, but “to Qasim Soleimani,” head of Iran’s IRGC-Quds Force.

“The US should not go out of its way to downplay the role of Iran and should admonish Baghdad for its support for IRGC-QF militias,” Pregent said.

Kurdistan 24 subsequently asked the State Department, if it was reasonable to understand the strike on Albu Kamal as a “warning to Baghdad” about Iran’s use of “its territory and personnel” in ways that Israel regards as threatening. The State Department Spokesperson, however, simply deferred to the Defense Department and the non-answers it had given earlier that day.

Source: http://www.kurdistan24.net/en/news/5c8883f6-be16-4ebf-95f5-a17c7fdf63dd

The post Iraqi militias threaten US and Israel first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

An F-18 lands aboard carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71) during flight operations in the Persian Gulf on March 10, 2018. USNI News photo.

ABOARD CARRIER USS THEODORE ROOSEVELT, IN THE PERSIAN GULF — The rollback of ISIS forces in Iraq and Syria and changes in how Iran operates in the Persian Gulf are prompting the U.S. Navy to evolve how it operates its carrier strike groups in the Middle East.

After more than three years of Navy and Marine aircraft striking ISIS from the sea, there are fewer targets in Iraq and Syria to go after. Now carrier-based pilots of the Theodore Roosevelt Carrier Strike Group/CSG-9 have more time to support U.S. and partner troops on the ground, as well as take on strike missions in Afghanistan to keep pressure on Taliban targets.

In the Gulf, the ships and aircraft that operate close to “The Big Stick” have seen harassment from Iranian fast attack craft cease but the threat from Iranian unmanned aerial vehicles grow to a daily concern.

Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 17 commander Capt. Chris Ford told USNI News during a three-day visit to USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71) and cruiser USS Bunker Hill (CG-52) that the air wing has been flying about 15 to 20 sorties a day, mostly to support the anti-ISIS Operation Inherent Resolve. Though the operation has been supported by a string of carrier strike groups in recent years, one pilot told USNI News that the air operation is night-and-day different than CVW-17’s last deployment to the region three years ago.

Lt. Joe Anderson, an F/A-18C pilot with the “Mighty Shrikes” of Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 94, said three years ago CVW-17 – then deployed on carrier USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70) – was the second air wing to show up to the anti-ISIS fight.

A Bahrain coast guard vessel assists sailors assigned to Commander, Task Group (TG) 56.7, in high value asset protection of the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71) as it transits to Khalifa Bin Salman port, Bahrain on Jan. 26, 2018. US Navy Photo

“This is when it first started, ISIS was just steamrolling across Iraq and Syria and there wasn’t really much resistance going on. There was a lot of activity, so most of the time I think [air crew] would drop their bombs – but not because there was any less restrictive rules of engagement or we were just targeting things willy-nilly; it was more so just that there were that many ISIS fighters out there. … There weren’t a whole lot of places you could go where there was no ISIS presence about three years ago,” he said.

“Now each air wing has done their thing, and it was pretty kinetic at some points, but now where we’re at, there’s not as much going on. … Mostly they’ve been whittled down to just isolated pockets within Iraq and Syria.”

As a result, the pilots are still flying the same number of sorties off the carrier each day, but once in country, “it’s less of going out and doing preplanned strikes; it’s doing on-call [close-air support] and doing more defending the U.S. and coalition forces on the ground in the area, and specifically Syrian Defense Forces who are in the mix doing their thing.”

An F/A-18C with the “Mighty Shrikes” of Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 94 prepares to launch from USS Theodore Roosevelt CVN-71) on March 10, 2018. USNI News photo.

Anderson said the pilots have been doing a lot of studying when not flying missions, trying to stay current on which forces are operating where within Syria – Carrier Strike Group 9 commander Rear Adm. Steve Koehler told USNI News that “the threat picture in Syria is just crazy: how many different countries can you cram in one different place, where they all have a different little bit of an agenda? And you put a tactical pilot up there and he or she has to employ ordnance or make defensive counter-air decisions with multiple people – Russians, Syrians, Turks, ISIS, United States.”

The Afghanistan mission is new for the TR CSG compared to recent carrier strike group deployments to the Persian Gulf. In December the air wing was tasked with providing air strikes for the Operation Freedom’s Sentinel campaign “focused on Helmand province and has specifically identified targets that aim to disrupt Taliban revenue generation at opium-processing facilities, as well as training camps and command and control (C2) nodes,” according to a Navy news release.

“The missions to Afghanistan are sort of right at the limits of what we want our aircrew flying at from a fatigue standpoint, but it’s still within reach, and with the Air Force tanking support that gets us there it’s totally possible,” Deputy Air Wing Commander Capt. Robert Loughran told USNI News.

“Typically, it’s about another hour on each end – when we fly those missions from where we’re at right now, it’s about 1,300 miles just one way,” Ford added.
“So with tanking, with getting on their routes, it’s about three hours just to get there, and about three hours to get back, and then however long they’re in the mission. … The biggest thing is just making sure the pilots are rested and ready to go.”

As of the USNI News embark, the strike group had flown 1,027 sorties in support of Operation Inherent Resolve in Iraq and Syria and 12 sorties in support of Operation Freedom’s Sentinel in Afghanistan. Though USNI News did not get a final tally of bombs dropped, the Afghanistan missions have been more focused on dropping munitions compared to the CAS-driven OIR missions. In one case involving VFA-94, which Anderson did not participate in, the squadron sent three planes and dropped 28 bombs on Taliban targets.

An F/A-18C Hornet, assigned to the Checkerboards of Marine Strike Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 312, readies for launch on the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71) on March 11, 2018. US Navy Photo

During the air wing’s time in 5th Fleet specifically, CVW-17 aircrews flew 17,561 flight hours – about 7,200 of which were in support of OIR, the rest of which were defense of the carrier, training, tanking and other missions.

Aside from the evolving offensive nature of the mission, the defensive side has changed too. Koehler said the carrier strike group encounters large Iranian drones nearly every day. While there is nothing the Navy can do about the presence of these drones – while operating in the maritime common, anyone is free to be there – the current discussion is how much effort to expend on monitoring the activities and location of these drones, and how the Navy might respond if Iran were to begin arming them.

“Even if they’re unarmed, it’s a safety of flight problem. So no matter what altitude they’re at, we have airplanes operating too. So can we communicate with them in the ground station and will they respond? And we see that they do sometimes and they don’t sometimes,” Koehler said in a sit-down interview in his cabin.

But Iran arming them would be a “whole new game,” the admiral said.

“Is flying over hostile? I certainly don’t want it here if it’s in a position to drop any sort of weapons. Trying to determine that is very difficult, a very hard problem.”

USS Theodore Roosevelt CVN-71) operates in the Persian Gulf on March 10, 2018. USNI News photo.

Asked how his strike group has dealt with the potential threat of the drones, and how he would recommend future strike group commanders approach the situation, Koehler said, “I’d like to have the ability to have sound rules – like, stay away from our airplane stacks; we’re not trying to hit you, you don’t try (to hit us). The fact that, if it’s cruising around at 10,000 feet and we’re at 10,000 feet, it’s hard to see it, let’s not hit each other. I will say that it seems they’re fairly predictable, and they’re flying fairly predictable. Once they get here, they loiter forever, but they sort of stay at the same altitude and we can sort of keep track. And the fact that they’re unarmed that we’ve seen is good. They’re obviously looking at us, ISR (intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance), and they have the ability to track us and all those things, but unarmed.”

Koehler said Bunker Hill had done an excellent job tuning its radars to see the drones as clearly and as early as possible, and for future carriers having to accept these drones as part of their new reality while in the Persian Gulf, Koehler said “I think a lot of it comes with vigilance. We have a pretty good idea where they come from, and so having radars and those things trained on that particular area, (the next CSG should) vigilantly ensure that your radars are set and looking for that level of slow, small vehicle. … Realizing that they’re going to come nearly every day, and you’ve got to really continue to search for them all the time. … You’ve really got to just put the time in and dedicate the assets and the team to look for them and find them. And then really ascertain, at least for me, I want to know that they’re not armed.”

In addition to the Iranian drone threat, the TR CSG has also been challenged by ongoing anti-ship missile and potential mine threats off the coast of Yemen, forcing a destroyer to split off from the strike group and work to ensure continued freedom of navigation in the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait.

Koehler said he’s sent a DDG from his own Task Force 50 operations to the Task Force 55 out of Bahrain, for use as “an escort ship through that strait, and again protecting it from other nefarious ships, anti-ship missiles. There isn’t a big air threat down there, nor is there a lot of UAVs that are flying, but the anti-ship cruise missiles, there has been reports of mining down there, all that kind of stuff.”

Due to operational needs throughout the 5th Fleet area of operations, Koehler has only had two of his four surface combatants – one cruiser and one destroyer – with the carrier during operations. Those combatants sometimes have to depart for maintenance, port calls or other engagements, though, so the strike group has developed a close partnership with the French and Australian navies operating in the area.

Australian HMAS Anzac-class frigate Warramunga (FFH-152) conducts a replenishment-at-sea exercise with the French navy Mistral-class amphibious assault ship LHD Tonnerre (L9014. Tonnerre in December 2017. US Marine Corps Photo

A Royal Australian Navy frigate, HMAS Warramunga (FFH 152), was assigned to the strike group for a couple weeks. After some cross-deck work and training, Koehler said he was able to use that ship for defense in depth, which allowed his destroyer to head into port.

“The French ship (destroyer Jean De Vienne (D 643)) was a next step up. It ultimately was with us for about a month. What we trained together to have her ultimately do was take over the air defense-specific responsibility for the strike group, which she did. And to the point of, the cruiser … went into port. And she then, as a coalition French partner, was responsible to me for our air defense,” Koehler said.
“They did a great job. … We had to work through some [rules of engagement] to make sure the French ROE would be commensurate with what I needed it to do, and we worked through that and we got that piece.”

Ultimately, Bunker Hill was away from the carrier for a full week before resuming its role as the air warfare commander.

Source: https://news.usni.org/2018/03/19/u-s-evolving-middle-east-operations-carrier-strike-group-isis-loses-ground-iranian-drones-make-daily-appearances

The post U.S. Evolving Middle East Operations of Carrier Strike Group as ISIS Loses Ground, Iranian Drones Make Daily Appearances first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

ARTICLE SUMMARY

The Pentagon’s top commander in the Middle East told lawmakers today that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s gains in the yearslong civil war will bolster Iran’s ability to frustrate US aims in the region.

 REUTERS/Omar Sanadiki

A Syrian army soldier is seen securing Syrian Arab Red Crescent trucks carrying aid at the entrance of Wafideen camp in Damascus, Syria, March 5, 2018.

America’s top military commander in the Middle East told Congress today that President Bashar al-Assad’s recent gains in the Syrian civil war will enhance Iran’s ability to support proxy groups in the region.

Chief of US Central Command Joseph Votel told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the intervention by Iran and Russia has proven decisive in bolstering the embattled Syrian leader. Assad appears on the verge of regaining opposition-held holdouts in Idlib province and the Damascus suburbs.

“From a civil war standpoint, it would appear that the regime is ascendant here,” Votel told Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. “It means that we will contend with the influence of Iran.”

Votel did not disagree with the senator’s characterization that Assad’s forces had “won” the war with the help of Iran and Russia.

Iran is believed to have as many as 125,000 troops and Shiite-backed proxy forces in Syria under the watch of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander Qasem Soleimani. That includes 8,000 Hezbollah fighters in the Middle Euphrates River Valley, the centerpiece of the US-backed battle against the Islamic State (IS).

At the conclusion of the conflict, Votel told lawmakers, “Iran could be in a position where they could support Lebanese Hezbollah better.”

Speaking at Stanford University in January, ousted Secretary of State Rex Tillerson called for an open-ended US presence in Syria to counter Iran. He also insisted that the United States is seeking a political transition away from Assad.

It’s not clear if CIA Director Mike Pompeo, who President Donald Trump named as Tillerson’s successor today, will aim to continue the policy, and Votel provided no clarity today on whether US officials still sought Assad’s dismissal. “I don’t know that that’s our particular policy at this point,” he said.

“Well, if you don’t know, I doubt if anybody knows, because this is your job, to take care of this part of the world,” Graham responded. The South Carolina Republican recently visited Jordan and Israel and wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed on March 12 decrying the lack of a “coherent strategy” to deal with Iran’s influence in Iraq and Syria. Graham also called for no-fly zones within Syria to allow the return of refugees and the continuation of efforts to train and equip Syrian rebel forces.

Some 2,000 US troops remain in Syria, officially, to train rebel forces to fight remnants of IS. The Pentagon, however, appears to be curtailing the use of Incirlik Air Base in nearby Turkey to provide air support in the fight against the militant group. The Defense Department has asked for $300 million to train Syrian fighters, including the Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), in the fiscal year that begins in October, a 40% cut from the current year’s request.

Though US forces have tried to stay out of the wider war, special operations forces recently repelled a pro-Assad attack on the US-backed SDF near oil fields in territory once held by IS. Votel said he didn’t think that rebel forces in Ghouta and Idlib could topple Assad within the next year.

As pro-Assad forces continue to hit the rebel-held Damascus suburb of eastern Ghouta with bombs and chlorine gas, the Pentagon is discouraging Trump from launching military operations to try to stem the humanitarian crisis. Trump has mentioned eastern Ghouta in recent calls with US allies, including French President Emmanuel Macron, British Prime Minister Theresa May and German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

“The best way of doing this is through political and diplomatic channels,” Votel said.

Yet as the White House is set to formulate a tougher policy on Iran, with Pompeo replacing Tillerson at the State Department, the Pentagon is carefully watching Trump’s May 12 deadline to determine whether the United States will continue suspending sanctions as called for under the 2015 nuclear deal. Last fall, US Defense Secretary James Mattis called on the United States to remain in the deal, and Votel appeared to reiterate that position in testifying before lawmakers today.

The nuclear agreement “addresses one of the principal threats that we deal with from Iran,” Votel said. If the deal ends and Iran resumes prohibited nuclear activities, the Middle East commander said, the United States will need “another way” to deal with the threat.

Jack Detsch is Al-Monitor’s Pentagon correspondent. Based in Washington, Detsch examines US-Middle East relations through the lens of the Defense Department. Detsch previously covered cybersecurity for Passcode, the Christian Science Monitor’s project on security and privacy in the Digital Age. Detsch also served as editorial assistant at The Diplomat Magazine and worked for NPR-affiliated stations in San Francisco. On Twitter: @JackDetsch_ALM, Email: jdetsch@al-monitor.com.

---

Source: https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2018/03/pentagon-braces-emboldened-iran-syria-gains.html

[Disclaimer]

The post Pentagon braces for emboldened Iran after Syria gains first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

State sponsor of terrorism Iran has reportedly erected another permanent base in Syria capable of bombing Israel, considered Tehran’s public enemy number one, according to Fox News, citing Western intelligence sources and satellite images.

Last December, Israel reportedly destroyed a similar base, warning Tehran against building any military installations. Israel and Syria share a border.

Fox News reports:

Iran has built another permanent military base outside Syria’s capital city complete with hangers used to store missiles capable of hitting all of Israel, according to Western intelligence sources.

Exclusive satellite images from ImageSat International obtained by Fox News show what is believed to be the new Iranian base, eight miles northwest of Damascus, operated by the Quds Force—the special operations arm of Tehran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).  The photos show two new white hangars, each roughly 30 yards by 20 yards, used to store short- and medium-range missiles.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration has sanctioned the IRGC as a terrorist organization.

During an event sponsored by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) think tank, Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL), who serves on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, urged the Trump administration to “push back” against Iran-allied Shiite fighters destabilizing Iraq and Syria, namely the IRGC.

The congressman, a veteran of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, has introduced bipartisan legislation to impose sanctions on Iranian-backed Shiite militias in the Middle East.

Iran has deployed thousands of Shiite fighters, including members of the terrorist group Hezbollah, to fight on behalf of the Russian-backed dictator Bashar al-Assad in Syria.

Although U.S. Gen. Joseph Votel, the top American commander in the Middle East and Afghanistan, told lawmakers this week that Tehran “remains the major threat” to regional stability, he also said, “Countering Iran is not one of the coalition’s missions in Syria.”

The primary focus of the estimated 2,000 American troops in Syria remains the destruction of ISIS.

During the FDD event on Wednesday, Melissa Dalton of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) who recently traveled to Syria with Gen. Votel, said there are still “some hardened cells” associated with ISIS in Syria.

Gen. Votel told lawmakers the group has lost “more than 98 percent” of its so-called caliphate in Iraq and Syria.

He noted that Iran is “increasing” the number and “quality” of the ballistic missiles it is deploying to Syria.

The nuclear agreement reached in July 2015 has allowed Iran to “enhance” funding to proxy forces in the Middle East, pointed out the top American general.

Support from Iran and Russia have allowed Assad to remain in power and continue waging war.

The United States military and its Kurdish allies have recently been forced to repel an attack from troops loyal to the Iranian and Russian-backed Assad regime.

According to the Pentagon, U.S. troops will not hesitate to respond to an attack from Iran-allied militias in Syria.

Source: http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2018/03/01/report-iran-builds-another-permanent-base-syria/

The post Report: Iran Builds Another Permanent Base in Syria first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

(CNN)As if the broken, angry, dysfunctional Middle East needed another conflict, along came an unprecedented escalation between Israel, Iran and Syria to make the region even more volatile and dangerous.

The post Mideast tensions get even worse first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.