Understanding Russian Withdrawal From Syria

By Shahzad Masood Roomi

 What forced Putin to announce a withdrawal of Russian forces from Syria? This is perhaps the most debated issue, currently, in global strategic community.

Considering Putin's seemingly abrupt announcement of intervention in Syria in September 2015 and even more abrupt announcement of withdrawal, which in reality is a major draw down, leaves no doubt that Putin wants to keep his cards hidden till the very last. This is good strategy towards denying other players the ability to anticipate his next move. Once again, he has succeeded in retaining the element of strategic surprise to himself. 

ANALYSIS: Gen Raheel and Saudi Led Islamic Military Alliance

By Shahzad Masood Roomi

Pakistan media is buzzed with the news that Gen. Raheel Shareef, COAS Pakistan Army, has been asked by the Saudi led 34 countries alliance to become its commander in-chief after his retirement which is due November later this year. Source of information according to Daily The News International is "US military and political sources."

Syrian Conflict Enters In Disturbing New Phase

By Shahzad Masood Roomi

Just days after the fateful incident of Russian SU-24, Syrian conflict is taking a rather uglier turn as more disturbing events are unfolding. 

In the latest developments, Syrian government has accused US led coalition warplanes of attacking a Syrian Army Camp in Deir ez Zor province. The incident is first of its kind which has taken place amid ongoing allegations and counter-allegations between Turkey and Russia triggered in the aftermath of SU-24 downing row and can very easily trigger a new round of more kinetic confrontation between US and Russian led alliances.

The Syrian government has said that 3 people were dead while 13 got injured and number of military vehicles were destroyed. According to Syrian government, the coalition jets fired nine missiles at an army camp in the Deir ez Zor province, which remains mostly under the control of Islamic State. 

The Syrian Foreign Ministry has filed an official protest with the UN Security Council regarding the US-led coalition’s airstrikes on Syrian troops, Syria’s SANA official news agency reported Monday.

“Syria strongly condemns the act of aggression by the US-led coalition that contradicts the UN Charter on goals and principles. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has sent letters to the UN Secretary General and the UN Security Council,” SANA quoted the foreign ministry as saying.

US and Coalition Rejects Allegations:

The US and allied nations’ coalition has denied the Syrian claims.

Brett McGurk, Obama’s envoy to Syria, on his Twitter account, said that there had been no coalition strikes anywhere within 55 kilometers (35 miles) of the said camp.

"Reports of coalition involvement are false," he wrote in his tweet.

Apart from him, the coalition spokesman Colonel Steve Warren also commented on Syrian allegations saying, ”We’ve seen those Syrian reports but we did not conduct any strikes in that part of Deir ez Zor yesterday. So we see no evidence,” 

The Deir ez Zor province is situated in eastern Syria, and is largely controlled by Islamic State (IS). The region is of significant strategic importance to the terrorist group, as it contains a number of oilfields, which are a major source of revenue for IS.

Syrian government is declaring the US led coalition bombing in Syria against ISIS as illegal. According to some unconfirmed reports, President Putin has reportedly already declared the Syrian crisis a beginning of World War III and forces have been ordered to prepare for a global scale conflict. 

In another related development, Iraq has given Turkey an ultimatum of 48 hours to leave Iraqi territory while Turkey has said that it has right to protect its soldiers. This ultimatum comes after Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu's letter of his Iraqi counterpart Haider Al Abadi in which it is promised and assured that there will be no deployment of Turkish forces in Iraq until Baghdad's concerns are addressed. 

ANALYSIS:

If this string of events prolongs it can easily get out of control and no one will be able to prevent a regional conflict at much larger scale. The region is slowly drifting towards a larger conflict. with UN clearly finding itself irrelevant. These are perilous trends for peace and security. Any regional conflict triggered from Syria, would not only jeopardize global peace but would also destroy UN as global conflict resolution body.

It seems all the major stakeholders fighting against a common threat of IS have a complete diplomatic breakdown and events like Su-24 downing and alleged US coalition strike on an Syrian camp can easily send wrong signals regarding the intentions of opposite alliance. It is time that countries like Pakistan or China who are not involved in this mess take some initiative to salvage the prospects of peace. Any forum can be utilized for such an diplomatic incentive but whatever has to be done it must be done on war footings. Trends in Syria are obviously turning disturbing it not alarming!

Russia Puts Sanctions on Turkey, Blamed It for Protect ISIS Oil Trade: What Next?

By Shahzad Masood Roomi

Crisis in Syria is engulfing neighboring states as Russia and Turkey has exchanged accusations and counter-accusations. Russia has claimed that Turkey shot down its SU-24 to protect illegal oil trade of ISIS. Turkey has strongly challenged these allegations and has demanded proofs from Russia for the same. As the temperature is rising over this row of allegations and counter allegations, the world leaders are visibly panicked.  President Obama has urged both Russia and Turkey to reduce tension. 

Two days back, Turkey-Russia bilateral relations hit yet another low as Russia retaliated against Turkey again by imposing economic sanctions on Ankara after severing the military ties over downing of a Russian Su-24 bomber fighter near Syrian border. Russian President has signed the decree.

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov had earlier announced that Turks will have to apply for visas to visit Russia. 

Russia has described the sanctions “aimed at ensuring national security and that of Russian citizens” and included a ban on charter flights between the two countries and on Russian businesses hiring any new Turkish nationals as well as import restrictions on certain Turkish goods, according to a text of the decree released by the Kremlin.

On its part, Turkish leadership has begun to realize the gravity of situation as Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan earlier expressed “sadness” over the incident which has severely strained relations, saying that “we wish it had never happened.”

After this statement of Turkish President,  it was hoped that the tensions will be lowered but Russia now has accused Turkey to protect illegal oil smuggling by ISIS and has blamed that SU-24 was downed to cover this oil trade of terrorist group. Reacting to this latest allegation, Turkish president Erdogan says ready to resign if claims about Turkey's buying oil from IS are confirmed.  

ANALYSIS:

Stakes are getting higher on both sides with every passing day. Turkey has made it clear that it will not apologies and it seems Russia would not accept anything less. Is it making of a new conflict in the region? Might be and might be not. But certainly this incident is going to play a significant role in shaping future geopolitics in the region. 

Turkey is almost in similar position Pakistan was in 1980's. Pakistan's then strategic mindset was outcome of firm belief that Soviets will continue there southward march towards the hot waters of Arabian Sea. Once they captured Afghanistan, Pakistan will be their natural target. With India as their main ally, there matrix for Pakistan's national security would be complicated further. So, stopping Soviets in Afghan gorges were considered vital national security interest. Pakistan decided to fight against Soviets in Afghanistan. Americans came to help in 1982 when they saw initial success of Pakistan backed elements. It was afterwards of 1983 when Pakistan began to made strategic miscalculations about the intentions of CIA who was there just to defeat oldest global enemy of Uncle Sam. CIA won the war and left the region in late 1980s after turning Afghanistan into a strategic black hole. (World came to know about the reality of Operation Cyclone of CIA in 1998 when former US national security adviser to President Carter, Brzezinski disclosed that it was all along CIA's plan to lure Soviets in Afghanistan. Pakistan has been playing the price of letting CIA run "Jihad" in Afghanistan since that time.

The most ironic aspect of this entire episode is that why Islamabad didn't engage Moscow on diplomatic levels to assess their plans? Global balance of power was disturbed after Soviet collapse.

Today, Turkey is NATO ally just like Pakistan was in 1980's. Russia is in its neighbor, just like it was in Pakistan's neighbor in 1980's. Pakistan was told by the US to prepare its defenses as Soviets will be targeting Pakistan next. Turkey, is also being encouraged to defend itself against Russia.

It is a good sign that Turkish President has expressed his sadness on this issue. Turkish diplomacy must engage Russia constructively. Formation of a join investigation team to prob Su-24 destruction can be proposed as a first measure to clam down enraged Putin. 

Any more aggression from Turkey, even on diplomatic level, would only complicate things for Turkey. Based on its own past experience, Pakistan must also advice the Ankara in this regard. Otherwise, just like World War 1, some 100 years ago, the region is drifting towards a larger conflict or a new Cold War.

Big War Lurks Over Syria As France Invokes EU Treaty's Mutual Defense Clause

Paris - France has invoked The EU treaty's 'mutual defence clause' formally on 17 November during a meeting of EU defence ministers. The decision was taken in reaction to the multiple terrorist attacks on 13 November against the French capital. Bilateral talks will take place immediately between France and its 27 EU partners to map out the assistance the latter will provide, said French defence minister Jean-Yves Le Drian. 

It is the first time the clause has been activated.

The clause, Article 42.7 of the Lisbon Treaty, spells out that if an EU country is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other member states "shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter".

"This is a very strong act," Le Drian told reporters in Brussels at a joint press conference with Federica Mogherini, the EU's foreign and security policy chief, during the ministers' meeting. 

By the statements of Le Drian, it is evident that France is asking the European allies to join the war in Syria. He said France will seek pooled capabilities, support for French intervention in Syria and Iraq, or other efforts to help free up French forces committed elsewhere across the globe or on its home territory.

 "Support for our other operations would lighten our load," he said. "We can't be in the Sahel [Mali], in the Central African Republic, in Lebanon, or [protecting] all our national territory at the same time. Thus, we will discuss what each partner could contribute - either on our territory or elsewhere."

"There are many types of assistance possible, whether in the Middle Eastern arena or elsewhere. I am confident that everyone will step up to the plate quickly; otherwise it makes no sense."

It was also hinted by Le that actually France wants some of European states to take load off of France by taking responsibilities in some of the global hotspots where French forces are engaged so that France can fully focus on Syria.

Le Drian said the article's invocation "will enable us to have the necessary bilateral support and co-operation among us to translate the commitment of the Defence Council [of EU defence ministers] into action".

COMMENT:

A big war in Syria is in making where it is not certain who will prevail in the end because it is not a war two clear opponents would fight, Syria has become a strategic blackhole in Middle East where all major powers are being sucked in. Russia and the US are already there while China has also vowed to avenge the killings of Chinese nationals at hands of ISIS. Though there is very less probability that China will join US led campaign in Syria, the news proves that China is also among the victim nations of ISIS many of which want to go to Syria to crush ISIS. Security & Threat Matrix has done an analysis on what possibly can go wrong if France choose retribution over justice as response strategy against ISIS for 13/11 terror attacks. 

Paris Attacks: What will be French Response : Justice or Retribution?

By Shahzad Masood Roomi

French President Francois Hollande has promised a merciless response to ISIS who has claimed the responsibility of the wave of terror strikes by gunmen and bombers that killed at least 129 people at six different places in Paris on Friday (Saturday morning in Pakistan). 87 people were killed by terrorist at Bataclan concert hall where, according to reports, 3 suicide bombers blew themselves before French anti-terrorism force stormed the hall and rescued many survivors. More than 40 people were killed at five other locations including double suicide bombing outside the Stade de France national stadium, where Mr Hollande and the German foreign minister were watching a friendly soccer international between the two countries.

The attack is being described as the most brutal incident since World War II. “The terrorists, the murderers, raked several cafe terraces with machine-gun fire before entering (the concert hall). There were many victims in terrible, atrocious conditions in several places,” police prefect Michel Cadot told reporters.

French government has announced three days of national mourning.

President Hollande described the assault as “an act of war” against France. He made his reaction as well. “France will be merciless towards these barbarians from Daesh,” he said, using the Arabic acronym for IS.

French leader also said that the attack was planned on a foreign soil.

It must be remembered that France is already at war with ISIS in Syria and is one of the most active participant of US led alliance against the terror organization. 

Former president Nicolas Sarkozy has called for a total war against ISIS. “The war we must wage should be total.”, said Mr. Sarkozy in a statement.

The intensity of this incident has forced the entire Europe to tighten the border security. Germany, Italy, Russia, Belgium, Hungary and the Netherlands also tightened security measures after the incident.

How France is going to respond to this attack is pretty much clear but is this a right strategy keeping in mind the two unfinished wars of the US in Afghanistan and Iraq? and more important question is, will a military-oriented strategy by France will ensure the security of its people and prevention of any next 13/11? Seeking answers of these key questions are challenge and opportunity at the same time. 

ANALYSIS:

The sole purpose of any national security policy or response strategy is to secure the nation by making sure that no security incident takes place and if one occurs the policy or strategy must ensure prevention of such incident in future. Such policy making demands a multi-pronged mindset which encompasses all the dynamics of any particular incident like identifying elements behind it, tactics and more importantly the root causes. 

13/11 was outcome of the policy of 'execution of terrorists' instead of 'prosecution of terrorists' without spending any time on ascertaining the terrorists mindset and their causes. This strategy was adopted by the US after 9/11. This strategy was flawed as it took away the entire process of justice. The US and allies began to label individuals, factions, organizations and even states as terrorists and began execution process all by themselves without any trials like it was done in 2003 when Iraq was invaded by US/UK to remove Saddam Hussain under the false pretext of WMDs.

Now the question is, what France is going to do with/in Syria to hunt 13/11 perpetrators and masterminds belonging to ISIS?

Actually there is not much France can do right now militarily as it is already part of the US coalition in Syria against ISIS if Paris has decided to opt for a more aggressive military-oriented kinetic strategy, as is being hinted by the French leadership. Under any such strategy, France will intensify its military campaign against ISIS. But doing so without complete investigations would not only complicate the Middle East crisis and Syrian civil war but would also help the co conspirators hiding within EU to escape the justice and the EU's security would remain at peril. 

It is necessary for global peace that these accomplices of attackers are brought to justice. In order to achieve this, an intelligence based surgical approach will guarantee far higher probability of success as compared to waging a prolonged war in Syria. France must avoid indulging into a prolonged conflict in ME as this might be the real strategic plan of these ISIS terrorists. 

France must keep the lessons learned from failed and unfinished US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. French response must not be based on sheer sense of retribution like the US response was after 9/11. Last 14 years of WoT have exposed the vulnerabilities of this revenge-oriented strategic mindset.

A complete investigation of 13/11 terror attacks, finding its masterminds, facilitators, financiers and accomplices is critical for strengthening of international justice system. 

A senseless military response by the US after 9/11 only strengthened Al-Qaeda, ISIS and countless other violent entities in and around Middle East. This strategy has compromised the role of UN in global conflicts even further and as a consequence the world has become a less safer place.

Geopolitical Angle:

ISIS has claimed the responsibility of Paris attacks and has also made clear that these attacks are response to the French airstrikes in Syria against ISIS.

Looking at the initial French reaction over Paris terrorist attacks new concerns are becoming apparent on the geopolitical axis as well. The most important of these is prospects of a perpetuation of this war between ISIS and France. If France goes after ISIS without purging it completely from its own soil, there is a greater probability of another similar attack in France or elsewhere in EU. 

Another concern is new possible strategic alignment which might take place in Syria in fight against ISIS where Russia and the US alliance are not on the same page despite both claiming to fight against ISIS. Russian intervention in Syria is being considered as hindrance by the West in their plan to overthrow Asad's regime in Damascus. If the US along with France, under any military-oriented response strategy, decide to rearm Syrian rebels, which are being attacked by Russia, against both ISIS and Asad or send ground troops, Russia can response this move by putting more of its own military hardware in Syria to support Syrian army. Iran will also follow the line and most probably will amplify her involvement in Syria. This can easily lead to a dangerous stand off between the two Cold War rivals.

As both the US and Russia don't believe on each other's narratives yet both these global powers are involved in Syria without any UN mandate. In reality, this is beginning of a next cold war which does not look that cold considering the regional geopolitical dynamics where UN has no role. This has been proven in case of Middle East where first Iraq and then Syria were invaded by foreign forces unilaterally and the entire region is paying for this flawed approach and now Europe is also facing the heat.

The fate of ISIS, in Syria, remains uncertain but only certain certain fact is that, without proper investigations, trials and convictions, any decision of use force would push Syria in yet another brutal phase of violence and Syrian population will not be the only casualty in this chaos. Global peace, international institutions like UN, international law and justice will also become victim of this imbroglio. 

ISIS will continue to prevail because despite severe bombing from all the modern air powers its oil wells, refineries and export terminals which constitute the financial engine of ISIS, will stay protected like they have been so far and just to give excuses to both the US and Russia to keep their respective military forces in the region.
ISIS, Russia, US alliance and their proxies will continue to fight for many years to come creating more vacuums for more militant and violent terror groups in case these geopolitical considerations remains overlooked!

This is why it is critical for France to adopt a more robust and comprehensive response strategy than the current chaotic approach introduced by Washington after 9/11. This strategy must incorporate both kinetic and non-kinetic responses to ensure address the root causes of global terrorism.

Conclusion:

Terrorism can only be defeated by justice. Use of force as revenge as a strategy has failed already and is bound to be doomed in future as well. France must learn from failure of US policy on global terrorism. This incident is awful indeed but at the same time, it is also an opportunity for world leaders to sit together and contemplate an international framework to prosecute terrorists under the same law.

US Special Forces in Syria, Implications for Region and Turkey

By Shahzad Masood Roomi

Back in 2013, the US president announced that he will never send US troops in any open ended conflict like Afghanistan and Iraq. Irony is, he announced to do the same just a few days back when he told the world that US is to send Special Forces in Syria. Though the US authorities have made it clear more than once that these forces will have no combat role (but only assist and advise) but it is obvious that this move would only escalate the conflict now even more as now the Russian forces have weakened the Syrian rebel groups including ISIS. Any intervention of the US Special Forces to do the same would be strategically a futile practice.  

What does all this mean for the region? but a more important question remains that why the US President had to announce the plans to send troops in Syria after making prior commitment of not sending more troops in open ended conflicts? Another related question is why President Obama announced boot on Syrian ground after Russia has weakened many of the Syrian armed groups and Syrian army is gearing up for a decisive operations to take back important towns from ISIS? What does actually the US is trying to achieve here? All these questions are intriguing for anyone interested in Syrian conflict and Middle Eastern geopolitics.

Regional Implications

There are number of theories circulating in open source domain to answer the question that who actually is pulling the strings in Washington to force Obama to make US fight more wars and to worsen its standing even more among Muslim populace? Few think that it is Israel or Military Industrial Complex ... but all the policy decisions in Washington are not being made by either of these. The fact is Israel and Russia had agreed to coordinate military actions on Syria even before Russia actually started military operations there. For Israel, the more immediate threat is Hizbollah, not Assad. 

Since the onset of Russian military campaign in Syria, the Western media has reported that Russian jets are actually hitting hideouts and strongholds of Syrian rebels which were armed and backed by the US. 

Actually, the US has plans to rearm and regroup all the proxies against Russia in order to maintain the firm grip on the region. This perpetual war in Syria, which is now expanding towards Turkey, is nothing more than extension of geopolitics by other means; both for Russia and the US. Neither is interested in eliminating Islamic State or other groups. They are nothing more than proxies in this brawl between two powers. Perhaps this is why the US rejected the Russian offer to conduct joint ops against ISIS.

This explains why fewer than 50 special forces personnel are being sent to Syria and to be “headquartered” in northeastern Syria with a “wide range of groups,” including Syrian Arabs, Turkmen, and Kurds, according to a senior US defense official. While the forces will be fully equipped to defend themselves, the official said Friday, their mission is “strictly advise and assist.”, reported by Defenseone military intelligence website.
But the most important and relevant passage of the report read something like this:

"A senior Obama administration official told Defense One in a statement earlier Friday that more F-15 strike fighters and A-10 Warthog close-air-support jets are on the way to Incirlik Airbase in Turkey. The senior defense official said a dozen A-10s are already at Incirlik, and they’re finalizing a package of roughly the same number of F-15s. The aircraft will support an effort to “thicken” air operations in northern Syria and to secure the border between Syria and Turkey."

Implications for Turkey:

Clearly, Turkey is already facing a rise in unrest and chaos with fears of further violence within her borders as it has made a similar arrangement with the US as was made by Pakistan on Afghanistan. Now Syrian fighters would be driven into Turkey (may be under the garb of being refugees just like many Afghan terrorists ended inside Pakistani camps for Afghan refugees). Only advantage Turkey has is a completely manned border. But how this can protect Turkey from any chaos or internal security risks, being posed by this perpetual state of war in Middle East, is yet to be seen!

It will be wiser to Turkey to pen and announce the terms of engagements for these US operations from her soil. Pakistani governments maintained duality on this issue (ensuring support to the US on drone strike privately and protesting on the same publicly and in the end, Pakistan had to pay a lots of civilian lives as well), it is hopped that Gen. Raheel told the same to his Turkish counterpart the same during his visit to Turkey!

So, What is fundamentally Wrong in Middle East?

The chaos in the Middle East is nothing new. It is only its present violent incarnation which is being broadcast world over is something making it look like a new phenomenon. Within US, there are strong voices telling President Obama that Diplomacy, not US 'boots on the ground', is still the best option in Syria and in retrospective analysis of Middle East Chaos it is obvious that Washington's choice to solve political issues through military strategy alone has transformed a region, infested with ethnic tensions, into an imbroglio. Sooner the US revisit its approach better it would be not just for the region but for the entire world as well.

Obama’s anti-ISIS policy: Through Geopolitical Lens!

Shahzad Masood Roomi

President Obama has recently announced a new strategy to fight the ISIS in Iraq and Syria. US House of Representative has approved the policy as well. Before analyzing this strategy, let's quickly skim through the main vertexes of "new" American strategy to "degrade" and "defeat" ISIS.

1. Significant expansion of the aerial bombing campaign in Iraq
2. Training and equipping of the Iraqi army and the Kurdish Peshmerga.
3. Bombing in Syria
4. Supporting, arming and training moderate rebels against Syrian government of Bashr al Asad.
5. Getting a coalition of European and regional allies on board in the fight against IS.
6. No boots on ground.

Would this policy yield anything positive for regional peace? Very unlikely! The fundamental flaw with Obama's entire anti-ISIS strategy stems from the failure of previous attempts to eradicate terror groups through air power campaigns and policy of using non-state actors as has been rightly identified by analyst Tim Fernholz in following words:

"The legal justification the Obama administration relies upon for its war powers is the same one that justifies air strikes against extremist groups in Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan—failed or failing states where US counter-terror policy relies on dubious local allies and drone strikes to manage extremist groups. That may well be the future in Iraq and Syria".

Supporting non-state actors and bombing unconfirmed "terrorist targets" will never bring peace in any restive state. The failure of CIA's ever expanding drone wars provide an irrefutable testimony of this assertion. But a careful analysis of the US/West's anti-ISIS strategy leaves very little doubt that bringing peace in Syria is not among the real objectives of this wired "peace" strategy.

Apart from raising questions on overall strategy, one must be intrigued to investigate the criteria Washington is using to profile the Syrian rebels as "moderates" and "hardcore". We have been listening about moderate Muslim, moderate rebels and even moderate Islam. But no one in Washington or in the entire western media and intellectual circle shed any light on the definition of these "moderate rebels". As there is no clear definition or criteria exists to profile any group's tendency to do violence and terrorism it becomes an impossible task to identify such groups unless they have been identified already; an a possibility which hitherto cannot be confirmed.

How to distinguish between hardcore and Moderate rebels? Major policy flaw in Obama Strategy

Plans to arm and train such non-state actors in Syria leaves very little doubt in assertion that Obama's anti-ISIS plan is actually a recipe of complete security disaster which eventually would become a device to alter the map of Middle East once again after 100 years of World War I.

These concerns over Obama's policy and persistent fervor of White House to pursue this policy despite the above mentioned concerns demand to investigate this crisis and its response strategy through the lens of geopolitical developments taking place in the region as global powers compete to protect their strategic interests in the region.

China and Russia opposed American plans of removing Bashr Al Asad regime through a military intervention. US/NATO had to postpone their plans after Russia announced to send her naval fleet in the region. Ironically, ISIS has provided the US with a narrative which would not only enable Washington to prevent any diplomatic pressure from Russia and Iran against the planned invasion in Syria but would also create a conducive environment for regime change operation in Syria as well. This regime change operation is critical in the grand scheme of things and is part of new strategic US plan for the region. After 9/11, the US planned to launch a massive regime change campaign in seven Middle East states including Syria. This revelation was first made public by the former NATO commander General Wesley Clark in 2007. This assertion is further supported by the fact that now many experts within the US intellectual circles believe that it was Obama administration which made ISIS such a dangerous threat not only for the region but also the US interests as well. Albeit, their definition of the US interests in the region mainly revolves only around the lives of the US citizens.

Former NATO Commander - General Wesley Clark 

There is a third and more ominous view point as well in this regard. Many experts believe that the US policy is leading the entire region towards a new and more intensified conflict. This argument has its own merit and seems to be based on more realistic assessment. Syrian regime is an old Soviet/ Russian ally and this is why the US wants to through it out as revealed by General Clark as well. Russians on their part, would certainly respond to any such attempt by the US and for Iran and China it would be impossible to remain isolated in this entire conflict. In her initial response to Obama’s new Syrian strategy, Russia has warned that US air strikes against militants in Syria would be a "gross violation" of international law. Russia has asked the US to seek mandate of UN Security Council for any such attack something the US will never consider considering possible Russian veto to any such coalition. Iran, another Russian ally in the region, has already termed this anti-ISIS coalition as failure without its inclusion in it. This involves Saudi Arabia and other Sunni gulf states in this conflict as well.

In this geopolitical backdrop, the most fundamental question which still remains unanswered in the entire US Syrian policy is how today’s moderate rebel would not become a threat to regional stability and Syrian integrity tomorrow even if this policy pays off and root out ISIS successfully, regardless from the future of Bash Al Asad regime? Obama has not answered it neither those in Gulf States who thinks that ISIS would be eliminated and peace would be restored in the region. Ground reality, on the other hand is starkly obvious. Obama’s new policy may end one monster but it certainly would create another! This is exactly what transpired in Iraq after Saddam.

This time, Gaza fighting is 'proxy war' for entire Mideast

Josh Levs, CNN

"This is unprecedented in the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict," says CNN's Ali Younes, an analyst who has covered the region for decades. "Most Arab states are actively supporting Israel against the Palestinians -- and not even shy about it or doing it discreetly."

It's a "joint Arab-Israeli war consisting of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia against other Arabs -- the Palestinians as represented by Hamas."

As the New York Times put it, "Arab leaders, viewing Hamas as worse than Israel, stay silent."

One of the outcomes of the fighting will likely be "the end of the old Arab alliance system that has, even nominally, supported the Palestinians and their goal of establishing a Palestinian state," Younes says.

"The Israel-Hamas conflict has laid bare the new divides of the Middle East," says Danielle Pletka, vice president of foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. "It's no longer the Muslims against the Jews. Now it's the extremists -- the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, and their backers Iran, Qatar and Turkey -- against Israel and the more moderate Muslims including Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia."

"It's a proxy war for control or dominance in the Middle East," says CNN's Fareed Zakaria.

To understand why and what all this means, we need to begin with understanding of Hamas.

Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood

Hamas, which has controlled the Palestinian government in Gaza for years, is an extension of the Muslim Brotherhood. To many Americans, the brotherhood is familiar for its central role in the power struggle for Egypt. But it's much larger than that.

"The Muslim Brotherhood is international, with affiliated groups in more than 70 countries, including Saudi Arabia and the UAE," says Eric Trager of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

The Arab Spring showed the region that uprisings can lead to the Brotherhood gaining power. So it's a threat to the governments it opposes.

"Israel's ongoing battle against Hamas is part of a wider regional war on the Muslim Brotherhood," says the Soufan Group, which tracks global security. "Most Arab states share Israel's determination to finish the movement off once and for all, but they are unlikely to be successful."

"From the perspective of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the UAE and some other Arab states, what the Israeli Prime Minister is doing is fighting this war against Hamas on their behalf so they can finish the last stronghold of the Muslim Brotherhood," Younes says.

"Arab governments and official Arab media have all but adopted the Israeli view of who is a terrorist and who is not. Egyptian and Saudi-owned media are liberal in labeling the Muslim Brotherhood as 'terrorists' and describing Hamas as a 'terrorist organization.' It's a complete turnabout from the past, when Arab states fought Israel and the U.S. in the international organizations on the definition of terrorism, and who is a terrorist or a 'freedom fighter.'"

Egypt

Egypt's new President vowed during his campaign that he would finish off the Muslim Brotherhood. Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, the former military chief, deposed Egypt's first freely elected leader, President Mohamed Morsy of the Muslim Brotherhood, last year following mass protests against Morsy's rule.

El-Sisi was elected officially in June.

"In Egypt you have a regime that came to power by toppling a Muslim Brotherhood government," says Trager. "It's therefore in an existential conflict with the Brotherhood. So it doesn't want to see Hamas, the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood, emerge stronger in a neighboring territory."

Egypt also has another reason to stand against Hamas: rising violence and instability in Sinai, the northern part of Egypt that borders Israel and Gaza. Hamas' network of tunnels includes some in and out of Egypt used to smuggle goods include weapons for attackson Israeli civilians.

 Read the complete article

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/07/31/world/meast/israel-gaza-region/index.html