Voice of East

2024-11-28 14:20:49

The Terrorist Offensive In Aleppo Is Meant To Deliver A Coup De Grace To Syria

The Terrorist Offensive In Aleppo Is Meant To Deliver A Coup De Grace To Syria

By Andrew Korybko

Everything will depend on whether the terrorists are stopped outside of Aleppo; the outcome of any possible battle for that city; and how desperate Assad becomes if he loses control over it and the terrorists advance on Damascus.

The terrorist-designated Hayat Tahrir-al-Sham (HTS), which is the rebranded form of the Al Qaeda-backed Al-Nusra, launched a surprise offensive in Aleppo this week. It’s already made a lot of progress due to the terrorists’ use of drones and other modern warfare tactics. These were reportedly taught to them by Ukraine according to reports in the run-up to the latest hostilities. Other reports included Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) warning about a false-flag chemical weapons attack.

Syrian, Iranian, and Russian forces (including its aerospace ones) are currently trying to push back HTS’ advance. This intense fighting comes immediately after the Israel-Hezbollah ceasefire deal, which that Iranian-backed Resistance group agreed to in spite of the late Nasrallah’s pledge not to do so without a ceasefire in Gaza first. It can therefore be interpreted as an Israeli victory despite Iran hailing this agreement and its ideologically aligned influencers spinning it as a Resistance victory.

With the Resistance objectively on the backfoot in the region, it makes sense why their HTS foes decided to go on the offensive at this specific moment, something that they’d clearly planned to do for a while. If the hostilities continue, then another large-scale humanitarian crisis might follow, which could see more internally displaced people in this war-torn country and some of them even fleeing to Europe. Terrorist sleeper cells elsewhere in the country might also awaken and reverse the progress of the past few years.

None of this would be possible without Turkiye’s support since all of HTS’ food, clothes, and arms come from that neighbouring country in spite of Ankara formally designating it as a terrorist group. Erdogan’s prioritization of what he believes to be his country’s national interests, whether rightly or wrongly and regardless of morality, explains why he’s exploiting recent events to this end. He sees an opportunity to deliver a coup de grace to Syria for ending its long-running conflict on better terms for Turkiye.

Assad is unlikely to be toppled, but Erdogan wants him to grant broad Bosnian-like autonomy to the Islamist-controlled northwest of the country in which Turkiye continues to exert influence, but the Syrian leader refuses to do so since he remains adamant that his Arab Republic must remain a unitary one. Likewise, he also won’t grant such autonomy to the Kurds in the US-occupied northeast, which is also the country’s most agriculturally and energy-rich region. Readers can learn more about this proposal here.

On that topic, RFK Jr. revealed shortly after the US elections that Trump is considering withdrawing these American troops, which could lead to another Turkish offensive just like the several prior ones that were all carried out under the pretext of stopping Kurdish separatism. Unless pro-Turkish Kurds replace the political influence of Ankara-designated Kurdish terrorists there like they earlier did in Iraq, then Ankara will consider any autonomous project to be a stepping stone to more separatism inside of Turkiye itself.

With this in mind, one of Turkiye’s strategic objectives in HTS’ offensive is to coerce Damascus into granting autonomy to the Islamists under its influence in the northwest while agreeing to do the same in the northeast but only after replacing the current ruling Kurdish clique with pro-Turkish ones. Turkiye could carry out joint operations with Syria in the northeast to defeat the separatists if American troops are withdrawn and Damascus first agrees to grant autonomy to the aforesaid Islamists.

The other strategic objective that Turkiye is pursuing right now is to get on Trump’s good side by doing the US the strategic favor of delivering a coup de grace to Syria that finally ends this long-running conflict and thus frees him up to fully refocus on his planned “Pivot (back) to Asia”. In exchange, Trump might agree not to expand the sanctions regime that he’s inheriting to include Turkiye’s trade with Russia, which involves energy, agriculture, and also the transshipment of Western-sanctioned tech.

Building upon this imperative, Turkiye also knows that the unexpected exacerbation of the hitherto largely frozen Syrian Conflict at precisely the moment when the NATO-Russian proxy war in Ukraine is also intensifying following the latest ATACMS-Oreshnik escalations works against Russia’s interests. Accordingly, by opening up a “second front”, Turkiye might hope to pressure Russia into either coercing Syria into the previously described concessions and/or also enacting its own concessions in Ukraine.

Either outcome, and especially both, would by default work in advance of the US’ interests and thus possibly ingratiate Erdogan much more with Trump. The Turkish leader might be concerned that the returning American one could take a harder line towards Turkiye if he doesn’t give him some impressive geopolitical gifts before the inauguration due to Director of National Intelligence (DNI) nominee Tulsi Gabbard’s documented dislike of his country. He therefore has an urgent impetus to deliver on this.

Lost amidst the discussion about Syrian, Russian, and Turkish interests in this newly thawed conflict is Israel’s interests. The Alt-Media Community largely believes that Israel wants to overthrow Assad due to its prior backing of terrorist-designated Islamist militants, but its interests nowadays are arguably to have Assad expel Iran and Hezbollah. Its hundreds of bombings against those two there over the years, none of which Russia interfered with despite occasionally condemning them, hasn’t yet led to that.

It’s admittedly a far-fetched scenario, but if Syria, Iran, and Russia struggle to fend off Turkish-backed HTS’ latest advance, then it can’t be ruled out that Israel might lend a helping hand to Damascus on the condition that Iran and Hezbollah are immediately expelled. The Russian Aerospace Forces are naturally prioritizing the Ukrainian front over the Syrian one so their limited capabilities in the latter theatre might lead to a situation where Damascus becomes desperate enough to seriously consider this possibility.

Even though Erdogan never took any meaningful action in support of Hamas or Hezbollah, limiting himself purely to the realm of demagogic rhetoric, Israel still didn’t appreciate this and thus has an axe to grind with him if the right opportunities and incentives present themselves. Turkish-backed HTS’ offensive represents such an opportunity while the incentive to bomb them could emerge if it advances in Aleppo, Syria and its allies struggle to stop them, and Damascus agrees to the abovementioned deal.

To be absolutely clear, there are no signs that Assad is seriously considering kicking his Iranian and Hezbollah allies out of the country as a quid pro quo for the Israeli Air Force’s (IAF) support against HTS, which would amount to a total betrayal of the Resistance that Syria itself helped found. Nevertheless, his calculations could change if Iran’s ground forces and Russia’s Aerospace ones aren’t able to save Aleppo, in which case he might consider this option out of desperation to stop the terrorists’ advance.

Unlike Russia, which is focused on the special operation, Israel just agreed to a ceasefire in Lebanon and is pretty much done with its Gaza campaign so the IAF could focus on destroying HTS if Assad agrees. Turkiye won’t go to war with Israel in response no matter what Erdogan might then threaten so it’s possible that Turkiye ends up being the one that’s dealt a coup de grace instead of Syria if Israel helps Syria destroy Turkiye’s proxies there and thus foils Erdogan’s grand plans that were explained.

The odds of Syria agreeing to this would increase if Israel leveraged its influence inside the US and especially within Trump 2.0 to ensure sanctions relief in exchange for kicking Iran and Hezbollah out of the country, which could be paired with Emirati-led Arab reconstruction assistance. Once again, the likelihood of this admittedly far-fetched scenario materializing is very low, but it would represent a regional game-changer that would also greatly advance America’s strategic interests too.

Russia’s military presence in Syria might also be unaffected since neither Israel nor the US minds it. In fact, Putin might even appreciate Netanyahu teaching Erdogan a lesson since the Turkish leader’s proxy offensive in Syria risks reversing Russia’s anti-terrorist progress there and thus harming its reputation. Moreover, Trump might also appreciate Netanyahu doing the same to Erdogan, which Tulsi would applaud as well if she’s confirmed as DNI. Erdogan might thus ultimately regret approving this offensive.

It’s premature to predict that such a scenario sequence will unfold since it’s still very unlikely that Assad would fulfill the prerequisite of betraying the Resistance like Israel would demand, especially since it’s still possible that Syria and its allies will beat back HTS’ Turkish-backed offensive on Aleppo. Even if there’s another full-fledged Battle of Aleppo, so long as that city doesn’t fall to the terrorists, Assad will probably still rule out such a “deal with the devil” as he sees it.

In the event that he loses Aleppo and his allies can’t help him liberate it again, such as if Russia’s Aerospace Forces are still focused on the special operation while Iran’s might have been irreparably weakened by the latest West Asian Wars, then he might finally consider it. Everything will therefore depend on whether HTS is stopped outside of Aleppo; the outcome of any possible battle for that city; and how desperate Assad becomes if he loses control over it and the terrorists advance on Damascus.

---

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Voice of East.

---

7 Courses in 1 – Diploma in Business Management

Korybko To Azerbaijani Media: All Sides Of The Ukrainian Conflict Underestimated Each Other

OneWorld is publishing the full-length English version of the interview that Andrew Korybko gave to Oxu.

^{Andrew Korybko (Andrew Korybko's Newsletter)}

Voice of East

2023-03-12 17:00:45

The US Has Nobody To Blame But Itself For China Mediating The Iranian-Saudi Rapprochement

The US Has Nobody To Blame But Itself For China Mediating The Iranian-Saudi Rapprochement

By Andrew Korybko

US grand strategy is predicated on the zero-sum pursuit of maximizing its power at others’ expense, which everyone in the international community finally realized after the blatant hypocrisy of its foreign policy since the start of Russia’s ongoing special operation. Morals, ethics, international law, and principles always take second place to the preceding goal, which thus makes this country a rogue state compared to its rivals like Russia and China, ergo why nobody trusts the US anymore.

---

The Chinese-mediated Iranian-Saudi rapprochement is one of the most monumental diplomatic developments to happen in West Asia since the start of the century, and the US has nobody to blame but itself for why that declining unipolar hegemon didn’t play a role in this historic event. Instead of trying to broker a pragmatic balance of influence between these former rivals in order to stabilize the region, it continually sought to divide and rule them, which ultimately isolated the US from West Asia.

By building upon the former Trump Administration’s so-called “maximum pressure” campaign despite prior rhetoric to the contrary, the Biden Administration literally pushed Iran into China’s arms. Not only that, but its bungled attempts to punish Saudi Arabia for its multipolar foreign policy under Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman (MBS) under the pretext of reacting to the Khashoggi incident and the long-running Yemeni War ended up pushing the Kingdom into China’s arms too in hindsight.

The US can’t even count on Israel nowadays either after encouraging a Colour Revolution against newly re-elected and now three-time Prime Minister Netanyahu as punishment for his country’s own multipolar foreign policy, which includes its refusal to arm Kiev in order to retain ties with Russia. To be clear, Israel still remains the US’ top regional partner, but West Asia’s geostrategic state of play has sharply shifted over the past year and especially in the last few days since the Chinese-mediated deal.

Countries like Saudi Arabia have caught on to the US’ divide-and-rule plots and no longer trust it as a result, hence why that traditional American ally turned to China for facilitating its rapprochement with Iran. The People’s Republic is practicing a grand strategy that requires global stability in order to fuel its economically driven rise as the next superpower, which explains its interest in helping those West Asian rivals repair their troubled relations in order to build a so-called “New Middle East”.

Unlike the “Balkanized” future associated with retired US Army Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Peters’ “Blood Borders” fantasy, China’s understanding of this concept is that everyone economically cooperates in mutually beneficial ways with a view towards building a Community of Common Destiny. Amidst the impending trifurcation of International Relations catalysed by the Ukrainian Conflict, China’s vision stands the greatest chance of helping West Asia remain stable during these difficult times.

US grand strategy is predicated on the zero-sum pursuit of maximizing its power at others’ expense, which everyone in the international community finally realized after the blatant hypocrisy of its foreign policy since the start of Russia’s ongoing special operation. Morals, ethics, international law, and principles always take second place to the preceding goal, which thus makes this country a rogue state compared to its rivals like Russia and China, ergo why nobody trusts the US anymore.

China just neutralized the US’ anti-Iranian “containment” policy in West Asia by brokering the rapprochement between that country and Saudi Arabia, which might soon be followed up by Russia brokering a complementary rapprochement between Syria and Turkiye. West Asia is thus poised to play a prominent role in the emerging Multipolar World Order, which will see the US’ divide-and-rule plots become less appealing and ultimately less successful than ever as the region finally begins to integrate.

---

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Voice of East.

---

7 Courses in 1 – Diploma in Business Management

#China #Geopolitics #Iran #SaudiArabia #USA

Russia working on meeting with Turkey, Syria, Iran next week, says foreign ministry

On December 28, 2022, consultations were held in Moscow by defense ministers of Russia, Syria and Turkey as part of the process of normalizing relations between Ankara and Damascus

^TASS

Voice of East

2023-08-24 17:00:57

BRICS’ Expansion Is Beneficial But It Also Isn’t Without Strategic Challenges

BRICS’ Expansion Is Beneficial But It Also Isn’t Without Strategic Challenges

By Andrew Korybko

It’s too early to say whether the scenario of BRICS broadly bifurcating into yuan- and non-yuan-using members will come to pass, but it can’t be ruled out since India prefers its own currency for obvious reasons while others are afraid of facing the US’ wrath if they help the yuan replace the dollar. As BRICS enters a new era after its latest expansion, its members must not let their growing differences impede the group’s work on advancing their shared goal of accelerating financial multipolarity processes.

---

The 15^th BRICS Summit ended on Thursday with the organization inviting Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE to join as full-fledged members beginning next year. This historic expansion carries with it substance and symbolism, but also pros and cons, all of which will be analysed in this piece. To begin with, it’s crucial to clarify that formal membership in BRICS isn’t a prerequisite for any given country participating in financial multipolarity processes, but it does help accelerate their efforts.

Any government can decide to prioritize the use of national currencies in bilateral trade, though it’s best for them to coordinate this with the largest number of countries and largest markets possible, hence the primary benefit that formal membership in BRICS brings. These six countries and those that’ll eventually follow in their footsteps have frequent meetings with a wide range of their counterparts’ policymakers throughout the group’s many meetings that are held each year ahead of its annual summit.

All others who’ve yet to obtain this privileged access but are still sincere in their desire to accelerate financial multipolarity processes can likely count on being invited to annual summits from here on out owing to the precedent set by South Africa this year. They’ll probably also be able to formalize some sort of partner relations with BRICS in the coming future too, not to mention already having the opportunity to apply to join the New Development Bank (popularly known as the BRICS Bank).

Bangladesh, Egypt, the UAE, and Uruguay joined the BRICS Five in this institution, but the first and last have yet to become full-fledged members of this group as a whole. Even so, joining the BRICS Bank could possibly become one of the fastest pathways for countries to formally become BRICS members. In any case, the point is that participation in this institution contributes to accelerating any given country’s financial multipolarity plans, especially regarding the use of national currencies in bilateral trade.

Having clarified that, the decision to invite those six previously mentioned countries as full-fledged members will drastically change the group’s dynamics owing to their very different economies and domestic situations. Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE are major energy exporters who could agree to sell their resources in non-dollar-denominated currencies, most likely the yuan (at least to begin with), which could greatly accelerate financial multipolarity processes.

Argentina, Egypt, and Ethiopia, meanwhile, are energy importers and are also experiencing serious economic problems right now. The first is suffering from runaway inflation, the second is propped up by its Gulf patrons, and the third is recovering from the devastating Tigray Conflict. Nevertheless, they’re also important members of their respective regions, with Ethiopia having outsized influence in Africa due to its hosting of the AU headquarters and historical support of Pan-Africanism.

Inviting three members from each of these two very separate categories of countries suggests that the BRICS Five agreed amongst themselves to compromise on economic substance and geographic symbolism correspondingly in order to advance their shared vision of expanding the group this year. The consequence of doing so in this manner, however, is that effective coordination between them is now much more difficult than before owing to their previously mentioned differences.

To be clear, it’s a positive development that a broad range of countries will now participate in BRICS’ countless gatherings each year ahead of its annual summit, but the only thing that they all have in common is their interest in accelerating financial multipolarity processes via their national currencies. That’s not to downplay the importance of BRICS expanding in the way that was ultimately decided upon, but just to inform readers of its newfound limits in order to temper their expectations.

At the same time, BRICS also has more opportunities than before in the sense that more countries can now participate in whatever alternative financial architecture their group unveils in the future such as an inclusive non-Western SWIFT-like payment system. These benefits balance out the obstacles and arguably make the latest move worthwhile in the long term, which is the period that they have in mind, not the short- or medium-terms per se.

Those of their supporters who anticipate the death of the dollar in the very near future will inevitably be disappointed since the BRICS Bank overwhelmingly lends in that currency and only plans to have national ones constitute 30% of its total. Furthermore, BRICS declared before the latest summit that it isn’t interested in de-dollarizing nor in opposing the West, but that it only wants to hedge against forex risks and ensure fairer representation for developing countries in the global financial system.

While some might claim that these goals are identical, the difference lies in the intent, with the false perception risking a Western overreaction that could lead to them waging Hybrid Wars against some members while the correct one reduces those chances. That’s not to say that the second scenario isn’t without its risks, however, since BRICS could still bifurcate even if it’s left to its own with only minimal Western meddling.

To briefly explain, it’s obvious that the yuan will become the preferred non-dollar-denominated currency within BRICS due to its ease of use stemming from all members’ massive trade ties with China. India wouldn’t like that though due to its strategic differences with China, but there might be limited opportunities for using the rupee apart from some symbolic BRICS Bank loans to other members. If faced with the choice of using dollars or yuan to purchase new members’ energy, it’ll likely stick with dollars.

Other members might feel the same as India does despite not sharing its strategic differences with China if they calculate that it’s not worth speeding up the yuan’s replacement of the dollar in non-Western economies out of fear that doing so could provoke the US into making them its next Hybrid War target. Washington can’t pressure everyone at once and destabilize them as punishment for defying its implicit demands, which is why it has to choose its targets wisely.

Prioritizing the use of national currencies that aren’t the yuan isn’t anywhere near as much of a threat to the US’ global financial hegemony as speeding up the yuan’s replacement of the dollar. The first is natural and pragmatic, while the second could easily be perceived by the US as hostile and supposed proof that a government has fallen too far under Chinese influence. Accordingly, the former is unlikely to be chosen as the next Hybrid War target, while the latter will definitely encounter difficulties with time.

It’s too early to say whether the scenario of BRICS broadly bifurcating into yuan- and non-yuan-using members will come to pass, but it can’t be ruled out since India prefers its own currency for obvious reasons while others are afraid of facing the US’ wrath if they help the yuan replace the dollar. As BRICS enters a new era after its latest expansion, its members must not let their growing differences impede the group’s work on advancing their shared goal of accelerating financial multipolarity processes.

---

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Voice of East.

---

7 Courses in 1 – Diploma in Business Management

#BRICS #Geopolitics

BRICS reveals six new members

BRICS leaders have approved the inclusion of six new members during the summit in South Africa

^RT

Voice of East

2023-10-08 14:21:56

The Top Ten Takeaways From Hamas’ Sneak Attack On Israel

The Top Ten Takeaways From Hamas’ Sneak Attack On Israel

By Andrew Korybko

Everything that’s happened thus far has been eye-opening for everyone.

---

Hamas launched an unprecedented sneak attack on Israel over the weekend that completely caught the self-professed Jewish State by surprise after all its security systems unexpectedly failed at the same time. The border wall was breached, some military bases were captured, and dozens of hostages were taken back to Gaza. Israel responded by launching airstrikes inside the strip and preparing a ground operation. Here are the top ten takeaways from everything that’s happened thus far in the latest Israeli-Hamas war:

———-

1. Israel’s Alleged Invincibility Was Dispelled As An Illusion

For starters, nobody is under the illusion any longer that Israel is invincible. Up until this weekend’s sneak attack, some had continued to cling to the claim that its conventional military-technical capabilities and massive aid from America made it the regional hegemon, but that perception was just shattered.

2. It Was Totally Unprepared For Hamas’ Hybrid War Tactics

Upon the breaching of its border wall, which was the result of a colossal intelligence failure and subsequent collapse of all security systems, Israel proved that it was totally unprepared to counter Hamas’ Hybrid War tactics of lightning-fast squad assaults and rudimentary drone attacks.

3. Political Infighting Likely Contributed To This Intelligence Failure

Had Israel’s military and intelligence services not gotten involved in the political dispute over Netanyahu’s planned judicial reforms, which was exacerbated by the Biden Administration’s meddling as explained here, then they might have detected Hamas’ plans in advance and thus been able to foil them.

4. It Also Didn’t Help That US Spies Are Distracted With Ukraine

Israel must take full responsibility for its intelligence failures, but it also didn’t help any that its American ally’s spies have been distracted with Ukraine. If they weren’t so focused on that conflict, then they might have kept at least one satellite over Gaza that could have discovered Hamas’ military buildup.

5. America Is Now In A Dilemma Over Who Gets Finite Military Aid

Business Insider drew attention to America’s newfound dilemma over whether to give finite military aid, particularly artillery shells, to Ukraine as planned or redirect these resources to Israel instead. Its decision could have major implications for both conflicts since the choice between them is zero-sum.

6. Saudi Arabia Will Probably Freeze Its Peace Talks With Israel

Saudi Arabia is under immense pressure from the international Muslim community to freeze its reported peace talks with Israel after the latter’s strikes against civilian targets in Gaza. It’ll probably comply with these demands, which would then ruin the Biden Administration’s plans for a deal before the elections.

7. The IMEC Megaproject Will Likely Be Put On Ice For Some Time Too

The India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) can’t be completed if Saudi Arabia and/or especially Jordan freeze their role in its construction to protest Israel’s involvement in the latest conflict, though this won’t harm India’s trade with any relevant party since it’s entirely conducted by sea.

8. Russia & China’s Balanced Statements Surprised Some Observers

Many in the Alt-Media Community wrongly thought that Russia and China favoured Palestine, hence why those two’s balanced statements here and here surprised them. Even fewer knew that President Putin fully supports the IDF as proven by his official statements over the years that were documented here.

9. The Debate Over Whether The Ends Justify The Means Has Re-Opened

Hamas’ killing of IDF-trained settlers-civilians and kidnapping of children, women, and the elderly to swap for prisoners was justified by some Palestinian supporters as a legitimate means for pursuing national liberation while other supporters criticized these tactics for undermining their cause’s morality.

10. Hezbollah Is The Wild Card In The Latest Israeli-Hamas War

Hamas’ sneak attack against Israel brought to life one of the latter’s worst nightmares, which might become even worse if Hezbollah decides to commence large-scale hostilities. In that event, Lebanon and possibly also Syria could be dragged into the fray, which could easily become existential for all parties.

———-

Everything that’s happened thus far has been eye-opening for everyone. The reputation of Israel’s security services has been shattered, Hamas’ has never been better in the eyes of most non-Western observers, and many among the latter finally learned that neither Russia nor China favour Palestine. Should the latest conflict become protracted, let alone expand into a regional one, then there’s a real possibility that the US will freeze the Ukrainian Conflict in order to redirect finite military aid to Israel.

---

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Voice of East.

---

7 Courses in 1 – Diploma in Business Management

#Gaza #Geopolitics #Hamas #Hezbollah #Israel #Palestine

Relentless bombing, urban combat, countless deaths: Live Updates on Israel-Hamas war

PM Benjamin Netanyahu has promised harsh retaliation after the Palestinian armed group Hamas unleashed a major attack on Israel

^RT

Voice of East

2023-10-08 14:21:56

The Top Ten Takeaways From Hamas’ Sneak Attack On Israel

The Top Ten Takeaways From Hamas’ Sneak Attack On Israel

By Andrew Korybko

Everything that’s happened thus far has been eye-opening for everyone.

---

Hamas launched an unprecedented sneak attack on Israel over the weekend that completely caught the self-professed Jewish State by surprise after all its security systems unexpectedly failed at the same time. The border wall was breached, some military bases were captured, and dozens of hostages were taken back to Gaza. Israel responded by launching airstrikes inside the strip and preparing a ground operation. Here are the top ten takeaways from everything that’s happened thus far in the latest Israeli-Hamas war:

———-

1. Israel’s Alleged Invincibility Was Dispelled As An Illusion

For starters, nobody is under the illusion any longer that Israel is invincible. Up until this weekend’s sneak attack, some had continued to cling to the claim that its conventional military-technical capabilities and massive aid from America made it the regional hegemon, but that perception was just shattered.

2. It Was Totally Unprepared For Hamas’ Hybrid War Tactics

Upon the breaching of its border wall, which was the result of a colossal intelligence failure and subsequent collapse of all security systems, Israel proved that it was totally unprepared to counter Hamas’ Hybrid War tactics of lightning-fast squad assaults and rudimentary drone attacks.

3. Political Infighting Likely Contributed To This Intelligence Failure

Had Israel’s military and intelligence services not gotten involved in the political dispute over Netanyahu’s planned judicial reforms, which was exacerbated by the Biden Administration’s meddling as explained here, then they might have detected Hamas’ plans in advance and thus been able to foil them.

4. It Also Didn’t Help That US Spies Are Distracted With Ukraine

Israel must take full responsibility for its intelligence failures, but it also didn’t help any that its American ally’s spies have been distracted with Ukraine. If they weren’t so focused on that conflict, then they might have kept at least one satellite over Gaza that could have discovered Hamas’ military buildup.

5. America Is Now In A Dilemma Over Who Gets Finite Military Aid

Business Insider drew attention to America’s newfound dilemma over whether to give finite military aid, particularly artillery shells, to Ukraine as planned or redirect these resources to Israel instead. Its decision could have major implications for both conflicts since the choice between them is zero-sum.

6. Saudi Arabia Will Probably Freeze Its Peace Talks With Israel

Saudi Arabia is under immense pressure from the international Muslim community to freeze its reported peace talks with Israel after the latter’s strikes against civilian targets in Gaza. It’ll probably comply with these demands, which would then ruin the Biden Administration’s plans for a deal before the elections.

7. The IMEC Megaproject Will Likely Be Put On Ice For Some Time Too

The India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) can’t be completed if Saudi Arabia and/or especially Jordan freeze their role in its construction to protest Israel’s involvement in the latest conflict, though this won’t harm India’s trade with any relevant party since it’s entirely conducted by sea.

8. Russia & China’s Balanced Statements Surprised Some Observers

Many in the Alt-Media Community wrongly thought that Russia and China favoured Palestine, hence why those two’s balanced statements here and here surprised them. Even fewer knew that President Putin fully supports the IDF as proven by his official statements over the years that were documented here.

9. The Debate Over Whether The Ends Justify The Means Has Re-Opened

Hamas’ killing of IDF-trained settlers-civilians and kidnapping of children, women, and the elderly to swap for prisoners was justified by some Palestinian supporters as a legitimate means for pursuing national liberation while other supporters criticized these tactics for undermining their cause’s morality.

10. Hezbollah Is The Wild Card In The Latest Israeli-Hamas War

Hamas’ sneak attack against Israel brought to life one of the latter’s worst nightmares, which might become even worse if Hezbollah decides to commence large-scale hostilities. In that event, Lebanon and possibly also Syria could be dragged into the fray, which could easily become existential for all parties.

———-

Everything that’s happened thus far has been eye-opening for everyone. The reputation of Israel’s security services has been shattered, Hamas’ has never been better in the eyes of most non-Western observers, and many among the latter finally learned that neither Russia nor China favour Palestine. Should the latest conflict become protracted, let alone expand into a regional one, then there’s a real possibility that the US will freeze the Ukrainian Conflict in order to redirect finite military aid to Israel.

---

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Voice of East.

---

7 Courses in 1 – Diploma in Business Management

#Gaza #Geopolitics #Hamas #Hezbollah #Israel #Palestine

Relentless bombing, urban combat, countless deaths: Live Updates on Israel-Hamas war

PM Benjamin Netanyahu has promised harsh retaliation after the Palestinian armed group Hamas unleashed a major attack on Israel

^RT

Voice of East

2022-05-06 17:00:39

What’s Dishonestly Smeared As “Russian Propaganda” Is Just The Multipolar Worldview

What’s Dishonestly Smeared As “Russian Propaganda” Is Just The Multipolar Worldview

By Andrew Korybko

Those who react to contrarian views by immediately concocting conspiracy theories instead of acknowledging the objectively existing fact that it’s impossible for every person in the world to think the same are likely suffering from undiagnosed but very serious psychological problems. Even without being a psychologist, one can conclude that the common denominator connecting these ill individuals is that they’re all at the very least victims of American propaganda that’s indoctrinated them into falling for the fallacies connected to the US’ envisioned unipolar world order.

---

Anyone who’s publicly shared an interpretation of international events that contradicts the US Government’s (USG) has almost certainly been attacked for allegedly spreading “Russian propaganda” or even being a so-called “Russian propagandist” by those who disagree with them. These trolls, who can be easily manipulated to break through social media’s shadowblocking of one’s account and thus inadvertently promote their contrarian views via the algorithm if they know how to do it, can’t countenance that anyone is capable of thinking differently than them when it comes to international political issues. Instead of acknowledging the objectively existing fact that it’s impossible for every person in the world to think the same, they immediately react by concocting conspiracy theories that strongly suggest that they’re suffering from undiagnosed but very serious psychological problems.

Even without being a psychologist, one can conclude that the common denominator connecting these ill individuals is that they’re all at the very least victims of American propaganda that’s indoctrinated them into falling for the fallacies connected to the US’ envisioned unipolar world order. This secular religion preaches the universality of the US’ liberal-globalist model upon which it bases its global hegemony and which its adherents have been convinced is inevitable. America’s junior Western partners, which can more accurately be described as vassals, are roped into this scam by being told that the discredited supremacist ideology of “American Exceptionalism” is simply an offshoot of “Western Exceptionalism”, but their shared civilization requires the US to “lead from the front” in order to “defend their values” and “civilize the barbarians” across the world. It’s messianic, supremacist, and quite literally fascist.

The opposite of unipolarity is multipolarity, which refers to the belief that International Relations are more equitable and just if there’s more than just a single global leader like the declining American hegemon. In connection with that, those who support this school of thought also acknowledge the diversity of economic, historical, and socio-political models as well as every country’s sovereign right to choose which ones are best for promoting the interests of the greatest number of its people. They’re completely against aggressively imposing foreign models onto others and believe that everything should always be done voluntarily instead of under coercion. Multipolarity’s conservative-sovereigntist worldview has nothing in common with unipolarity’s liberal-globalist one since it’s inclusive, respectful of everyone’s sovereign rights, and thus the epitome of anti-fascism unlike its ideological counterpart.

Whereas unipolar liberal-globalists (ULG) try to gaslight the world into believing in their subjectively defined “rules-based order” (RBO) that’s really just the selective imposition of double standards to advance the US’ self-interested geostrategic goals, multipolar conservative-sovereigntists (MCS) insist that the only legitimate RBO is the one enshrined in the UN Charter. Another irreconcilable conceptual difference between them is that the ULG always resort to concocting conspiracy theories to explain why others disagree with their interpretation of international events. The MCS, on the other hand, always promote respectful debates between those who think differently because they support a diversity of discourse. Unlike the ULG, the MCS respect everyone’s intelligence enough to let them to make up their own mind about what to believe after being exposed to different views even if they still disagree.

It also deserves to be mentioned that the ULG deny the existence of the ongoing global systemic transition (GST) since they’ve convinced themselves that their worldview is universalist and will therefore inevitably be followed by everyone eventually while the MCS are actually excited about the emerging Multipolar World Order that veritably defines the present state of International Relations. This second school of thought doesn’t expect any of the rising Great Powers’ economic or socio-political models to become the global standard, nor would they ever support any of them ever aspiring for such a role in replacing the US’ and thus essentially becoming that which they all presently oppose in principle. Rather, the primary outcome that they’re all pursuing is simply a sincere return to the UN-enshrined RBO so that everyone can independently develop according to their sovereign right to do so however they feel is best for the majority of their people.

There’s an obvious geopolitical division between the ULG and MCS too: the first-mentioned are mostly concentrated in the “Golden Billion” (GB) of the US-led West while the second are mostly found within the Global South (GS). Russia used to be part of the GB (or at least its economic elites sought to make it a member of this exclusive club) during the years that it participated in the G8, but it can nowadays much more accurately be described as part of the GS after being kicked out of that group, and especially following the US-led West’s unprecedented sanctions against it in response to Moscow’s ongoing special military operation in Ukraine. Having clarified that, it’s now time to briefly touch upon another difference between the GB and the GS, which is the potential for conflict within each “bloc”.

The GB is under the complete totalitarian control of the US with few exceptions, and even those that try to assert their strategic autonomy only very rarely successful, let alone for long enough to make a significant enough difference in the GST. The GS, by contrast, is actually beset with quite a few geopolitical contradictions between its many more members that have led to tense ties between them and even the occasional outbreak of conflict. Prominent examples include Armenia & Azerbaijan, China & India, China & Vietnam, Egypt & Ethiopia, India & Pakistan, Iran & Saudi Arabia, and Russia & Turkey, among others. This doesn’t add credence to the ULG’s so-called “Democratic Peace Theory” (DPT), however, but actually shows how natural the MCS’ worldview is compared to the ULG’s artificial one.

To elaborate, the DPT is a misleading information warfare narrative laundered through academia and aimed at indoctrinating people into falsely believing that the universal application of the ULG’s worldview is the only way to achieve global peace. That’s utopian, which therefore means that it’s destined to be dystopian exactly like all prior such projects ultimately turned out to be throughout history since that outcome contradicts human nature. The only “peace” that’s present in the US-led West’s “sphere of influence” is that which is aggressively imposed by the American hegemon onto its vassals after stripping them of their strategic autonomy in order to perpetually dominate them. Dissent isn’t allowed and is always responded to through various Hybrid War means to punish the “rebels”.

The existence of conflict and tension between those states that support the MCS’ worldview isn’t proof in support of the ULG’s DPT but actually evidence that human society will never be perfect no matter how much it aspires to be since differences of interest are natural between different countries. They can more effectively be managed by all parties sincerely applying the principles of the UN-enshrined RBO in their relations with one another, though that of course doesn’t imply that conflict and tension will ever disappear from human society. All that it does is make their disputes more manageable than in the comparatively much more anarchic international system of the present. Considering this, the MCS’ worldview is more pragmatic, realistic, and humane than the ULG’s DPT.

Returning back to the observation that inspired this analysis, it’s all but certain that anytime someone immediately concocts a conspiracy theory in response to someone else publicly sharing an interpretation of events that contradicts the USG’s, the one launching this unprovoked ad hominem attack against their interlocutor is indoctrinated by the ULG into supporting the discredited supremacist “American/Western Exceptionalist” worldview that’s the unofficial secular religion among many within the GB. Likewise, the one sharing the contrarian view questioning the USG’s is in all likelihood a MCS who’s probably also from the GS or is one of those brave dissidents from within the GB. The indisputable conclusion is that the ULG is a fascist ideologue while the MCS is a freethinker who respects everyone.

---

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Voice of East.

---

7 Courses in 1 – Diploma in Business Management

#China #Geopolitics #MultipolarWorldOrder #Multipolarity #Russia #USA

Andrew Korybko

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specialising in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road…

^{Voice of East}

Voice of East

2023-04-16 17:00:34

Sudan’s “Deep State” War Could Have Far-Reaching Geostrategic Consequences If It Continues

Sudan’s “Deep State” War Could Have Far-Reaching Geostrategic Consequences If It Continues

By Andrew Korybko

Seeing as how Egypt, Ethiopia, Russia, the UAE, and the US all have important interests in Sudan, it’s clear that this latest African conflict could indeed have far-reaching consequences if it continues and especially if its “deep state” war descends into a civil war. In that event, this geostrategic country could suddenly become an object of intense competition in the New Cold War, which could catalyse uncontrollable processes that culminate in destabilizing all of Africa. All responsible stakeholders must therefore do their utmost to prevent that from happening.

---

Fierce fighting broke out all across Sudan this weekend between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), with each blaming the other for starting this. Seeing as how this conflict remains limited for the time being to two military factions, it can therefore be described as a “deep state” war and not a civil one like the conflict that ultimately resulted in South Sudan’s independence. This doesn’t mean that it won’t turn into a civil war, but just that it hadn’t yet by Sunday evening.

Sudan’s “deep state” war was inevitable though since these factions have been competing with each other over who’ll remain the country’s most powerful force amidst its continually delayed transition to democracy that began after 2019’s military coup. The SAF is led by Chief General Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan while the RSF is run by General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, who’s also known as Hemedti. Both men are part of the Transitional Sovereign Council, the first as president and the second as deputy chairman.

A new prime minister and institutions of the transitional authority were supposed to have been announced by last Tuesday, but that obviously didn’t happen. “Deep state” tensions started becoming uncontrollable around that time, perhaps due to one or both parties calculating that they can make their long-planned power play against the other on the pretext of presenting it as a “defence of democracy” against their allegedly “anti-democratic” opponent.

It’s difficult to discern exactly what’s happening right now and who controls what due to the “fog of war” so the present piece will avoid touching upon unconfirmed information in analysing Sudan’s “deep state” war, instead focusing on the consequences of this entirely predictable development. For starters, this conflict reflects very poorly on the military since it shows how deeply divided it’s become over the years that two clearly distinct competing centres of power were able to emerge within it.

Depending on how long they war with each other, this institution might become depleted enough to the point where separatist forces re-emerge along its periphery as a potent threat to Sudan’s territorial integrity, which could turn it into the next Yugoslavia. Former President Omar Al-Bashir even warned his Russian counterpart about this during their meeting in 2017 when he requested assistance in averting what he said was “the US desire to divide Sudan into five states”.

That scenario hasn’t yet unfolded due to the military remaining a formidable force despite its growing divisions since then, which culminated in Sudan’s inevitable “deep state” war this weekend, but everything could quickly change if their conflict continues raging on. The longer that these factions fight, the more likely it is that some level of foreign intervention could occur as well, particularly the possibility of Egypt supporting Burhan and the UAE backing Hemedti, who they’re each considered close with.

Even though Emirati President Mohammed bin Zayed (MBZ) just met his Egyptian counterpart Abdel Fattah El-Sisi in Cairo last week, those two could quickly turn to propping up their respective partners if the conflict continues dragging on in order to give them an edge over the other. Regarding Egypt’s role, the RSF captured some of its troops in the country, which Cairo claims were there to conduct joint training. They’ll be returned, but few even knew they were there in the first place until this happened.

Neighbouring Ethiopia, with whom Egypt and Sudan are embroiled in a bitter dispute over a dam on the Nile that runs through each of their territories, will certainly take note of this as well as footage on social media claiming to show Egyptian fighter jets in Sudan too. There have been concerns for a couple years already that Egypt is plotting a so-called “preemptive strike” against Ethiopia in order to stop Addis from filling that aforesaid dam, the speculation of which was now extended credence by this revelation.

Ethiopia and Sudan are also in a dispute over a region known as Alfashaga, which led to clashes last summer, so it’s possible that Addis could make a military move there in support of its claims should it sense that Khartoum is too divided and weak to retain control over it. To be absolutely clear, there aren’t any signs that this is being considered, but it’s still worth mentioning in the larger context of the consequences that could unfold if Sudan’s “deep state” war continues.

This latest conflict is also of interest to Ethiopia because its optics very closely resemble the recent dispute between the federal government and some elements in the Amhara Region over the country’s military reorganization. Chief of General Staff Birhanu Jula announced on Saturday that “Starting from today, the regional special forces structure is no longer there. Our work has been finished”, so federal supporters might claim that this successful operation prevented a Sudanese-like “deep state” war.

It’s not just the US, Egypt, the UAE, and Ethiopia whose interests are affected by this conflict, but Russia too, who’s grown extremely close to both warring military factions after building upon the ties that former President Bashir established during his previously mentioned trip to Moscow in 2017. It plans to open a naval base in Port Sudan sometime soon, the two sides reportedly cooperate on mining and security, and Sudan facilitates Russian access to the neighbouring Central African Republic (CAR).

The Kremlin doesn’t care which side wins as long as the victor retains their strategic ties, the last dimension of which is immensely important since any potential impediment to Russia’s trans-Sudanese access to the CAR could have disastrous consequences for that country’s security. Moscow helped Bangui restore its sovereign writ over large swathes of the country with Wagner’s help, but the capital could once again be threatened by rebels if the Kremlin can’t adequately resupply those two’s forces.

The possible collapse of Russia’s “Democratic Security” project there would have massive implications for its newfound appeal to African countries, which is due to the combination of it effectively bolstering its partners’ sovereignty via the means pioneered in the CAR and its attractive multipolar worldview. The possible reversal of its first “Democratic Security” success on the continent as a result of the Sudanese “deep state” war would represent a significant symbolic setback that the West would certainly exploit.

With these five states’ interests in mind, it’s clear that this latest African conflict could indeed have far-reaching consequences if it continues and especially if Sudan’s “deep state” war descends into a civil war. In that event, this geostrategic country could suddenly become an object of intense competition in the New Cold War, which could catalyse uncontrollable processes that culminate in destabilizing all of Africa. All responsible stakeholders must therefore do their utmost to prevent that from happening.

---

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Voice of East.

---

7 Courses in 1 – Diploma in Business Management

#Africa #Geopolitics #Sudan

Ethiopia dismantles special forces

NAIROBI: Ethiopia´s army chief said on Saturday the country had completed the dismantling of “special forces” created by some regions, finalising a policy which sparked recent...

^{AFP (The News International)}

Voice of East

2023-03-13 10:44:01

Yemen’s Trifurcation Is Arguably A Fait Accompli

Yemen’s Trifurcation Is Arguably A Fait Accompli

By Andrew Korybko

The formalization of Yemen’s de facto trifurcation into an Iranian-backed North Yemen and a federalized South Yemen that preserves Saudi Arabia and the UAE’s existing “spheres of influence” in the East and South respectively requires compromises from all stakeholders but would peacefully end the war.

---

The Present State Of Military-Political Affairs

The nominally united Republic of Yemen is already de facto trifurcated into Emirati, Iranian, and Saudi “spheres of influence”, but the Iranian-Saudi rapprochement and the growing Emirati-Saudi rift might soon formalize this status. The first-mentioned asserts influence across the South through the Southern Transitional Council (STC), the second exerts sway in the North via the Houthis, while the third relies on a combination of the Islah party and newly formed “Nation Shield Forces” (NSF) to command the East.

The Chinese-facilitated Iranian-Saudi rapprochement could inspire those former rivals to symbolically bury the hatchet by prioritizing a political solution to the nearly decade-long Yemeni War, but any outcome that doesn’t result in the restoration of South Yemen’s independence could lead to a new war. The Wall Street Journal recently reported on the growing Emirati-Saudi rift, which extends credence to concerns that Riyadh might try to cut Abu Dhabi and its allies out of any talks with Tehran over Yemen.

As the leading force fighting in support of Yemen’s UN-recognized government, Saudi Arabia might assume that it has the right to deal with the Houthis’ Iranian patron on a bilateral basis in this context and thus speak on behalf of the entire coalition, including the UAE and the STC. This could see those two agreeing to one of three scenarios, none of which is expected to be acceptable to the South Yemenis who aspire to restore their independence as a unitary state, the last-mentioned factor being crucial.

The Three Most Likely Scenarios

Regarding those aforementioned scenarios, these are: 1) the formation of a “national unity government” involving the Houthis; 2) the bifurcation of Yemen back into North and South but with the latter as a federal state divided into Emirati- and Saudi-aligned halves; and 3) formal trifurcation. Each of these three most likely possibilities would probably prompt the South Yemenis to protest, if not outright fight in support of their previously described goal of an independent unitary state, likely with UAE help.

There’s too much bad blood between the Houthis and the STC for the first scenario to stand any chance of success, while the second is already de facto trifurcation and thus contrary to the South Yemenis’ vision of restoring the unitary nature of their erstwhile state. According, the third scenario would also obviously be unacceptable to them as well. Each of these possibilities that could be advanced by secret Iranian-Saudi talks thus raise the risk of transforming the war instead of ending it.

The first scenario could see the Iranian-backed Houthis and Saudi-backed UN-recognized government joining forces to disarm the Emirati-supported STC if it refuses to go along with their “national unity government” plan, destroying them if they fight back, and then jointly occupying the South again. The second and third scenarios, meanwhile, could lead to a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and the UAE fought by the first’s Islah and NSF proxies against the second’s STC allies.

All three of these scenarios are therefore contrary to the cause of restoring South Yemen’s independence as a unitary state, with the second being the “lesser evil” since it could theoretically achieve sovereignty without bloodshed in the event that the STC surrenders the East to Saudi proxies. Even in that scenario, however, it can’t be ruled out that the largely secular locals won’t eventually rise up against the religiously strict Islah party and their equally unpopular NSF praetorian guards.

Practical Arguments Against UN-Backed Referenda-Driven Trifurcation

In principle, each of the already de facto existing “Three Yemens” could hold referenda on independence and federalization in order to peacefully avert any potentially violent disputes related to these sensitive issues, but this proposal contains a host of problems that impede its promulgation. For instance, it would first require all parties to agree to such a vote, which the Houthis, Yemen’s UN-recognized government, and/or the Saudis’ Eastern proxies might reject, thus torpedoing it.

Not only that, but even if referenda were only proposed in Yemen’s non-Houthi-controlled Eastern and Southern regions that are nominally under the UN-recognized government’s control despite being de facto split between the STC and the Saudis’ proxies, then one of those two might still not agree to it. Furthermore, in the unlikely event that they do, then they’d require UN observers to ensure fairness and likely also a preemptive peacekeeping deployment along the Line of Control (LOC) ahead of the vote.

The last-mentioned requirement for assisting a peaceful separation between Saudi-aligned East Yemen and Emirati-aligned South Yemen in the scenario that the first-mentioned freely votes for that (which is questionable due to the likelihood of Saudi bribery and intimidation) is rife with its own troubles. Neither South Yemenis nor their STC representatives acknowledge the existence of East Yemen, and neither do Saudi Arabia or the UAE, thus meaning that no LOC between them officially exists either.

South Yemenis, their STC representatives, and those two’s Emirati allies would therefore first have to acknowledge the existence of East Yemen, the legitimacy of its Saudi-backed federal and possibly even separatist causes, and then agree on the LOC between them in order for that vote to take place. Assuming that this happens for the sake of the present piece’s scenario forecasting exercise, then it can’t be taken for granted that the divided UNSC would agree to deploy observers and peacekeepers.

The New Cold War, which can be oversimplified as the worldwide struggle between the US-led West’s Golden Billion and the Sino-Russo Entente over the direction of the global systemic transition (with the Global South balancing between both but sympathizing with the latter), runs right through the UNSC. The first de facto bloc’s American, British, and French members would have to agree with the second’s Chinese and Russian ones on this sensitive geostrategic issue, which can’t be assured will happen.

Without a UNSC mandate, which might not be given for the abovementioned reasons related to the New Cold War divisions that run right through that body, then the analysed referenda on formal bifurcation/trifurcation might not be regarded as legitimate. Even so, it could still take place, but would then likely require Saudi Arabia and the UAE to deploy forces on their respective side of the LOC ahead of time, with the second having to do so along the border with North Yemen to deter Houthi attacks too.

This scenario also can’t be taken for granted either owing to their growing rift that might lead to disagreements about the LOC between their respective “spheres of influence” in Yemen, which both remain reluctant to officially recognize as of now. If they and their allies can’t agree on this by themselves, then the LOC and related issues might require external mediation, which those two Gulf countries’ close Russian and/or Chinese partners could potentially assist with if requested.

Saudi Arabia’s Strategic Calculations In East Yemen

Returning to the topic of Yemen’s formal division, which is the most likely outcome of its conflict in one way or another instead of a faux and forced “reunification”, its bifurcation back into North Yemen and a unitary South Yemen is much more sustainable than any form of trifurcation. The Saudi-backed UN-recognized government would have to agree to give up control of the North, irrespective of whether the Iranian-backed Houthis want independence, and then Riyadh would have to withdraw from the East.

This sequence of events is unlikely, though the first step could possibly happen, especially if there’s a secret Iranian-Saudi deal for formally bifurcating Yemen as the most pragmatic geopolitical solution to their long-running proxy war there. Even if that happens, however, then it’s unrealistic to imagine that Saudi Arabia would unilaterally withdraw its forces from the “sphere of influence” that they and their Islah-NSF proxies carved out in the East in support of a unitary STC-led South Yemen after the war ends.

Rather, the Kingdom would be expected in that case to begin an information operation aimed at legitimizing its “sphere of influence” there, whether it’s achieved via South Yemen’s post-war federalization or the East’s secession (and possible “unification” with Saudi Arabia afterwards). To that end, it might seek to revive memories of now-nominally “united” Yemen’s previously formal trifurcation from 1962-1967.

At that time, it was divided between the independent Yemen Arab Republic (which was embroiled from that year until 1970 in a bloody civil war with monarchist forces), the Federation of South Arabia, and the Protectorate of South Arabia, the last two of which were officially under UK control. As it turns out, the last-mentioned’s borders roughly correspond to Saudi Arabia’s “sphere of influence” over modern-day Hadramout and Mahra governorates, hence Riyadh’s likely interest in soon reviving memories of it.

Its information operation could therefore seek to argue that the geopolitical precedent has already been set for East Yemen’s possibly future status as either an autonomous federal subject in a newly restored South Yemen or a separate state in and of itself, both of which would fall under Saudi influence. Either outcome runs the risk of sowing the seeds for another conflict even if they’re achieved peacefully in the short term since the locals don’t support the suzerainty that their northern neighbour is forcing on them.

Averting An Emirati-Saudi Proxy War In South Yemen

This means that a possibly violent civil uprising is practically inevitable after some time, one which could quickly lead to a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and the UAE. It could be fought via their Islah-NSF and STC partners respectively, whether as a South Yemeni civil war in the bifurcation scenario or an international one between a STC-led and Emirati-supported South Yemen that arms a pro-reunification national liberation movement in a Saudi-backed East Yemen in the trifurcation scenario.

If the STC and their UAE allies either aren’t powerful enough to force Saudi Arabia to withdraw from its “sphere of influence” in the East and order its proxies to support the restoration of a unitary South Yemen or don’t want to risk a war with them over this issue, then they should immediately begin talks. The Kingdom is unlikely to withdraw from the East and might even be cavorting with Iran in secret right now to join forces against South Yemen in the earlier discussed “national unity government” scenario.

The UAE might therefore soon be forced into the dilemma of either ceding its influence in Yemen by standing aside as Iran and Saudi Arabia jointly crush its STC allies who’ll likely revolt against that aforesaid scenario or fighting a proxy war against those two over this issue. With a view towards preemptively averting both disadvantageous sequences of events, the UAE might encourage the STC to join it in forthcoming talks with Saudi Arabia and its Eastern proxies on South Yemen’s federalization.

To be sure, this “lesser evil” from the perspective of the South Yemeni people might only delay the seemingly inevitable conflict that was earlier described between the Saudi-backed East and the Emirati-supported South, but it might be preferable for the UAE. That country probably isn’t prepared for fighting a proxy war in support of the STC against both the Iranian-backed Houthis and the Saudi-backed UN-recognized government, let alone in the very near future, ergo the need to settle for federalization.

In that event, a referendum on this issue wouldn’t be necessary since Saudi Arabia and the UAE can strongly encourage their allies in the East and South respectively to agree on this as part of the terms for restoring South Yemen’s independence. The Iranian-backed Houthis would be powerless to thwart Yemen’s bifurcation even if they were against it, but Riyadh might get its now-former rival to have them agree to this in order to symbolize those two’s rapprochement by ending their proxy war in this way.

Simply put, everyone would have to compromise on their maximalist goals in pursuit of peace if this is to happen. The Iranian-backed Houthis would have to give up their goal of conquering South Yemen, the Saudi-backed UN-recognized government would have to give up its goal of ever reasserting itself over North Yemen, and the STC would have to give up its goal of restoring the unitary nature of the erstwhile state that they want to revive. Only through these compromises can the war end in the near future.

The Influence Of Shared Emirati-Saudi Stakes In Preserving The GCC’s Unity

As was warned throughout this analysis, however, the seemingly inevitable war between then-federalized South Yemen’s Saudi-backed Eastern and Emirati-supported Southern regions would just be delayed in that scenario. That said, those two Gulf countries might agree that it’s better for both of them to push back their proxy war until a later time (perhaps in the hopes that it ultimately might not transpire) than to risk fighting it sometime soon and instantly dividing the GCC as a result.

After all, that bloc could plunge into crisis in the “national unity government” scenario upon the Saudi-backed UN-recognized government resorting to force against the Emirati-supported STC that’ll predictably rebel against the Houthis exploiting that structure to exert influence over the South. The UAE would either have to cede its influence in Yemen and thus submit to becoming Saudi Arabia’s “junior partner” or protect its influence and prestige by fighting a proxy war that would divide the GCC.

The Kingdom might not want to replicate a much more violent version of the bloc’s prior crisis with Qatar, nor would the Emirates want to take that country’s earlier place as the group’s “black sheep” if it fights against the Saudis by proxy and is sanctioned by them and its fellow GCC members in response. Both of their interests are therefore best served by pushing back their proxy war to a later time by agreeing to restore South Yemen’s independence, albeit as a federalized state.

Frankly speaking, Yemen is already informally trifurcated, and any attempts to return to its bifurcation are fraught with the risk of provoking another conflict. Whether it’s Iran and Saudi Arabia joining forces via their local partners to crush the STC or that Emirati-supported group fighting the Saudis’ proxies in the East upon their refusal to join the unitary government of a newly independent South Yemen, the present war appears destined to soon morph into a different form if this trifurcation isn’t formalized.

The ”lesser evil” that stakeholders might agree to is for the Iranian-backed Houthis to lord over whatever they’d call their revived form of North Yemen while Saudi Arabia and the UAE delay their seemingly inevitable proxy war between South Yemen’s Eastern and Southern regions via federalization. Pushing for the separation of the Saudi-occupied East might be a bridge too far for Riyadh in terms of its international image as well as relations with Abu Dhabi, hence why it might settle for federalization.

Neither Saudi Arabia nor the UAE want to fight a proxy war with one another right now that would divide the GCC at this sensitive moment in the global systemic transition, and Abu Dhabi certainly doesn’t want to become the group’s “black sheep” in that scenario like Qatar previously was. They’re both therefore expected to be open to the idea of preemptively averting an imminent and potentially violent split between them by agreeing to the compromise of restoring South Yemen in federal form.

Concluding Thoughts

The formalization of Yemen’s de facto trifurcation into an Iranian-backed North Yemen and a federalized South Yemen that preserves Saudi Arabia and the UAE’s existing “spheres of influence” in the East and South respectively requires compromises from all stakeholders but would peacefully end the war. It’s in all parties interests as was explained, especially Saudi Arabia and the UAE’s, but that doesn’t mean that it’ll unfold since it requires extremely strong political will from everyone in order to succeed.

It hasn’t even been formally tabled either, but that could soon change if the STC, the UAE, or the latter’s close Russian and/or Chinese partners propose it in the coming future as the most pragmatic solution to this long-running war that also stands the best chance of at least delaying an Emirati-Saudi proxy war. Hopefully someone will introduce this idea into the discourse in order to gauge the relevant parties’ reaction to it, which might be more positive than some expect due to the Iranian-Saudi rapprochement.

In any case, the purpose of the present piece is to inspire someone to play that role so as to ideally bring about a peaceful end to what’s literally nowadays the world’s worst humanitarian crisis according to the UN’s World Food Programme. Everyone has a moral responsibility to those who are presently suffering to do their utmost to bring an end to their plight as soon as possible, which hopefully this proposal can help happen by at least nudging the political dynamics of this conflict closer in that direction.

---

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Voice of East.

---

7 Courses in 1 – Diploma in Business Management

#Geopolitics #Iran #SaudiArabia #UAE #Yemen

Americans Are Quietly Supporting A Saudi Land Grab In Yemen

In Yemen's strategically vital Al-Mahra province, Saudi troops and influence operations are alarming locals — and U.S. military personnel and experts recently made unreported visits.

^{Akbar Shahid Ahmed (HuffPost)}