16-Jun-13 WV-Iran's elections won by 'moderate' Rouhani

[John]

16-Jun-13 World View -- Iran's elections won by 'moderate' Hassan Rouhani

Egypt cuts all diplomatic relations with Syria


** 16-Jun-13 World View -- Iran's elections won by 'moderate' Hassan Rouhani
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/ ... tm#e130616




Contents:
Iran's elections won by 'moderate' Hassan Rouhani
Iran's nuclear development policy unlikely to change
Egypt cuts all diplomatic relations with Syria


Keys:
Generational Dynamics, Egypt, Hassan Rouhani,
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Saeed Jalili,
Egypt, Mohamed Morsi, Syria, Bashar al-Assad

[Reality Check]

As we've been reporting, the attitudes of Sunnis and Shias towards each other is becoming increasingly vitriolic throughout the region. It would take very little at this point to start a local fight that could spiral out of control and spread throughout the region.

How would you see this war spiraling out of control and spreading throughout the region ?

Do you foresee direct combat between the United States and Russia over Syria ?

Barring such an event it would appear to be a rather one sided victory for countries such as Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states ( all supported with U.S. logistics and protected by U.S. Air power) against the Syrian Government and the expeditionary forces from Iran and Lebanon fighting on the Syrian government's side.

If tens of thousands of Russian ground combat troops were fighting on the Syrian government's side that might change the equation.

[John]

The way a war spirals out of control is that each side takes an
unexpected step that crosses a "red line," and then the other side
counters with its own unexpected step.

Hezbollah's invasion of Syria is a major unexpected step of
this type, and it opens the door to various responses:

* We've already seen one response yesterday - Egypt cutting
diplomatic relations with Syria.

* Some country, like Turkey, Saudi Arabia or Qatar, may send
its own troops into Syria -- not to fight Assad, but to
counter Hezbollah

* Some country might even send troops into Lebanon, to counter
Hezbollah on its home soil.

* The West might finally be forced to mount a no-fly zone
in Syria.

* Sunnis might take revenge against Shias is some other country, such
as Gaza, Bahrain, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, northern Africa.

Once one of those steps has been taken, then the other side will have
leave to counter. For example, Russia might intervene by shipping
more sophisticated missiles to Syria. What would be the world
reaction if a Russian missile in Syria brought down some other
nation's plane?

[Reality Check]

The way a war spirals out of control is that each side takes an
unexpected step that crosses a "red line," and then the other side
counters with its own unexpected step.

Hezbollah's invasion of Syria is a major unexpected step of
this type, and it opens the door to various responses:

...

Once one of those steps has been taken, then the other side will have
leave to counter. For example, Russia might intervene by shipping
more sophisticated missiles to Syria. What would be the world
reaction if a Russian missile in Syria brought down some other
nation's plane?

This has passed the point of a few missiles changing the game.

The U.S. sent a signal to Turkey; Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan that the U.S. is all in for arming, training and protecting with air power, the eastern Sunni tribes in Syria as a counterbalance to Hezbollah.

Israel will simply destroy advanced equipment sent by Russia.

One newspaper has reported that 4,000 Revolutionary Guard regular troops ( not militia trainers ) from Iran were already on the way to Syria before the elections in Iran.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 60358.html

Short of Russia sending tens of thousands of ground troops to Syria, I do not see how Iran and Syria win an incremental escalation war in Syria, once U.S. and Western European air power begins protecting the rebels in safe havens along the borders of Jordan and Turkey.

The suggestion of weapons only going to pro-American rebels is purely for domestic U.S. voter consumption. The enemy of my enemy, is my friend is the operative word here. U.S. logistics are going to be delivering weapons from all over the world to bases in Turkey and Jordan making the Russian and Iranian air bridges look like jokes.

Regular Iranian troops may result in the war spreading to western Iraq and Kurdistan to cut off Iranian ground supply lines, but unless Russia get's involved in a big way I do not see this ending well for Shia strategic interests.

The U.S. Navy will prevent Iran from meddling in Persian Gulf Arab states and Jordan, Turkey and the U.S. will prevent Shia in Iraq from subjugating Kurdistan and the Iraqi Sunni Tribal areas by force of arms.

One scenario might be Syria becoming like Spain between World War I and World War II a location for proxy battles for every local great power want-to-be, but only if the U.S., Russia and Israel believe that is in their interest.

Syria being carved up like Lebanon by International Agreement between the U.S. and Russian peace agreement with Russia keeping it's Mediterranean fleet basing rights is another possibility.

I agree an escalation of the Sunni-Shia war is a real possibility, but my point was I do not see that turning out well for the Shia, unless Russia jumps in with a risky and very expensive game changing ground force.

[John]

> The U.S. sent a signal to Turkey; Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan
> that the U.S. is all in for arming, training and protecting with
> air power, the eastern Sunni tribes in Syria as a counterbalance
> to Hezbollah.

This is news to me. As I understand it, the signal that the U.S. has
sent is that it's going to provide pop guns to fight against tanks.
It would have been better to send no signal at all.

[Reality Check]

This is news to me. As I understand it, the signal that the U.S. has
sent is that it's going to provide pop guns to fight against tanks.
It would have been better to send no signal at all.

The Pentagon is doing background interviews on what was presented to Obama and what is on the table, off the table, and still under discussions.

Off the table: Syria wide no-fly zone.

Off the table: U.S. Military boots on the ground in Syria.

On the table: CIA run training camps, Major CIA logistic supply bases in Jordan and Turkey ( multiple in each country ). Supply bases have been being built up for months in anticipation they might be needed.

On the table: U.S. military protection assets, including air power and ground troops, on the ground in Jordan to protect Jordan in general and to specifically protect training bases and supply bases from retaliation from Syria or other parties. Briefings were silent on a protection force within Turkey, but Turkey is a NATO member with U.S. airbases already there, U.S. air assets in Turkey could be beefed up with out any public announcement and Turkey has it's own very credible ground forces.

On the table: An area along the border between Jordan and Syria, but within Syria, where Syrian military assets such as air craft, anti-aircraft missiles, and long range artillery would be considered aggression against Jordan and would be destroyed by the U.S. and it's allies. It must be assumed that the Syrian military would also be prevented from massing ground forces along the border that would prevent rebels from freely moving between sanctuaries in Jordan and battlefields in Syria, or the rest would have no point.

Still under discussion: If a limited no fly zone within Syria some distance inside Syria from the border with Jordan will be formerly declared, or just enforced without formal announcement except reserving the right of "joint self defense by the United States and Jordan".

Still under discussion: if U.S. aircraft will actually patrol within the declared ( or undeclared ) no-fly zone within Syria, or just attacked using stand off weapons from air craft flying within Jordan and U.S. air craft would only enter Syria as an "act of Joint Self Defense" when Syria makes moves within Syria that "threaten Jordan's sovereignty" that can not be dealt with using stand off weapons.

These are much different talking points than the spin from administration insiders about how the President did not really want to do this, and Obama is really against war, and Obama was forced to do it, and had no choice than to give "small arms" to the rebels because "a horrible red line was crossed". These same administration officials refuse to identify what specific "small arms" will be delivered. This spin is designed to provide talking points to the Democratic Party's left wing, anti-war politicians. Small arms can include anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons which, when used by troops trained to use them, and also willing to stand and fight, can be devastating to the kind of combined arms attacks being launched by the Syrian military.

[Reality Check]

The U.S. and Russia have much different interests here than either the Shia or the Sunni.

Both the U.S. and Russia have a lot to lose if "their side" loses completely.

At one point it appeared the government of Syria was going to fall and Russia stood firm and promised that would not happen.

Now it appears that the Assad government has total victory in reach after bringing in large numbers of militia fighters from Lebanon.

But if the United States, Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan stand firm in support of the Rebels in Northern and Eastern parts of Syria, Assad can never take his country back. Escalation of this fight as a long term civil war struggle between Sunni and Shia in Syria can not end well for Shia as long as the United States is providing logistical support to the many times larger Sunni world wide population.

Even if Assad's forces push Sunni forces out of Syria's major cities and they retreat to safe havens in Turkey, Jordan and Eastern Syria, with logistical support they will be back to continue the civil war with better weapons and better training. If Assad slaughters Sunni Muslim civilians by the tens of thousands after capturing their city neighborhoods and villages, a substantial portion of the nearly one Billion Sunni Muslims world wide will volunteer to fight for revenge in Syria.

Obama could undermine these recent actions, as he did with the surge in Afghanistan, by personally announcing the imminent and unconditional withdraw of American forces form Afghanistan only seconds after announcing a massive surge of American forces in Afghanistan.

But time will tell if Obama learned anything about jerking allies around.

[John]

> The Pentagon is doing background interviews on what was presented
> to Obama and what is on the table, off the table, and still under
> discussions.

> Off the table: Syria wide no-fly zone.

> Off the table: U.S. Military boots on the ground in Syria.

> On the table: CIA run training camps, Major CIA logistic supply
> bases in Jordan and Turkey ( multiple in each country ). Supply
> bases have been being built up for months in anticipation they
> might be needed.

> On the table: U.S. military protection assets, including air power
> and ground troops, on the ground in Jordan to protect Jordan in
> general and to specifically protect training bases and supply
> bases from retaliation from Syria or other parties. Briefings were
> silent on a protection force within Turkey, but Turkey is a NATO
> member with U.S. airbases already there, U.S. air assets in Turkey
> could be beefed up with out any public announcement and Turkey has
> it's own very credible ground forces.

> On the table: An area along the border between Jordan and Syria,
> but within Syria, where Syrian military assets such as air craft,
> anti-aircraft missiles, and long range artillery would be
> considered aggression against Jordan and would be destroyed by the
> U.S. and it's allies. It must be assumed that the Syrian military
> would also be prevented from massing ground forces along the
> border that would prevent rebels from freely moving between
> sanctuaries in Jordan and battlefields in Syria, or the rest would
> have no point.

> Still under discussion: If a limited no fly zone within Syria some
> distance inside Syria from the border with Jordan will be formerly
> declared, or just enforced without formal announcement except
> reserving the right of "joint self defense by the United States
> and Jordan".

> Still under discussion: if U.S. aircraft will actually patrol
> within the declared ( or undeclared ) no-fly zone within Syria, or
> just attacked using stand off weapons from air craft flying within
> Jordan and U.S. air craft would only enter Syria as an "act of
> Joint Self Defense" when Syria makes moves within Syria that
> "threaten Jordan's sovereignty" that can not be dealt with using
> stand off weapons.

> These are much different talking points than the spin from
> administration insiders about how the President did not really
> want to do this, and Obama is really against war, and Obama was
> forced to do it, and had no choice than to give "small arms" to
> the rebels because "a horrible red line was crossed". These same
> administration officials refuse to identify what specific "small
> arms" will be delivered. This spin is designed to provide talking
> points to the Democratic Party's left wing, anti-war politicians.
> Small arms can include anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons which,
> when used by troops trained to use them, and also willing to stand
> and fight, can be devastating to the kind of combined arms attacks
> being launched by the Syrian military.

This is a very good analysis, but I haven't seen this information
elsewhere. You must have some very good sources.

[John]

> One newspaper has reported that 4,000 Revolutionary Guard regular
> troops ( not militia trainers ) from Iran were already on the way
> to Syria before the elections in Iran.
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 60358.html

I'm not entirely sure what to make of this. This is the kind of thing
that Debka reports, and I always have trouble with that as well,
because they sometimes get things wrong, and because they have a
strong pro-Israel bias. Robert Fisk, who wrote the Independent
article, is not a bullshitter, and knows a great deal of what's going
on, but he is vitriolically anti-American, so it's not clear
this report is accurate. I quoted him in 2006 during the
Israeli/Hezbollah war because I wanted to contrast his views
with Generational Dynamics predictions, and the latter turned
out to be right.

At any rate, this story is too good to ignore, but the problem
is that it's been out for 12 hours now, and no one else
has confirmed it.

[Reality Check]

This is a very good analysis, but I haven't seen this information
elsewhere. You must have some very good sources.

This was public information, but I am unable to find the exact interview again.

I believe this was a video report where one reporter was interviewing a national defense reporter who had come from an off the record briefing by military sources.

Unlike the third hand reports that are flooding the media, where an administration source explained to a reporter what had been said in a military briefing, this national security reporter was quoting a military planer directly, and provided much more specificity as to exact bases and details of improvements over many months.

The problem with finding it again is searches are clogged with third hand reports all over the media based on these administration interviews.

Unlike the problem with the Iranian troop report, too many news media outlets, have too many shallow reports based on administration sources, on the exact same subject matter.

The Wall Street Journal report below is the closest to what I saw, but it still lacks the details.

The original report rang true to me because it talked about details airlift planers obsess on: ramp space, aprons and fuel logistics. Wish I could find it again.