Huffington Post Op Eds 09/09/2011

Turkey is at it again behaving like the schoolyard bully. This time, Turkey’s target is not Israel but the Republic of Cyprus. In an interview to Zaman, a Turkish newspaper, Turkish EU Minister Egemen Bağış has threatened that if the Republic of Cyprus enters claimed Turkish terrestrial waters during their oil exploration efforts in the Mediterranean, Turkey will not hesitate to deploy war ships.

“They [Republic of Cyprus] know that Turkey is serious and that all options are on the table,” he said. The exploration is scheduled to start on October 1.

Therefore, time is short before the region becomes a conflict area again. Not that it would be new. Turks and Greeks are sworn enemies for centuries, and not much is needed to torch the area again. The most recent Turkish Greek war was between 1919 and 1922 when the Turks led by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk won. The war ended with the Treaty of Lausanne, which also led to the international recognition of the sovereignty of the new Republic of Turkey as the successor state of the defunct Ottoman Empire.

Since 1974 when Turkey invaded Cyprus, the island is divided roughly between the Republic of Cyprus an EU member which controls 2/3 of the territory and is populated mostly by people of Greek descent, and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (KKTC) mostly populated by people of Turkish descent, as well by new Turks emigrating from Turkey. KKTC is recognized only by Turkey. Reunification talks of the four-decade divided Cyprus have failed with each side blaming the other. Soon Cyprus will assume the rotating presidency of the EU, and Turkey announced that it would begin to work on “alternatives” for the future of KKTC. This unveiled threat was apparently meant to cause the West into pressuring the Republic of Cyprus to make concessions.

In November 2008 the Cypriot government said that a Turkish Naval ship was harassing two vessels in international waters. One of these ships was conducting an oil and gas exploration mission off the south coast of Cyprus when the Turkish Navy forced it to cease operations. Turkey’s official position was that the exploration was encroaching on its continental shelf. The Cyprus government insisted said the incidents occurred in the Republic of Cyprus Exclusive Economic Zone.

The Cyprus government has recently entered into a production-sharing agreement with U.S.-based Noble Energy to explore energy in a 324,000-hectare economic zone in the southeast of Cyprus which borders Israeli waters which discovered substantial gas fields under the seabed. The gas reserves in the area to be explored by Cyprus are expected to be in excess of 10 trillion cubic feet. The fact that there are cooperation agreements between Cyprus and Israel regarding the explorations in the region is definitely not helping the Turks to accept the recent developments.

Why is the Turkish government opposing the exploration? As the big brother of Turkish Cypriots, Turkey cannot agree that a mostly Greek Republic of Cyprus would be allowed to explore and financially gain from the gas fields, leaving the Turkish Cypriots empty handed. The Republic of Cyprus which does not recognize the legitimacy of KKTC and regards it as an areas occupied by Turkey, does not seem to be deterred, maybe because it has the protection of its own big brother – Greece. Indeed Greek Defense Minister Panos Beglitis said, “We watch the developments with our necessary strategy and determination,” further hinting that Greece is not afraid of any threats posed by Turkey. Greek Cypriots are also encouraged by the involvement of a US exploration company politically backed by the U.S and also after hearing that the Russians have verbally supported the project. Coincidentally – or not – this week the Greek defense minister making the first official visit by a Greek defense minister to Israel, and his Israeli counterpart, Ehud Barak, signed a cooperation memorandum on security in Jerusalem.

These developments and public supports may not be enough to make Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip to think twice before torching the area. Erdoğan is trying to drum up popular support for a new constitution, and with a trail of political failures (but with a very strong and growing economy) it is unlikely that Turkey will just sit and watch.

The neighborhood bully picks on you not because of what you did, but because he wants to show who he is. For your future reference.

Those who wondered why the U.S and its European allies limit their reaction to the Syrian massacre of its citizens to lip service only should listen to the Russian offered explanation. The Russians believe that the message NATO and the U.S are sending Syria and ultimately Iran is, “we are coming soon to attack you.”

After three months of bloodshed in Syria, the world has started moving. On August 3, 2011 the UN Security Council in a Presidential Statement condemned Syria for ongoing violence and expressed “grave concern at the deteriorating situation in Syria, and expresses profound regret at the death of many hundreds of people.”

However, a Presidential Statement is not as strong as a Security Council resolution, although it still required approval from all 15 council members. That was the most the U.S and its allies could get. A stronger language or a resolution that could lead to sanctions was not an option given the veto power of China and Russia.

Russian president Dmitry Medvedev in an interview to the Russian Izvestia newspaper published on August 5, 2011 has warned President Assad that Russia’s patience is ending as well, “We are watching how the situation is developing. It’s changing, and our approach is changing as well.” And if that was not clear enough for Assad, came a more pointed warning from Dmitry Rogozin the Russian envoy to NATO, “NATO is planning a military campaign against Syria to help overthrow the regime of President Bashar al-Assad with a long-reaching goal of preparing a beachhead for an attack on Iran.” Then Rogosin became blunter, “This statement means that the planning [of the military campaign)] is well underway. It could be a logical conclusion of those military and propaganda operations, which have been carried out by certain Western countries against North Africa.” Apparently Moscow suspects that a military campaign against Syria will eventually spread to other conflict areas in the region, thereby removing Moscow’s influence from countries that still listen to it. “The noose around Iran is tightening. Military planning against Iran is underway. And we are certainly concerned about an escalation of a large-scale war in this huge region,” Rogosin concluded.

Surprise! The Russians are warning those whom they protect, but for a reason.

Russia continues the policy of its predecessor the Soviet Union to obtain friends, a foothold and ultimately a powerful presence in the region. Therefore, America’s rivals and enemies are considered Russia’s friends. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the increased U.S influence in the region, Russia is left with one ally — Syria, and with a hate-love relationship with Iran.

A careful reading of Rogosin’s warning shows that he avoided mentioning the U.S as a major participant in the attack he said was on the drawing board. But NATO going to war without the U.S military might is like sending a one legged boxer to a kickboxing match. NATO member countries are not strong enough militarily to defeat Syria and Iran. To attack these rogue countries you need Big Bro — the U.S. Therefore, hidden within the diplomatic language he used there was a veiled warning to the U.S not to move forward with this plan. The Russian officials effectively said, “Do not touch My anointed ones” (Psalm 105:15) although it’s safe to assume that they didn’t use that verse nor looked it up in the Bible to check the spelling. But at the same time, the Russian message to Syria and Iran was: See who your real friends are. Get under our wings and you won’t get hurt.

Why are the Russians taking this route to protect, albeit tacitly, pariah nations? Weapons sales and political gains, and it doesn’t really matter which one comes first, as long as in the end Russia achieves both goals. Russia sold Iran and Syria huge amounts of weapons. Although Russia put on hold the sale of S-300 air defense missiles to Iran, the deal is in fact just on temporary hold. Russia has also entered into substantial energy transactions with Tehran in 2010. These deals came with a price tag Iran attached to which the Russians agreed: Russia pushing toward easing sanctions on Iran if it cooperates with the International Atomic Energy Agency. That condition is a bad joke because the Iranians have already shown how they toy and manipulate the agency when it attempted to inspect the Iranian nuclear program.

Moscow reads the region’s influence map closely waiting for an opportunity, because there’s never a void in this business. Russia senses that the U.S influence in the region has weakened and it will be further reduced when the U.S completes its withdrawal from Iraq. Therefore Russia rushes to forge stronger ties with Iran, a rising power in the Gulf and Middle East. With Iran as a friend, Syria comes a bonus. Syria, is Iran’s crony and Russia accepts it with open arms because a foothold in Syria provides Russia with precious benefits: Tartus, a modern deep Mediterranean sea which the Russians financed and built as well as regained access to the former Soviet naval base in Latakiye. That explains why Russia defends Bashar al-Assad’s regime regardless of what the world thinks of it.

Marking the target was Russian Prime Minister who said last week that, “The country (USA) live in debt, and [Does] not live according to their means and shifts the burden of their problems on the world economy,” he offered that explanation during a meeting with youth groups, according to the Russian RIA-Novosti news agency. Putin has also said that the U.S. “acts as a parasite on the dollar’s monopoly in the global economy.”

The 1960s cold war with Russia is not here yet, but it’s certainly getting warm in the region.

Huffington Post op Ed 10/24/2011

Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s brutal death has been confirmed, but the fear is that it doesn’t mark the end of hostilities in Libya, but the beginning of an equally brutal civil war.

You might think that there have been only two major players in Libya’s power struggle: Gaddafi’s government and the Libya Transitional National Council (TNC), the entity representing the forces that fought Gaddafi. In fact, TNC is a fragile coalition of historically rivaling tribes with conflicting interests.

The TNC was recognized by dozens of foreign states, including the U.S., Russia and France, and, in September, the UN General Assembly. These steps, along with NATO’s military support, empowered the rebels’ National Liberation Army. But that force was comprised of defected military members and civilian volunteers without an effective central command and therefore, it is an open question whether it could guarantee a smooth transition of power from Gaddafi’s loyalists to the TNC.

On the plus side, Gaddafi’s removal from power may also signal the end of many hostilities he had mongered, including with the West, and mark the end of his clandestine support of terrorist organizations. Gaddafi’s wars were a mix of politics — such as his attack on Egypt for signing a peace treaty with Israel — and economics — with its southern neighbor Chad over the control of the Aouzou Strip, an area rich in uranium deposits.

Gone, too, may be his megalomaniac wish to unite African Muslims under one political entity. In 1980 he established the Islamic Pan African Legion, a mercenary army recruited from employment seekers from Sudan, Egypt, Tunisia, Mali, and Chad. The force was trained by Palestinian and Syrian instructors. The Islamic Pan African Legion was intended to include one million men and women fighters to prepare for the great Arab battle — “the battle of liberating Palestine, of toppling the reactionary regimes, of annihilating the borders, gates, and barriers between the countries of the Arab homeland, and of creating the single Arab Jamahiriya from the ocean to the gulf.” Training camps of the Legion were used also to train members of PLO, supporters of the now deposed Liberian president Charles Taylor’s Revolutionary United Front (RUF), as well as Syrian and Lebanese militias.

On February 27, 2011 the TNC was established, led by Mustafa Abdul Jalil, Gaddafi’s former justice minister, to govern the regions of Libya already under rebel control. Abdul Jalil was a former judge “known for ruling consistently against the regime,” before becoming justice minister in 2007. In leaked State Department cables he is described as open and cooperative. Little surprise therefore, that when Jalil resigned, Gaddafi had offered a reward of approximately $400,000, for his capture. Finally, on June 27, 2011 the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for Gaddafi, accusing him to be personally involved in implementing “a policy of widespread and systematic attacks against civilians and demonstrators and dissidents.”

So far so good? No.

Though these events may seem cause for optimism, there is even more reason for concern. The National Liberation Army and supporting fighters outside its command is in fact a loose coalition of dozens of armed militias and more than a hundred bitter enemy tribes temporarily united to topple Gaddafi. And with him dead, the road is clear for their next move: secure an influential or even a controlling position in the race to the helm of the new Libya. The stakes are huge: Libya has the 10th-largest proven oil reserves in the world and is the 17th-highest petroleum producer. It is the world’s 17th largest country by area. With Africa’s longest Mediterranean coastline, Libya controls the flow — or its arrest — of the potentially huge African refugee migration to Europe through Isola di Lampedusa, an Italian island halfway between Italy’s mainland and the Libyan shores.

Historically, Libya was divided into three major regions: Tripolitania in the north, Fezzan in the south west, and Cyrenaica in the east. The geographical and political division marks also deep cultural and economic differences and disparities among the residents of the respective regions. It was Gaddafi’s coup in 1959 that transformed Libya from a de facto federation of regions and tribes into a republic, albeit without a constitution or clear governing institutions. The successful rebellion against Gaddafi highlighted that reality. Rebels from Cyrenaica, from the Mediterranean coast city of Misurata and from the eastern city of Benghazi, fought against Gaddafi’s regime separately and independently. Rebels from Zintan captured the airport, and Berber tribesmen from Yafran occupied Tripoli’s central square, which they quickly renamed ”Yafran Revolutionaries.” The division is not merely geographic.

These anecdotal details only reflect the power vacuum in the new Libyan leadership. There are ominous signs that a struggle has already started among the factions over the question: who is to take credit for toppling Gaddafi’s regime? The first evidence of the growing tensions came when Abdel Hakim Belhaj was named commander of a newly formed Tripoli Military Council. Belhaj was the commander of a now disbanded Libyan Islamist Fighting Group, and therefore, many fear that his nomination marks a first step toward an Islamist control. National Transitional Council chief Mustafa Abdul Jalil said on September 13 that sharia (Islamic law) will be the main source of legislation. But laws will be based on “moderate Islam.” Since Gaddafi’s Libya had no constitution, it remains to be seen how Jalil will be able to unite all factions and agree on a constitution.

Then there’s the unsolved murder of the rebels’ top military commander in Benghazi, General Abdul Fattah Younes which his militia members believe was carried out by a brigade of Islamists, seeking revenge for his past as an aide to Gaddafi. The Muslim Brotherhood is also taking part in the fray competing for influence in the new government of Libya, advocating conservative and religious policies, claiming that the people of Libya oppose the Western cultures brought in by “liberals.”

Gaddafi is dead, but many of his supporters are alive, armed to their teeth and are likely to seek revenge, for their loss in the war and for Gaddafi’s killing. Among them the tribes of Qadhafah, Magariha, Al-Awaqir and Warfalla that traditionally oppose any participation of people from Cyrinaica in the Libyan government — and the Cyrinaicans comprise now the majority in the National Transitional Council. The matter is further complicated by the strong division within the TNC among the militias that control the capital city, the Berber tribe militias in western Libya, and the Muslim Brotherhood militias that are close to Al Qaeda, which control parts of Tripoli and in areas near to the Tunisian border.

With an incredible amount of guns, ammunition and explosives held by multiple militias with conflicting agenda, all you need is a spark to ignite Libya, because in the Middle East, the distance between a war of words and an exchange of live fire may be very short.

Time will tell if the transition of power will mark a new peaceful era in the history of Libya or the beginning of a civil war.

Huffington Post OpEds 10/24/2011

Last week President Obama announced that all US troops would leave Iraq by the end of the year. That would formally end more than eight years of combat that cost the U.S more than 4,400 lives, more than 33,000 injured servicemen and servicewomen, and up to one trillion dollars in direct costs.

Other than keeping his 2008 campaign promise to end the war, the straw that broke the camel’s back for Obama was the Iraqi refusal to guarantee legal immunity to US servicemen in Iraqi courts. That refusal probably triggered frustration or even rage. In the Iraqis’ eyes, shedding US soldiers’ blood in protecting their regime is expected and accepted, but granting the soldiers legal immunity is unacceptable? Surely this is a new definition of “chutzpah.”

In May 2006, Sen. Joseph Biden, then the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, proposed in a New York Times op-ed that Iraq be divided into three separate regions — Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni — with a central government in Baghdad. Biden meant to decentralize Iraq, not to break it up. However, almost six years later, Biden’s dream may materialize — with a “few” modifications — rendering the potential outcome a nightmare.

With the US out, Iraq could be torn apart: its southern Shia-populated, oil-rich region would be devoured by Iran. Iraq’s northern area bordering with Turkey could become a Kurdish independent state, leaving Sunni Iraqis with the areas around Baghdad with practically no oil, without any visible source of income, but with a million mouths to feed.

Who is going to stop that doomsday scenario from happening? Iraq has no meaningful national army that can prevent an Iranian invasion “at the request of the Shiites in southern Iraq to protect them,” a likely excuse that could be used by the Iranians. Since the US war against Iraq weakened Iraq to the point that it cannot effectively defend itself from Iran, the unintended result of the US withdrawal could be delivering southern Iraq to the Iranians on a silver platter. Guess what would happen then.

The Iranians are motivated to tear Iraq up not only because of the Iraqi oil; in the Middle East, injury to honor is never forgotten and must be avenged. Saddam’s Iraq started a war against Iran in 1980 that ended with an Iranian defeat that forced it to sign a cease fire agreement in 1988. The Iranians have not forgotten that. Arab nomads used to say “I waited forty years for my revenge, and when it finally came, I said to myself, perhaps I was too hasty.” It has been only 23 years since their defeat, so the Iranian memory of their humiliating defeat must still be fresh.

What will happen to other major US allies in the region, such as Saudi Arabia, Iran’s biggest enemy? Does the US withdrawal from Iraq also signal the diminishing importance of the Saudis to the US if the fears that its oil reserves are dwindling are true? According to confidential cables released by WikiLeaks, U.S. diplomats expressed concern that Saudi Arabia might have overstated its petroleum reserves by 40%. If true, has the US knowingly acquiesced to the potential increase of Iranian control of a region that supplies 30% of the worlds’ oil, even while it’s still flowing? With no troops in the region, and with the US Congress and the public opinion reluctance to start a new war in the region, how would the US stop the Iranians? There must be a plan to counter that eventuality behind Obama’s decision to withdraw, or perhaps the plan is “Après moi, le deluge” (“After me, the deluge”) a saying attributed to the King of France Louis XV (1710-1774)?

Northern Iraq faces a major but a potentially positive change. For the first time in their history more than 30 million Kurds scattered in Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran may finally achieve independence. In recent months PKK, the Kurdish rebel movement, has killed scores of Turkish soldiers in eastern Turkey, prompting Turkey to launch cross border incursions into Kurdish strongholds Iraq in hot pursuit. Although the Kurds enjoy limited autonomy in several regions, the Turkish government has imposed severe limitations on the Kurds who try to preserve their culture and language.

The 2003 US invasion into Iraq gave the Kurds a powerful position they never had: the power to tip the scale toward either the Sunnis or the Shiites. That power enabled them to demand and ultimately receive substantial oil royalties from the sale of oil produced in Northern Iraq. That money has given the Kurdish city of Irbil a visible significant economic boost.

The US withdrawal from Iraq and the recent escalation of Kurdish military battle in eastern Turkey prompted an emergency meeting last week in Ankara between the Iranian and Turkish foreign ministers. They publicly announced their countries’ determination to fight PKK and its Iranian branch PJAK. They certainly realize that the possible establishment of a Kurdish state in northern Iraq would be dangerous for their countries. With an independent Kurdish state, it is likely that Kurds currently living in northern Iran and eastern Turkey would demand to attach their regions to the new Kurdish state, tearing these regions from Turkey, Iran, Syria and Iraq At stake are not only honor and the respective countries’ territorial integrity and sovereignty.

There’s money involved. Big money. The area populated by the Kurds, commonly known as Kurdistan, is rich in oil, natural gas, coal, uranium, chrome ore, copper and iron. Geologically it’s an extension of the world’s richest petroleum fairway, extending from Saudi Arabia to Kurdistan. Kurdistan’s oil reserves are estimated to have 50- 100 billion barrels of oil, making it one of largest oil reserves in the world. Kurdistan’s natural gas reserves are estimated at around 20 trillion cubic meters.

Just a month ago, Turkey agreed that an early warning radar, a part of NATO’s missile defense system, would be installed in Kurecik in the Malatya province approximately 435 miles west of the Iranian border. The radar system is capable of countering ballistic missile attacks from Iran. Iran was quick to warn Turkey that deploying that system would escalate regional tensions.

Turkey and Iran also disagree on their respective Syria policy, with Turkey critical of Iranian ally Syria’s brutal killing of Syrian civilian protesters and other hostilities exacted by the Syrian regime, which has sent thousands of Syrian refugees into Turkey seeking shelter.

Did Iran forget about these disagreements with Turkey when it rushed to join them in the battle against the Kurds? Has Iran withdrawn in its demand that Turkey removes the radar system aimed at Tehran, or are the Iranians waiting for the right opportunity? Because in the Middle East, you don’t forget, but wait for your break.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/haggai-carmon/durban-review-conference-Huffington Post Op Ed 083111
Durban III, a UN conference charged with finding the real root of racism, is scheduled to commence on September 21, 2011, in New York. The Durban Conferences are the natural, albeit indirect extension of the U.N. Human Rights Council. The two previous Durban conferences became a platform for political hatred rather than a genuine effort to deal with the issue. Will Durban III be more of the same?
The generally accepted definition of racism is the conviction that there are race-based inherent differences between humans separating them according to their racial origin, and therefore they should be treated differently. The practical result of applying race-based policies is discrimination of the weaker group by the stronger one. Racism has been the perpetrators’ justification throughout history the most heinous crimes: genocide.
Therefore, seeking the roots of racism and fighting it is a worthy cause. However, Durban Conferences have already shown that when cynical politics is mixed with human rights issues, the latter cause stands no chance of being seriously debated. Durban II conference held in Geneva, Switzerland in April 2009, was prepared by a committee chaired by representatives from two human rights champion countries, Najat Al-Hajjaji of Libya and her vice chair came from Cuba. 114 countries participated in the conference, which was boycotted by Australia, Canada, Germany, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, and the United States. The Czech Republic left the conference on the first day. Twenty-three other European Union countries sent low-level delegations. The reasons voiced by many of the boycotting counties reflected their concern that the conference would spread anti-Semitism, hatred against Israel and promote laws against free religious speech and homosexuals.
With Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the keynote speaker as the only head of state to attend the conference, the earlier predictions of the boycotting countries were justified. On the first day of the conference, Ahmadinejad condemned Israel as “totally racist” and accused the West of using the Holocaust as a pretext for aggression against the Palestinians. He referred to the Holocaust as an “ambiguous and dubious question”. When Ahmadinejad spoke about Israel, all the European Union delegates left. However, some remaining attendees applauded him. There was nothing new in his speech. Ahmadinejad started his campaign against Israel in 2005 when he said, according to the New York Times, that Israel must be wiped off the map. When he continued to advocate for the eradication of Israel in 2007, one hundred members of the United States House of Representatives co-sponsored a bill “Calling on the United Nations Security Council to charge Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and the United Nations Charter because of his calls for the destruction of the State of Israel.” EU leaders issued a strong condemnation against Ahmadinejad: “[c]alls for violence, and for the destruction of any state, are manifestly inconsistent with any claim to be a mature and responsible member of the international community.” On November 17, 2007 the European Parliament adopted a resolution condemning Ahmadinejad’s remarks and called on him to retract his bellicose comments in their entirety and to recognize the state of Israel and its right to live in peace and safety.
These and other condemnations were no deterrent for Ahmadinejad who just last week repeated his call for the eradication of Israel. Nothing was said in the Conference about Iran’s practice of torturing political prisoners, executing condemned men by hanging them from the top of a crane, its suppression of its own minorities — the Arabs and the Kurds — nor about the violent treatment of Iranian opposition. Did anyone say hypocrisy?
Durban III has already been boycotted by Australia, Canada, Israel, and the United States. Is boycotting the right thing to do? Is it wise to leave center stage to more hate speech by representatives of countries where “human rights” is a painful joke? Should the U.S., Australia, Canada, and Israel let Ahmadinejad, his clones and cronies spew more inflammatory messages? Why not attend the conference and focus the attention on the true roots of racism, those who currently practice its ugly doctrines and its horrendous consequences that history tells us?
The early Christians must have asked themselves why enter the ring when it was all but certain they’d be devoured by the lions. The sad answer is that they were forced. But in today’s world, the lions are the U.S., the European Union, Australia, Canada and similar democratic countries. Their presence, rather than their empty seats, could and should impede Ahmadinejad & co. from getting all the attention. Pointing a finger at him and his regime and against other racist regimes during the conference may not bring a resolution against those who practice racism but accuse others, but it would get the attention of public opinion. In a world where political victories are not counted by the majority of the votes, but by the attention of the people, an empty seat has no voice to be heard.

Come September, the UN General Assembly will consider the Palestinian Authority’s request to be admitted as a member. Historically, the UN has played a major role in the Palestinian refugees’ problem; it could now bring to its resolution.

Fact: According to the UN, there are five million Palestinians, mostly members of the third, fourth and fifth generations of former residents of areas which are now within the State of Israel. Nonetheless, they meet UNRWA’s (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East definition of “a refugee.” However, according to the UN, “more than 1.4 million refugees, around one third of the total, live in 58 recognized camps, and UNRWA’s services are located in or near these areas,” in Gaza, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan.

Fact: These 1.4 million Palestinians live in squalid conditions in the camps. There is no question that they should not continue living under these poor living conditions, which drive many to terror and crime. Israel claims they escaped in 1948 after their leaders urged them to temporarily leave until the Arab countries armies will clean Palestine from the Jews, throw them to the sea, so that the returning Palestinians could seize Jewish properties. The Palestinians claim that they were forcibly exiled. Historians have their own, also conflicting theories of what really happened.

But the Palestinians or the world cannot wait. Finger pointing is unproductive, and a forward looking solution must be found. The question as to who is responsible for their genuine misery is secondary to the question as to how to resolve the problem. A 10-year-old Palestinian boy or girl in a refugee camp should not be asked to pay the price of a historic mistake made by his or her great-grandparents who listened to the irresponsible fantasies and unrealistic promises made by their now long dead and forgotten leaders. The same rule should apply to the offspring of Palestinians who were forcibly exiled from their homes by Israeli forces during Israel’s 1948 Independence War. The solution should include all.

After the War of Independence in 1948 ended, Israel was faced with a refugee problem of its own: millions of Jews who fled the Holocaust and those who, like my father-in-law, who fled persecution in their native Arab countries. They came to Israel with only the shirts on their backs. Israel treated them as new immigrants, not refugees, and soon they were absorbed into the general population.

Israel cannot agree to the Palestinian demands for their “right of return” — a laundered call for the elimination of the only Jewish State in the world. A repatriation of all the descendants of the original Palestinian refugees to Israel would immediately turn the Jewish majority (80%) to a minority of 45%. Soon enough the Arab majority would democratically wipe out all Jewish identity and laws.

The United Nations, surprisingly enough, has perpetuated the Palestinian refugee problem for the past 61 years. Not many are aware that the U.N has two refugee relief agencies, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (“UNHCR”) and United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (“UNRWA.”)

Why two? UNHCR’s goal is to provide help to all of the world’s refugees. It helps to protect the basic rights of refugees by finding them refuge in another country with an option to voluntarily return to their homelands, resettle in the country of their refuge or to immigrate to a third country. UNHCR employs approximately 6,300 employees in 130 countries and has an annual budget of $81 million.

The other agency, UNRWA provides assistance, protection and advocacy for Palestine refugees in the Middle East and its services include education, health care, relief, camp infrastructure and improvement, community support, microfinance and emergency response, including in times of armed conflict. UNRWA is the UN’s largest organization and employs 28,000 employees, 99% of them local Palestinians.

The difference between the two agencies also happens to be the single most important explanation for the current Palestinian refugee problem. According to UNRWA “UNRWA’s services are available… [also] to [T]he descendants of the original Palestine refugees…When the Agency started working in 1950, it was responding to the needs of about 750,000 Palestine refugees. Today, 5 million Palestine refugees are eligible for UNRWA services.”

Would the UN also offer such forever help to the descendants of the Jews who were exiled from Spain in 1492 or to the millions of Europeans forcibly exiled from their homes during World War II? Applying the UNRWA principle, then the UN should.

The UN member countries should demand that as a precondition to the admission of the Palestinian Authority, it would absorb together with Jordan, Lebanon and Syria the remaining Palestinians still living in camps. The UNHCR principle of helping only actual refugees and their immediate accompanying families to resettle, should apply to the Palestinians receiving assistance from UNRWA; otherwise it will continue to perpetuate the problem. Many countries will happily contribute significant funds to help with this project. Jobs will be created, and a new development momentum will give the Palestinians in the camps a new future. The timing is right: The Arab countries have insisted during the past 63 years that the Palestinian problem is the root to all the problems in the Middle East and the region’s instability, and therefore demanded that Israel recognize their right of return. The recent uprising in many Arab countries and the resulting destabilization of the region proved the Arab countries wrong.

For centuries, scientists dreamed about inventing perpetuum mobile, machines that once started would operate or produce useful work indefinitely without needing additional energy. The creators of UNWRA have created such perpetuity, offering help forever to individuals that could be generations distant from their forefathers who were residents of areas in present day Israel. The UN member countries can stop that perpetuity, thereby helping to resolve rather than perpetuate the problem. Can welfare recipients in the U.S in the 1940s’ pass along their benefits to their off springs born 50 years later? Why should the Palestinians be treated differently? Is there any reason, other than cynical politics of some interested countries, to let perpetuum mobile keep on spinning, spending more than a billion dollar a year, with no end in sight.

Huffington Post Op Ed 6/22/11

Dominique Strauss-Kahn (“DSK”) is accused of sexual attack on a hotel chambermaid. But will his status as the IMF head allow him to wriggle out from under criminal prosecution in New York by claiming immunity?

Theoretically, DSK would have two available types of immunities: status-based immunity and conduct-based immunity. These immunities are significantly different in the extent of protection they confer. However, the broader scoped status-based immunity is applicable only to a narrowly defined group, such as heads of state and diplomats. Conduct-based immunity is much more limited in scope as it confers immunity only to official acts.

The 1947 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies might have granted DSK immunity from prosecution as it provides that “the executive head of each specialized agency… shall be accorded in respect of himself, his spouse and minor children, the privileges and immunities, exemptions and facilities accorded to diplomatic envoys, in accordance with international law.” Nonetheless, it would have been unthinkable that the IMF would raise that immunity, because another section provides that “[e]ach specialized agency shall have the right and duty to waive the immunity of any official in any case where, in its opinion, the immunity would impede the course of justice and can be waived without prejudice to the interests of the specialized agency.” However, such analysis is moot because the United States is not a signatory to that treaty.

U.S federal law grants international organizations immunity for their officers and employees only for “acts performed by them in their official capacity.” So that door is closed for DSK as well. The U.S Supreme Court denied Mohamed Ali Samantar’s claim of immunity, from a lawsuit in the United States for alleged torture and human rights abuses, based on the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Samantar claimed that as Somalia’s former defense minister in the 1980s and then as prime minister from 1987 to 1990, he was invested with immunity. The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed. However, the Supreme Court left open the door for the lower court to consider “[W]hether petitioner may be entitled to immunity under the common law, and whether he may have other valid defenses was entitled to immunity…”

Can the IMF claim functional immunity on DSK’s behalf?

In order to claim functional immunity, the IMF would have to argue that the alleged sexual attack was within DSK’s functions as head of the IMF. The facts as described in the media indicate that DSK’s alleged conduct could not support an argument that he was doing his job for the IMF, a prerequisite to granting immunity, because there must be a close connection between DSK’s duties and his conduct. Indeed, the IMF has announced that DSK’s immunities “are limited and are not applicable to this case.” Nonetheless, there are officials of international organizations, such as the Secretary General and Assistant Secretaries General of the UN, that enjoy the same privileges and immunities as diplomats do under the Vienna Diplomatic Relations Convention, which grants an almost absolute immunity in most criminal cases. However, DSK is not included in that short list of select officials.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Brzak v. United Nations, dismissed a complaint against three former U.N. officials for alleged sex discrimination, holding that they had functional immunity as a matter of treaty and statute. The court reasoned the complaint’s dismissal by indicating that the lawsuit was based on the U.N. officials’ alleged abuse of authority in the workplace and “personnel management decisions falling within the ambit of the defendants’ professional responsibilities. There’s only one other source of potential immunity: the IMF Articles of Agreement. Said agreement provides that IMF employees, “shall be immune from legal process with respect to acts performed by them in their official capacity except when the Fund waives this immunity.”

Since the IMF Articles of Agreement are narrow and include only acts performed in the employee’s “official capacity” they clearly distinguish that immunity from the absolute immunity of diplomats, and resemble more closely the narrower immunity of consuls. Within the realm of U.S. law, the International Organizations Immunity Act generally approximates, in the degree of immunity conferred for international organization officers and employees, the consular immunity granted under the Vienna Convention for Consular Relations. Both limit the reach of immunity to acts performed under official capacity only.

What constitutes an official act? The State Department’s directives guide law enforcement agencies as follows:

As indicated, official acts immunity pertains in numerous different circumstances. No law enforcement officer, State Department officer, diplomatic mission, or consulate is authorized to determine whether a given set of circumstances constitutes an official act. This is an issue that may only be resolved by the court with subject matter jurisdiction over the alleged crime. Thus, a person enjoying official acts immunity from criminal jurisdiction may be charged with a crime and may, in this connection, always be required to appear in court (in person or through counsel). At this point, however, such person may assert as an affirmative defense that the actions complained of arose in connection with the performance of official acts. If, upon examination of the circumstances complained of, the court agrees, then the court is without jurisdiction to proceed and the case must be dismissed. Law enforcement officers are requested to contact the U.S. Department of State before arresting a consular officer, or, if not possible, immediately after arrest.

Therefore, it is still possible that DSK’s attorney could attempt raising the issue of such immunity which negates the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case, although DSK is unlikely to succeed using that defense.

Does DSK have diplomatic immunity under customary international law?

It is an acceptable norm that international organizations have immunity under customary international law in addition to their treaty based immunities. That principle has been affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Mendaro v. World Bank:

One of the most important protections granted to international organizations is immunity from suits by employees of the organization in actions arising out of the employment relationship. Courts of several nationalities have traditionally recognized this immunity, and it is now an accepted doctrine of customary international law.

Since DSK was not an official envoy of France accredited to the United States or to international organizations (and in that case he was likely to be immune under the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations), but rather a head of an international organization, he was covered, if at all, by the much narrower Specialized Agencies Convention which regards only acts performed in an “official capacity” as immune. Even if DSK would attempt to argue that the much broader immunities principles in the 1946 UN General Convention on Privileges and Immunities are applicable to his case, it would be a too great a leap for the court to accept because these treaties are significantly different in the scope of immunity they confer.

Therefore, it appears that DSK does not have status-based immunity (commonly referred to as “diplomatic immunity”) or immunity as a head of the International Monetary Fund, a position that potentially could confer him with “functional immunity,” and will be tried like all other defendants under similar circumstances.

Huffington Post Op Ed 06/14/11

Why is the UN Security Council unwilling to condemn Syria? President Bashar al-Assad is butchering his own rebellious citizens and other than public expressions reproaching the massacre in Syria, the world does nothing. Why? Colonel Gaddafi of Libya was bombed by NATO for similar atrocities, then why the preferential treatment accorded Assad who seems to operate with impunity?

A close look at the Syrian arena may offer some clues. The insurrection in Syria is being brutally subdued by President Assad, who is fighting for his life — existential and political. He is a member of the Islamic Alawite sect, a 7% minority in Syria that has controlled Syria with an iron fist since his father, Hafez Assad, assumed the presidency in 1970. A defeat of President Assad means a defeat for the entire Alawite regime, in a country where such defeat signifies also an expedited delivery to heaven or to hell depending on whom you ask.

Conspiracy theorists speculate that an unwritten understanding was reached between President Obama and Russian President Medvedev during their meeting at the G-8 conference in France at the end of May. The alleged “non paper” called for a tradeoff: Russia would agree to the forceful toppling of Gaddafi, in return for the U.S agreement to allow Assad to suppress the insurrection in his country. The existence of such an agreement — true or false — still leaves the question open, why would Russia continue protecting Syria?

The answer may lie in a surreptitious accord between Russia and Syria. Russia offers a military and political umbrella to Syria, and in return, the Russian Navy can use the Syrian ports in the Mediterranean Sea. Intelligence reports indicate also that there are more than 2,000 Russian military advisors in Syria training the Syrian armed forces. The Mediterranean Sea access is extremely valuable for the Russians who helped build a huge modern port in Tartus, 150 miles south of Damascus. The pronounced Russian presence would have probably gone unnoticed, but for an event occurring last August. A decomposing body was found floating in the Mediterranean Sea near the Turkish-Syrian border. The body was of General Yuri Ivanov, deputy chief of the Russian military intelligence (Glavnoye Razvedyvateinoye Upravienie). Official reports claimed he drowned while swimming, but many don’t believe that the head of operations for the Russian military intelligence would go swimming without half a dozen bodyguards around him. Was his death connected to the growing Russian involvement in Syria? Just decades ago, Russia had a broad military presence in Mediterranean countries: Egypt, Algeria, Libya, just to name a few, and now just Syria is left on its short — once long — list, hence its determination to secure its only remaining stronghold.

Then there are accounts that Iran and Hezbollah sent elite forces to Syria to help President Assad quell the riots. Both Iran and Hezbollah have significant stakes in Syria. Deserting soldiers from the Fourth Syrian Division, under the command of Maher Assad, the president’s brother, told reporters that Iranian and Hezbollah officers executed Syrian soldiers who refused to open fire on demonstrating Syrian citizens and deserting soldiers. Syria has traditionally been the route through which Iran was sending military assistance to Hezbollah, its terrorist subsidiary in Lebanon, and a regime change in Syria is likely to cut off that route. Therefore, both Hezbollah and Iran have been assisting Assad. If successful, he’ll owe them his allegiance. If Assad falls, Hezbollah would be significantly weakened.

The Syrian population read the event map correctly. There were reports of Syrian demonstrators burning images of Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s leader, and calling President Assad “Iran’s puppy” or “the Nuzair butcher.” “Nuzair” is a derogatory term used by Sunni Muslims against Alawi Muslims whom they claim are in fact closer to Christianity than to Islam (Nuzair comes from the word Nazareth.) The burning of the Shiite Nasrallah’s image is particularly ominous for Hezbollah, as the uprising in Syria resembles more and more strongly Sunnis against Shiites — to whom the Alawites are considered to be religiously similar. The burning occurred during demonstrations in Hamat to commemorate the massacre of Sunnis there as the Shiites inside and outside of Iran remained indifferent. If the uprising in Syria develops into a Shiite-Sunni war, it could have far reaching regional consequences that would likely envelop Lebanon as well.

Tayyip Erdogan, the recently re-elected prime minister of Turkey, understands the risks to his country from such an all-out war on his southern border, and therefore, condemned in no uncertain terms the conduct of President Assad and opened the Turkish-Syrian border to thousands of Syrian refugees seeking asylum. These surprising steps might indicate that Erdogan has had second thoughts regarding his earlier decision to side with Iran and Syria against the West. Distancing himself from Iran would help him get closer to the leadership of the Muslim world, a position coveted relentlessly also by Iran.

Iran, Hezbollah and Russia on one side? The Russians probably hope that sleeping with dogs won’t give them political fleas in the morning.

Huffington Post OpEd 5/13/2011

The Iranian meddling in Bahrain was temporarily to be put to a hold. However, the prey, albeit small in acreage, is too lucrative to be let go, and Iranian clandestine intervention continues. Bahrain, a small island kingdom in the Gulf, is coveted by Iran, its neighbor across the bay, as it has a lot to covet. Strategically located near the Hormuz straits, through which 20% of the world’s oil passes, with its own production of 40,000 oil barrels a day, and with huge gas reserves, Bahrain is definitely in the sights of the Iranian regime. What makes the Iranian move to indirectly swallow Bahrain a real risk is the fact that 70% of the Bahraini population is Shiite, such as 80% of Iran’s population, and the Bahraini Shiites look up to Iran for guidance, or even instructions.

The Saudi King and other Gulf States rulers read the map correctly and sent troops to protect Bahrain. The demise of the 200-year Bahrain rule of the Sunni dynasty currently headed by King Sheikh Hamad bin Isa Al-Khalifa’s and its replacement by a Shiite puppet of Iran could be ominous to their own regimes. Saudi Arabia is particularly vulnerable because its rich oilfields border with Bahrain and the local population in this region is mostly Shiite. A successful Shiite takeover of Bahrain could whet the appetite of the Saudi Shiites and their Iranian comrades to follow suit. Therefore, with the invitation of the Bahraini king, 3,500 Saudi soldiers crossed the bridge linking Saudi Arabia with Bahrain to help preserve the Bahraini regime.

The Iranians are far from liking this development, which all of a sudden shuffled their cards. Now, it is no longer tiny Bahrain defending itself from Iranian sponsored subversion — it is Iran versus Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. The bar has risen. Saudi Arabia, with a cash chest that would make King Midas envious and with the backing of the U.S, is a formidable rival to Iran.

The Iranian response to the Saudi move was quick. Local media in the northeastern city of Mashhad reported that 700 people gathered outside the Saudi consulate and stoned it to protest the killing of Shiites in Bahrain. If the Saudi government fails to take the hint, additional protests are likely to follow in other Iranian cities, including Tehran.

Saudi Arabia has increased its pressure on the U.S to intervene and prevent the operation of the Iranian nuclear plant in Bushehr. They quoted Dmitry Rogozin the Russian ambassador to NATO who repeated a previous warning sent by Russia that “The virus attack on a Russian-built nuclear reactor in Iran could have triggered a nuclear disaster on the scale of Chernobyl.” Now the concern is increased following the disaster in the Japanese reactors in Fukoshima. Although Fereydoun Abbasi the head of the Atomic Energy Organization, acknowledged that “Even before the earthquake and nuclear contamination crisis in Japan, Iran had accepted Russian experts’ proposal to revise its plans to load fuel into the core of the Bushehr power plant’s reactor,” Saudi Arabia continues with its pressure against Iran, as part of its effort to limit Iranian clandestine involvement in Bahrain.

The rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia is not new. The fervent Shiite Iran and the Sunni Saudi Arabia have long been struggling over the reign of world Muslims. Thus far, with its control of the two holy cities of Mecca and Medina, Saudi Arabia has the upper hand.

The saber rattling continues. Bahrain ousted the Iranian Consul in Manama, and the Iranians retorted in kind. Iran recruited once more Hezbollah, its subcontractor for dirty jobs. During a rally in Beirut, Hezbollah leader Nasrallah criticized Bahrain’s monarchy for bringing in troops from neighboring Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States to quash Shiite protests. Nasrallah said the blood of the people will eventually force their regimes to grant them greater rights.

The Bahraini Foreign Ministry condemned Hezbollah’s criticism of its government, describing it as an intervention in Bahrain’s internal affairs. A statement released by the Bahrain foreign ministry said Nasrallah’s verbal “assault against Bahrain and its people” was aimed at serving foreign interests, a reference to Iran, Hezbollah’s boss. The foreign ministry described Nasrallah as the “representative of a terrorist organization with a known history in destabilizing security in the region.” Apparently, Iran and its allies do not like others to play in what Iran considers its own playground.

Thus far the Iranians are wary not to directly confront the Saudis, and for a reason: For Iran, Saudi Arabia is the last major local power they need to win over; however, it is not a simple task. The Saudis’ big brother is watching — the U.S. The U.S has failed to intervene in Egypt because Egypt is dependent on U.S aid and therefore, it anticipated that the Egyptian response to the U.S lack of active support would be limited to verbal condemnation, if any. However, the terms of reference between the U.S and Saudi Arabia are diametrically different. It is Saudi Arabia that supports the U.S with money, oil and military bases. Therefore, Saudi interests and voices are more likely to be listened to attentively in Washington, D.C.

Nonetheless, the Sunnis in Bahrain have a lot to worry about. The Shiites in Bahrain demand a democratic republic instead of monarchy, and that simple message is certain to find many attentive ears in the U.S and elsewhere. However, democracy in Bahrain with a 70% Shiite majority, means Sunnis out, Shiites in, the U.S and its 5th Fleet harbor out, Iran in, including a control of the oil reserves and a direct threat to Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest producer of oil in fields located next door populated by Shiites.

As absurd as it may sound, it is likely that supporters of full Western style democracy in Bahrain may at the end of the day be supporting theocratic Iran.

A dilemma, Greek for “two premises,” has been likened to the horns at the front end of an angry and charging bull. Both premises are bad options.

If there were ever a decision tantamount to sitting on the horns of the dilemma, the choices the West needs to make are fitting. What would the West choose? Support democracy for approximately 350,000 Shiites in Bahrain, or risk an increased Iranian control of the spigots of the huge oil reserves, with the resulting immediate effect on the world’s economy?

Huffington Post OpEd 3/1/2011

“Quo vadis?” (where are you going? in Latin) asked St. Peter fleeing from certain crucifixion in Rome, when he met Jesus. According to the apocryphal Acts of Peter, Jesus answered, “Eo Romam iterum crucifigi, (I am going to Rome to be crucified again.” )

Is it time to ask, Quo vadis the U.S policy in the Middle East?

The list of Middle Eastern countries friendly to the U.S is shrinking. The unwritten, un-heralded in-Main-Street alliance of interests between Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey and Israel, evaporated. President Mubarak of Egypt is history; King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and King Abdullah of Jordan are busy maintaining their shaky control over their respective countries — both with a combustible mixed population. Jordan with a 60% Palestinian population and Saudi Arabia with 20% Shiites in this fervently Sunni country. Turkey has turned its back to the West and is aligning with Iran and Syria, as if it was not a member of NATO. That leaves Israel as the only stable country in the region. That’s a lot, but not enough. Other than calling the countries in the Middle East to listen to their people, is the U.S moving forward affirmatively to maintain stability as well as encourage democracy?

From the Arab countries’ perspective, the U.S can no longer be relied upon as a long term ally. Right or wrong, they regard the U.S policy toward Egypt when it demanded that President Mubarak — a long term ally of the U.S, step down immediately, as an ominous sign. Their sobering up is not misplaced; if Mubarak was dropped like a hot potato, how would the U.S react and what would happen to them if the political winds in their countries changed direction? The Obama administration is aware of the doubts casted and is making efforts to make it clear to the Saudi King that his country is not Egypt. Will that be enough? Probably, because the Saudis have no real alternative. The stakes are huge; there are two million Shiites in Saudi Arabia, residing in the oases of Qatif and al-Hasa in the Eastern Province, which is also home to the world’s greatest concentration of oil assets and about 90 percent of Saudi Arabia’s oil production. If the Shiites follow the pattern of the Bahraini Shiites’ demonstrations demanding a bigger political say, Saudi Arabia would be in a serious turmoil. But what about other countries in the region?

At the sidelines, or maybe even in center field stands Iran with a smile of the cat that ate the canary. In this zero sum game, if your opponent loses, you win. The Iranians didn’t start the fire in the Middle East, but they are quick to use it to their benefit. With three Western allies in turmoil, Iran is the big winner. Although some statesmen and scholars believe that a Western modus vivendi with Iran is possible, others claim with the same degree of certitude that it would be impossible to reach any sort of long term settlement with Iran. Look at recent history they say, the popular uprising in Tehran in 1979 was a result of the Shah’s attempt to quickly “westernize” Iran, putting behind centuries of religious and conservative customs. That reality was misread by President Reagan’s advisors who tried to open new inroads to Tehran. In May 1986 Robert C. McFarlane President Reagan’s National Security Adviser and his party went to Tehran to negotiate the release of American hostages held in Lebanon by Iranian supporters. The mission carried a Bible with a handwritten verse from President Reagan for Iranian leaders and a key-shaped cake to symbolize the anticipated ”opening” to Iran.

The overtures turned out to be a major embarrassment. The hostages were not immediately freed, and an American goodwill gesture was interpreted by the Iranian as weakness. Tehran is not Washington DC or London. The local rules are different, and if you don’t play by them, and bring your own rules from home, you lose.

Is the Obama administration reading the map correctly? The most intrinsic Raison d’être of the current Iranian regime is to oppose the U.S, its culture, politics and way of life. There could be no interim hiatus in the Iranian expression of hatred toward the U.S, except when it serves Iranian interests. When these interests are exhausted, the fundamental policy of opposition to the U.S is resumed. The Iranians do not hide their aspirations and intentions: They seek to be recognized as the regional superpower, ultimately with a permanent seat at the U.N Security Council; they want to be recognized as the leader of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslim population and orient them to oppose the U.S, and they want the destruction of the State of Israel.

The Iranians work diligently and relentlessly toward reaching their goals. Iran exports not only the tenets of the Islamic Revolution as advocated by Ayatollah Khomeini, but also exports money, weapons and ammunition to any Muslim country that would accept it, such as Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, and Gaza. Iranian agents are meddling in Iraq and Sudan, and undercover Iranian intelligence agents operate in Asia, Africa, in Paraguay and in several other South American countries. Stay tuned until news will emerge how the Iranians managed to dip their hands into the Egyptian fray, or in the Bahrain Shiites demonstrations. Ironically, the riots in Libya are helping Iran to ease the pressure created by the UN sanctions on its budget. The rise in the price of oil compensates Iran for losses created by the sanctions.

Iran’s nuclear plans continue, the U.N sanctions notwithstanding. With Iran armed with a nuclear bomb, the world will be different, not just the Middle East. The oil rich Gulf States including Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will have to align with Iran who could hike the price of oil to the stratosphere and bring the West to its knees. A repeat of the U.S invasion to Kuwait and the resulting Gulf War I, when Saddam Hussein threatened the continuous oil supply from Kuwait could not be replayed if Iran is nuclear.

Quo vadis U.S policy in the Middle East? Taking affirmative acts to protect the U.S and the free world’s interests or maybe allow it to be politically and economically crucified — Iranian style?