Billionaires and the Nuclear Deal with Iran

There is a concurrence of the locations on the globe of the nations that negotiated the nuclear deal with Iran: China, Russia, Germany, France, England, the European Union, and the United Sates. . .

The ministers of foreign affairs and other officials from the P5+1 countries, the European Union and Iran while announcing the framework of aComprehensive agreement on the Iranian nuclear programme. 

and the location of global billionaires gives rise to interesting thoughts.

The concurrence does not prove anything.

The concurrence does imply that the most powerful individuals in the World do not want a repeat of the Iraq Debacle.

The implication, if meaningful, suggests that the most powerful of us are collaborating on the beginning of a global, though unofficial, government.  We have no reason to believe they will continue to act in concert.

Unless you have billions, you are unlikely to know if the implication is meaningful.  It seems to be.

 The World Economic Forum Annual Meetings at Davos give some hints of its contours.

About all that can be done from a small island in the middle of he Pacific Ocean is watch and bug our senators, which all should do happily.

Give Up on Netanyahu, Go to the United Nations, but wait a day or so

From an opinion piece in the New York times:

Give Up on Netanyahu, Go to the United NationsBY HENRY SIEGMAN
America must stop blocking U.N. action on Mideast peace and start pushing for a tough Security Council resolution that forces both parties to negotiate a deal — and fast. 

----------

al-Monitor recently suggested that the Administration is considering An agreement to exchange the Veto for an agreement on the Peace Deal would make sense only if the Administration were satisfied that Congress would block the Iranian Peace Deal if Netanyahu objects.   

The Peace Deal is more important than a settlement of the Palestine State situation at this time.  It is more  important not because the Deal may block Iran from gettin The Bomb, but because it lifts the horrendously unfair sanctions which have been in place for a generation.  

The unfairness of Iranian sanctions and the perception of their unfairness is harming the US in Asia far more than any activity of Iran's.  

Asia is the principle field of play in the fierce economic competition between the US and China.The Great Game continues, 21st Century version.  In the 19th Century, Russia had home  field advantage, England controlled the waves. In the present version, China has home field advantage; the US controls the waves and the sky.  

The sides are sufficiently balanced that the US doesn't need any extraneous distractions.  Syria is enough.  

And if the Congress stupidly acts to block the Iranian Deal, then by all means support a security council vote for the resolutions Mr. Siegman suggests, and more.

Thee Times editorial is here.  A brief and impressive biography of Siegman is at the end of the Times article.

Thanks, Rho, for the heads-up.

----------

It's not that Palestinians don't need and deserve relief now, 

it's that Asia and the World would be worse off if China dominates the US.  Perhaps a chauvinistic view, but my own.

After the Iran Nuclear Deal is signed and the sanctions are lifted . . .

The article following seems about right to me.  

Hard to know how Ms. Clinton fits in, if she is elected President.  

By then the nuclear deal will have been signed, and Iranian oil will begin to flow.  

China, India,and Pakistan will be eager for the natural gas from the Pars Field,  though China will try for a pipeline route that bypassed India.  

World oil prices will be affected, and I don’t know how.  I haven’t sen much speculation on oil prices.  My guess is that US oil companies will profit from  the deal.  I assume oil companies concur with the deal because they aren’t making much noise in opposition.

Iran’s economy will be booming; French automobiles will sell like hotcakes.

The Gulf Dictators will gnash their teeth.   They will be affected by a drop in oil prices, but only poor Yemen will suffer from the effect. 

Israel will continue to be safe.  I don’t see how it will be much affected, except in its internal politics.

No one will start a War. 

Fill me in with your guesses or knowledge.

al-Monitor

ISRAEL PULSE

בעברית

ישראל פולס

US President Barack Obama hugs Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at Ben Gurion International Airport in Tel Aviv, March 20, 2013. (photo by REUTERS/Jason Reed)

US willing to 'compensate' Israel on Iran deal

At the conclusion of a long, exhausting and beleaguered campaign, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will present his fourth government to the Knesset early next week. He will hope and pray that the Knesset will give him a vote of confidence. If, indeed, his fragile, narrow majority (61 Knesset members out of 120) passes the confidence vote, the government could hit the road. Numerous tasks wait for this government, and a considerable number of urgent problems need immediate treatment. Since October 2014, Israel has been running on autopilot without proper management: without a budget, without fully active ministers and without a steady, focused hand on the governmental rudder. On his way to victory in the polls, Netanyahu endangered many Israeli national interests. These include relations with the United States, domestic relations with Israeli Arabs and the state’s international image. Now the time has come to mend the fences.

Summary

⎙ Print

 The United States doesn’t understand why Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu continues to focus on battling the Iranian deal and rejects two large and strategic “special interest deals” with the US administration.

Author Ben Caspit

Posted May 12, 2015

TranslatorDanny Wool

The most urgent issue of all is that of relations with the United States. Since the elections on March 17, quite a number of US officials have visited Israel, including active members of Congress and former high-level officers of the administration. A summary of the conversations by these visitors with their Israeli hosts brings to light painful observations on the future of bilateral relations between Israel and the country that is perceived as Israel’s greatest ally, the United States.

“The personal relations between Netanyahu and [US President Barack] Obama have soured beyond repair,” a US source who is an expert on the topic said this week, in regard to the talks he held here with Israeli colleagues. “There is no chance to patch things up or turn the clock back. President Obama knows that Netanyahu has long since wiped him off the map. Netanyahu knows that President Obama knows, and both of them yearn for the day that one of them finishes his term of office. Most probably, it will happen first to Obama,” the US visitor said. This diagnosis was shared by almost everyone who was asked questions on the subject in recent weeks. “It is a poisonous relationship,” another US source said. “The two don’t believe each other, don’t care about each other and express no interest at all in changing the situation or believing that it can be changed.”

Note of caution: In politics in general, and in Middle East politics in specific, the rule is, “never say never.” Former Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman, who only yesterday sat with Netanyahu and was viewed as Netanyahu’s ally, stormed Netanyahu May 11 with a pitchfork and called him a liar and a cheater in full view of the Knesset cameras. However, that will not prevent Liberman from returning to cooperate with Netanyahu in his fifth government (in another six months or two years), if he decides that such a move suits his political interests.

That’s the way it is in Israel, and it could be that that’s the way it is regarding the stable and magnificent relationship that used to exist between Jerusalem and Washington. For instance, Alon Ben-David, Israeli TV Channel 10's much-esteemed defense correspondent, reported May 8 that Obama told several of his interlocutors that he had decided, despite it all, to cast a veto on the French proposal regarding the Middle East conflict (for a UN resolution on Palestinian statehood), if and when it comes to a discussion and vote in the UN Security Council. This is despite recent assessments that the Americans had decided not to cast such a veto.

This leak is viewed as a US attempt to sweeten the pot and show goodwill vis-a-vis the tough Israeli antagonist from Jerusalem. A sort of carrot-and-stick game in which the Americans try to entice the recalcitrant, weaseling Netanyahu by extending a hand, or half a hand, in peace. But there’s something else that’s been going on. High-echelon sources in the US administration have recently been expressing great amazement about Netanyahu’s pattern of behavior: The Israeli prime minister could now opt for pushing forward two large “special interest deals” with the administration. The first is called the “small deal,” and the second we will refer to as the “big deal.”

The “small deal” involves putting a stop to frenetic Israeli activity in Congress to torpedo, postpone, delay or change the emerging arrangement between Iran and the superpowers. According to the Americans, Israeli logic should dictate the following: Most likely, an arrangement will be reached; its outlines are already clear. And most likely, Obama will get Congress to approve the settlement. Therefore, the wise thing for Israel to do at this point in time is to ''cash in'' on halting the heavy pressure exerted by Jerusalem on US legislators (mainly Republicans) in exchange for military, diplomatic and general support, assistance, weapons, ammunition and the like from the United States. The Americans are ripe for this deal, but the hints they send to Jerusalem hit a brick wall. Netanyahu won’t budge; he continues to fight with all his might, backed by Sheldon Adelson’s money and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee lobby (the two don’t work together) in Washington.

The “big deal” involves the same upgrading of strategic relations and alliance that is supposed to be signed between Israel and the United States, should an agreement be signed with Iran. Clearly, an agreement with Iran worsens Israel’s strategic position in the region (an Israeli defense source said behind closed doors), and, clearly, the United States will be willing to try to provide Israel with strategic compensation to offset this deterioration. For that to happen, discussions should be taking place right now. But there are no discussions, no talks, no connections and no overtures. Jerusalem doesn’t answer. Netanyahu won’t move an inch.

“We have an irrevocable strategic opportunity to receive things from Washington that we have never before received,” an Israeli source, who until recently served in a senior position in the defense apparatus, said at the beginning of the week in a closed meeting. “Israel could upgrade itself regarding the quality of US assistance in the future; it could update and consolidate agreements and arrangements that were closed in the past, but without clear expiration dates. Every time that something happened in the international arena that harmed Israel’s defense position, and every time that Israel took chances regarding security, America knew how to compensate it. Only this time, despite US willingness, it’s not happening,” he said.

Not everyone in Israel’s diplomatic and security systems agrees with Netanyahu’s policy, which is deeply influenced by Adelson. This approach advocates gambling on one toss of the dice, and not conducting negotiations. Meanwhile, scathing words of criticism are being voiced in Israel’s diplomatic and defense systems regarding the current disruption of relations between the United States and Jerusalem. The critics, who measure their words and are careful to retain their anonymity, say that Netanyahu is mortgaging many of Israel’s weighty strategic interests in the throes of the war of destruction he has declared against Obama.

“That is not wise and not correct,” the critics say, “You have to think about the day after.” In contrast, Netanyahu’s people say, “There will be time on the day after for these kinds of things too. Meanwhile, now we have to focus on the goal and not loosen our grip.” In their view, the goal is that the United States should internalize the fact that the agreement about to be signed with Iran is a bad agreement.

Jerusalem received a large boost this week when Saudi Arabian King Salman bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud refused an invitation to attend a landmark summit hosted by Obama at Camp David, in an effort to appease his Arab allies in the Middle East. “See, the Saudis also think like us and are giving Washington the cold shoulder,” a source close to Netanyahu said, with great satisfaction.

Only time will tell who was right in this debate. Meanwhile, Obama’s administration is adjusting itself to Netanyahu’s fourth government as someone would resign himself to a serious chronic disease. There is still no invitation for Netanyahu to come to Washington, and it will not be extended until after June 30. Meanwhile, in the mistrustful overtures between the two capitals, another option was raised: that the focus of the Israel-US relationship should switch from the broken Netanyahu-Obama alignment to the efficient, friendly and better functioning axis of Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon and his US counterpart, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter. At least this channel has continued to operate effectively in recent months.

Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/05/israel-netanyahu-iranian-nuke-deal-us-rapprochement-efforts.html#ixzz3a3MbfWaR

d

Tthe Disheartning Present of Droning; the Dismal Future of Dronning

Remember the halcyon days "after America won the War" and America had a monopoly on The Bomb?  No?  You don't?  We lived in fear that Russia would develop The Bomb.  It did, and then we lived in terror that it would use it. 

Now we live in halcyon days when we have a near monopoly on drones, and we use them freely on countries with whom we are not at War.  

We use them to kill a 17-year-old American boy who pose no threat to America.  

[This is the boy; this is what a Hellfire missal left of him, his 19-year-old cousin, and four of their young friends . . .

. . . except for a scrap of flesh, used for the burial.  The waste still burns and festers in me, made worse because done by my country, and therefore in my name.  Imaging what the burning death does to Yemen grandparents, you who can imagine such things.]

We use drones when it would be possible to use police tactics without the attendant civilian death and injury, as the US did when it killed Osama ben Laden.  We use drones when we know millions hate us for using them, because of the dead and wounded relatives and friends.

What a precedent we set!  What a world is a-borning!

Soon enough all countries worthy of the name will have silent, undetectable drones.  For that great day, I've  got a lovely bunch of drones, sweet as coconuts:

 --  There they are a-standin on a row (Bom bom) 

      Big ones small ones some as big as your head . . . .

 Try to imagine the day when Uruguay is displeased with a decision Hawaii's governor makes, and acts out its displeasure by dropping a tiny, undetectable powerful drone on peaceful, beautiful Aina Haina on Oahu, Hawaii -- presently unthinkable.

Then these will be the Good "ol Days, indeed.

Elect Bernie Sanders president!

From

RonDoids: China Preparing for Drone Warfare!X

Sunday, May 10, 2015

China Preparing for Drone Warfare!

PLA plans to build 42,000 UAVs, Pentagon says

China’s military plans to produce nearly 

42,000 land-based and sea-based unmanned 

weapons and sensor platforms as part of its

 continuing, large-scale military buildup,

 the Pentagon’s annual report on the

 People’s Liberation Army (PLA) disclosed Friday.

China currently operates several armed and 

unarmed drone aircraft and is developing 

long-range range unmanned aerial vehicles 

(UAVs) for both intelligence 

gathering and bombing attacks.

“The acquisition and development of longer-range 

UAVs will increase China’s ability to conduct 

long-range reconnaissance and strike operations,” 

the report said.

China’s ability to use drones is increasing 

and the report said China “plans to p

roduce upwards of 41,800 land- and 

sea-based unmanned systems, 

worth about $10.5 billion, between 2014 and 2023.”

Four UAVs under development include the 

Xianglong, Yilong, Sky Saber, and Lijian,

 with the latter three drones configured to 

  fire precision-strike weapons.

“The Lijian, which first flew on Nov. 21, 2013, 

is China’s first stealthy flying wing UAV,” 

the report said.

The drone buildup is part of what the 

Pentagon identified as a decades-long 

military buildup that last year 

produced new multi-warhead missiles 

and a large number of submarines and ships

-------------------------

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

    Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

    The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere

    The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

    The best lack all conviction, while the worst

    Are full of passionate intensity.

W. B. Yates,The Second Coming 

fragment) (1865-1939) 

The New Great Game, continued: Monocultural China and the multicultural West competing for the World

Why isn’t China’s drive to control markets in Central Asia and Africa a major topic of our political campaigns?  Why isn’t the Congress focused mainly on how to strengthen US power in Central Asia?  Why do we continue to anger Iran and Pakistan and India and even China by prohibiting our oil companies from exploiting natural gas from the Pars Field, the largest in the world?

Hussein Obama is keeping 10,000 troops in Afghanistan without going though the futile process os getting Congressional approval.  Why is it futile?  Whoever the next president is, will keep troops in Afghanistan, because US military presence in Central Asia is necessary to balance China’s propinquity there.  Just look at a map.  Why doesn’t Congress look?  Are Congressional maps so different from ours?  Do Congressional maps only show Congressional Districts?   

Makkah and Madinah are at risk of conquest by ISIS if Anbar falls, as seems likely.  When ISIS controls the Holy Places, it will control all of  Sunni Asia.  The danger is real, and the Saudi know it and fear it.  

Does a new oil route from Iran to China , which bypasses India, alarm you?  It comforts rulers in China.  Does Washington know it, outside the presidency?  You wouldn't believe that any know it besides my friend Gerry,  by attending to political campaigns. 

This blogger's take, looking at the world from Zeus’ point of view:  The struggle to control world markets and peoples was between England and Russia in the 19th Century, then the world’s most powerful; it is now between The West (Europe, including Russia and India, and  North America)  and China. 

 North America an Europe compete with one another, are multicultural, and have no central  deciding authority. Yet.  Though I think it is a’comin'.  Although multicultural, the West is mostly opposed to Chinese expansion.  

China has begun a a concentrated plan to control Central Asia and then the world. The West has more money and people than China has.  The West’s plan for expansion is  ad hoc, therefore poorly functioning.   China’s plan is well-thought-out, focused, an working as well as one might expect a central but global plan to work.  

There are seven billion of us human animals; we each see living and dying differently;  we all see nothing at all in the same way.  Any plan designed for all of us won’t wok, but one designed for all  of us will work better than inconsistent, hesitant ad hoc plans.

Here’s for  America to agree on a few central ad hoc plans!  Here’s for Ethnic Russians to join the EU!  Here’s for the the Turkic Council to become a united economic powerhouse!  Here’s for the UN to resolve the Palestine Nation issues!  Here’s for the Sunni to become China’s problem!  Here’s for a Congress that likes compromise, that knows the skills of horse-trading!

The Council on Foreign Relations

Foreign Affairs, 

a publication of the Foreign Policy Institute

China's Road Rules

Beijing Looks West Toward Eurasian Integration

An excerpt from the article:

First among them is bolstering the Chinese economy by providing an outlet for excess industrial capacity. As Beijing tries to cool an overheated domestic infrastructure sector without creating massive unemployment, plans that channel investment-led growth beyond China will be key. Inside China’s borders, the plans focus on China’s relatively underdeveloped western and southern regions, which will help accelerate growth and boost employment there, moves which leaders hope will tamp down ethnic unrest in addition to providing jobs and an outlet for the nation’s workforce. 

A chance for leverage by Balochi and Uighurs, those willing to die for freedom as they define freedom

The Iran-Pakistan Pipeline, as planned,had begun in Pakistan at the Balochi front end of the Pipeline and ended in India.  

A new plan seems to have omitted india, and ends at the Uighur territory at the Chinese end.  

 Both the Balochi and the Uighurs  are Muslims, are both treated badly by their respective governments, and are both objecting to changes in the IP Pipeline.  And now the residents of Khyber Pass are complaining.

There are no details on the web of a new route for the pipeline; and both the Balochi and he Uighurs claim that there are changes that reduce benefits to their people.

The Pakistani government in Punjab, which is the primary beneficiary of the Pipeline, deny that there has been any change in the route.  

And Punjab is responding to complaints by “setting up a special division for the corridor, including nine army battalions and paramilitary forces”, expensive and unnecessary if there has been no change in the route.

Punjabi speak with forked toguens tongues, we we say in Hawaii.

[xImages added]

Reuters

Industries | Wed Apr 22, 2015 8:53am EDTRelated: ENERGY, INDUSTRIALS, UTILITIES

UPDATE 1-Pakistani politicians decry "unfair" China corridor route

(Adds comment from minister)

By Gul Yousafzai

(Reuters) - Politicians in Pakistan complained on Wednesday that a plan for projects worth $46 billion to be built with Chinese funding has been unfairly changed to the disadvantage of two provinces.

Chinese President Xi Jinping launched the plan in Pakistan on Monday. It involves energy and infrastructure projects linking the neighbours' economies and creating an "economic corridor" between Pakistan's Gwadar port and China's western Xinjiang region.

Gwadar is on the Arabian Sea in Baluchistan, Pakistan's poorest and least populous province, where rebels have waged a separatist insurgency for decades, complaining that richer provinces unfairly exploit their mineral and gas resources.

The deep water Port of Gwadar in Pakistan, on the Iranian border,  wholly owned by China

The insurgency has raised doubts about the corridor, a network of roads, railways and pipelines. To minimise the risk, government planners have shifted its route east, to bypass as much of Baluchistan as possible, Baluchistan politicians said.

Balochi freedom fighters

"We will not accept this decision and will resist this move very strongly," provincial Minister for Planning and Development Hamid Khan Achakzai told Reuters. "It will be a big injustice."

Jaffar Khan Mandokhel, a former provincial minister, said there would be a "strong reaction" to the change which would only benefit Pakistan's richest province.

"The change is meant to give maximum benefit to Punjab, which is already considered the privileged province," he said.

Islamabad, Punjab, Pakistan

The route change would also mean the proposed corridor would largely bypass the northwestern province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, said opposition politician Imran Khan, whose party rules the province. He condemned any route change as an injustice.

Khyber Pass and its defenders

But federal Minister for Planning Ahsan Iqbal denied that there had been any change and said the project should not fall victim to provincial rivalry.

"This impression that the route has been changed is wrong," Iqbal told a news conference. "Turning this into an issue of conflict between provinces is tantamount to sabotaging billions of dollars of investment."

The complaints highlight the political risks for a plan China sees as a key part of its aim to forge "Silk Road" land and sea ties to markets in the Middle East and Europe.

The Pakistani army said it was tackling the security risks by setting up a special division for the corridor, including nine army battalions and paramilitary forces.

On Tuesday, six separatist militants and two soldiers were killed in clashes in Baluchistan, officials said.

Islamist militants have also attacked Chinese workers in Pakistan. And China worries about Muslim separatists from Xinjiang, whom it blames for a series of attacks across China over the past year, getting training from Pakistani militants.

Lotta freedom fighters, unless you call them terrorists.

(Additional reporting byMehreen Zahra-Malik; Writing by Robert Birsel; Editing by Clarence Fernandez and Alex Richardson)

Official grab for power extends beyond the grave

From The New York Times:  

China forbids Dalai Lama from refusing to reincarnate.

The Han - the world's largest ethnic group and the present rulers of China- have become e il Monty Python. 

I don’t think the Dalai Lama would mind if you saw this through the prism of Monty Python,” Robert Barnett, director of the modern Tibetan studies program at Columbia University, said in a telephone interview. “But he is reminding the Chinese that, from his perspective and the perspective of probably nearly all Tibetans, the Chinese don’t really have a credible role in deciding these things.”

Imagine sitting in on a meeting of the Politburo when it is discussing alternatives means  of  compelling compliance with it's dictates.  

The meeting oc of the Politburo  is both as hilarious and as chilling as a meeting of the Republican Senate Foreign Relations Committee trying to figure out how to accept Iran's help in fighting the Islamist State:  can't be done, by Republicans.   

The atheist government of China trying to figure out how to frame an edict directed to the corps of the Dali Lama, to force the corps to reincarnate is -- well, can't be done either.

The Dali Lama, by suggesting that he will not reincarnate, is playing a last, best trick on the Han, who have gone mad with a desire to compel all within the borders of China to adopt the mores that work so well for the Han but that fit with great discomfort with Tibetans, Uighurs, Taiwanese, and many other ethnic groups who find themselves living within the artificial borders of "China."

The political elites of all countries except for the Republic of Tuva play out a Theater of thee Absurd and their power for harm is awful (original mealing).  

Even as this blog post is published, Tibetans are immolating themselves in protest to the Han rule.  One hundred thirty-seven Tibetans have self-immolated since 2009.  There names are here.

Self-immolation hurts.  You have to seriously object to governmental idiocy, and feel helpless to stop its insensible harm to do it.

The Dali Lama's suggestion that he might not reincarnate isn't just a problem for China.  There are five Autonomous Republics in the Russian Federation that have a majority of folks who are Tibetan Buddhist, and who refer the Dali Lama.  A failure by him to reincarnate would cause grater disturbances in those republics and dissension between China and Russia.

Priests praying and beating a drum at a new Buddhist temple in a suburb of Ulan Ude, capital of Buyatia Republic, Russia. Photo: Japhet Weeks

The Times story is after the jump.

Some of the Shia opposition to the Sunni Islamic State

Worth a read. Current info on one anti-ISIS faction in Iraq, a group that has an uneasy  relationship with the US and is seldom described in US media..

As you read, think what outcome in Syria and Iraq Russia, Iran,Turkey, China, the Saudi, and the US would want, when the dust settles and the killing time is  o’re.  Think whom you want as President after Obama’s time is pau.

d

BBC NEWS

MIDDLE EAST

7 July 2014 Last updated at 12:58 ET

The fearsome Iraqi militia vowing to vanquish Isis 

By Jeremy Bowen

BBC Middle East editor, Baghdad

The commander Haji Jawad al-Talabwi fixed me with an unblinking stare and warned me that he was a hard man.

He told me I'd better not reveal the secrets of Asaib Ahl al-Haqq - Iraq's most powerful Shia Muslim fighting group - to foreign intelligence. 

We'd just heard him laying down the law on the phone, issuing a warning to whoever was on the other end that suicide vests had been smuggled in. If the Sunnis helped Isis militants they would be killed, one by one if necessary. 

Haji Jawad was about 5'8" (1.72m) in his boots and combat fatigues, and somewhere in middle age. He looked like the kind of man whose threats should be taken seriously. 

We were in a building they had commandeered in Djail, a small and dusty town about 40 miles (65km) north of Baghdad. 

Haji Jawad is a senior military figure in Asaib Ahl al-Haqq, or League of the Righteous. He seemed to glory in his organisation's fearsome reputation. Isis, he said, knew the kind of men they were facing around Djail. 

"We believe there's a divine promise that we'll win. Our enemies are filled with fear before they even see us. We've had phone calls from most of the villages held by militants, offering to surrender in exchange for their safety," he told me. 

"This shows how terrified the militants are of us - it's because of our expertise in urban and guerrilla warfare, and the experience we gained from fighting against the Americans and the British." 

It is not easy to find the headquarters of Asaib Ahl al-Haqq or to be admitted when you arrive. 

The group, which is also an influential political movement, does not encourage casual callers. It moves its headquarters regularly. 

But we had been invited to meet Sheikh Qais al-Khazali, the leader of Asaib, so there was a friendly welcome. 

Fighting on two fronts

The sheikh, who's around 40, was dressed in the dark robes and white turban of a Shia cleric. 

He emphasised that the group was now a political movement as well as a military force. He claimed, despite its reputation, that it was not sectarian, and would protect all Iraqis against foreign invaders.

The group emerged fighting the Americans and the British after they invaded Iraq in 2003. Among the operations that made them notorious was the kidnap of five British men in 2007, only one of whom survived to be released two years later. 

The sheikh's men have also fought in the Syrian war on the side of the Assad regime, holding the area in Damascus around a revered Shia shrine. 

Qais al-Khazali believes the wars in Syria and Iraq are one and the same. 

"Sending our men to fight in Syria was the right decision," he said. "Al-Qaeda has had a lot of practice in street fighting. If our guys hadn't got the experience in Syria, al-Qaeda and Isis could have taken Baghdad and we wouldn't be sitting here now." 

Asaib Ahl al-Haqq's current building, like so many others in Baghdad, was protected by high blast walls, razor wire and armed men.

One of the guards was wearing a tight sand coloured tee shirt. No-one seemed bothered that it was decorated with the insignia of the US Army, their old enemy, perhaps because it was one dreamt up by a fashion designer somewhere. 

Foreign forces

Inside, Sheikh Qais was blaming the West for Iraq's misfortunes.

It was America and their friends who had brought such trouble on Iraq, opening the door to al-Qaeda and its offshoots, including Isis, now the most deadly Sunni jihadist movement. 

He accused Qatar of funding Isis, as part of a plan to spread "chaos" in the region. Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, was he said funding other Sunni groups, including the Nusra Front, the official al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria.

Asaib Ahl al-Haqq and its leaders make no secrets of their links with the Iranians. Their fighters are trained and supplied by Iran. They are one of the few Iraqi formations that might just scare Isis as much as Isis scares everyone else. 

But Sheikh Qais said there was no need for his Iranian friends to send in their own troops. 

"We don't want foreign military forces from any country. We have enough people in Iraq. We don't have to bring armies in from other countries." 

"If you mean advisers, as you know now in Iraq there are not only Iranian advisors, but there are Americans. And maybe Russians for the [recently imported] Sukhoi jets."

"Iraq as a state isn't strong. It's weak. So it needs advice and weapons. But when it comes to soldiers, Iraq doesn't need anyone else to fight its wars. The Iraqi people are brave and they can defend themselves." 

In the battle zone north of Baghdad his men took the BBC to positions they said were only 500m (500 yards) from Isis fighters. 

Sheikh Qais al-Khazali says his men gained valuable experience from fighting Sunni groups in Syria

The war is being fought in the baking-hot centre of Iraqi territory. 

It is not just having repercussions right across the country. It is spreading instability and threat across the region, especially along the fault line that runs between Shia and Sunnis. 

It might end up affecting countries further afield, in Europe and North America. 

Guns dominate this country. Talk of a political deal to dilute the Shia ascendancy in politics is getting nowhere. Iraq's religious and ethnic fractures deepen by the day. 

China news reports on Iran-iraq trade; Western news doesn't

This news report is interesting mainly because it suggests that China is interested in Iran-Iraq trade.

FYI, Xinhua, per Wikipedia,

The Xinhua News Agency (English pronunciation: /ˌʃɪnˈhwɑː/[1]) is the official press agency of the People's Republic of China. Xinhua is a ministry-level department subordinate to the Chinese central government. Its president is a member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China.

No comparable story has made an appearance in Western new outlets.  Presumably Western political and business interests aren't interested Chinese are.

News |In-Depth
Business

Iran-Iraq trade value reaches 12 billion USD: official
English.news.    2015-01-18 21:50:24 

TEHRAN, Jan. 18 (Xinhua) -- The bilateral trade value of Iran and Iraq has reached 12 billion U.S. dollars, Head of Iran-Iraq Joint Chamber of Commerce Yahya Al-e Eshaq said here on Sunday, according to semi-official Fars news agency.

"An Iranian delegation to be headed by Iran's First Vice-President Eshaq Jahanghiri will soon visit Iraq to discuss further expansion of trade ties between the two countries," Al-e Eshaq said addressing a conference of economic and trade opportunities between two countries.

Iran is seeking a 25-percent share in Iraq's market, he was quoted as saying.

Iranian officials have stressed that development of economic cooperation is the most important priority in the relations between Tehran and Baghdad.

Iran will begin supplying natural gas to neighboring Iraq on a regular basis by May 2015, the director of the National Iranian Gas Company (NIGC) for international affairs announced on Saturday.

Currently, about six to seven kilometers of the pipeline supplying Iraq with Iranian natural gas has yet to be laid on the Iraqi side of the border, Azizollah Ramezani said, according to Tasnim news agency.

Ramezani pointed to the security challenges facing the pipeline on the Iraqi soil, saying that the Iraqi officials have already pledged to take necessary measures in this regard.

Iranian and Iraqi oil ministers on July 21, 2013, signed the first deal to transfer Iran's natural gas to two Iraqi power plants. The project is aimed at supplying Al-Baghdad and Al-Mansouriyah power plants in Iraq with 25 million cubic meters per day of natural gas.

Iraq's imports from Iran include cars, construction materials, medicine, fruits and spices, fish, air conditioners, office furniture, carpets and apparel.

Each month, more than 40,000 Iranians visit Shiite holy sites such as Najaf and Karbala in Iraq, buying religious souvenirs and supporting Iraq's economy through tourism.

◦◦◦◦◦◦◦◦◦◦◦◦

Trade ana pipeline

A reason why Syria is so important to Iran and the Saudi.  

Jihadist threat to Central Asia after the proposed NTO withdrawal from Afghanistan

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace published a scholarly article  about likely jihadist activity in Central Asia—Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan—after NATO completes its withdrawal of forces from Afghanistan this year.

The article addresses this fateful question: Jihadism in Central Asia: A Credible Threat After the Western Withdrawal From Afghanistan? ..The author's introductory paragraphs are here:

Central Asian governments view with alarm and pessimism the withdrawal by the end of 2014 of most of the Western troops that have been present in Afghanistan since a NATO-led security mission began in 2001. 

Kabul’s neighbors expect the already-unstable situation in Afghanistan to deteriorate and threaten their own security and stability. They fear that a radical Islamist regime in Afghanistan will emerge from a Taliban military victory—a scenario that many Central Asian leaders and analysts believe is inevitable and will spill over across Afghanistan’s northern border.

The article's conclusion is here:

CONCLUSION

The gradual withdrawal of NATO-led forces from Afghanistan is currently the most widely debated political event in Central Asia. Governments, diplomats, and security analysts are constantly speculating about the consequences of the drawdown for Central Asian societies. It is simplistic to assert that the departure of Western troops will have no negative impact. Until Afghanistan is truly stabilized under a political actor who is strong and willing enough to target and eliminate Central Asian jihadism and its allies, Kabul’s problems will have an effect on the country’s northern neighbors.

However, the idea that jihadist forces wishing to target the Central Asian regimes will sweep into the Fergana Valley on January 1, 2015, and turn it into a new tribal area or a new Afghanistan is sheer fantasy. The Taliban have been able to count on ethnic and tribal structures as well as on Pashtun nationalism, which made it possible for the movement to have a lasting impact.

The Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan and the Islamic Jihad Union are indeed dangerous groups. But so far, they have not had the same impact on Central Asian nations as the Taliban. The IMU and the IJU are well trained and closely connected to transnational jihadism and al-Qaeda, and they have the professionalism required to strike in their post-Soviet homelands. But a massive spillover from Afghanistan and Pakistan that would destabilize the region’s leaders is a pipe dream.

In fact, the impact of these groups will be as significant as the Central Asian regimes allow it to be. The jihadists that threaten them are doomed to remain small groups, as Central Asian societies are clearly unwilling to follow the militants’ extremist political path.

The governments of the region have a great opportunity after 2014. The regimes must institute the necessary police and border-control operations to avoid incursions. At the same time, they must get serious about the other problems emanating from Afghanistan, including drug trafficking, and work within the framework of international bodies such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization to stabilize their southern neighbor. And they must resist the temptation to disproportionately assert the jihadist danger abroad. Above all, they must focus on developing domestic policies that take full account of the social and economic issues that could provide the jihadists with new recruits in the future.

Central Asian leaders need to learn from their own past mistakes, and from those of Arab authoritarian regimes, and adopt a reformist mind-set in the way they deal with political and religious affairs. It will probably take a generational change for this lesson to be truly understood. Repression of opposition and the promotion of local Islam have worked in the short term, but such tools might not be enough in the longer term.

Unfortunately, as the issue of Afghanistan is so close to home, Central Asian leaders might not have the luxury of time to change their ways. After 2014, the region’s governments will need to decide whether to stay the course or to adopt a more reformist path. The latter choice could help safeguard Central Asia’s stability while Afghanistan gradually rebuilds itself.

Jihadist groups operating in Central Asia pose a real threat, but they are not the only or even the primary danger facing the region’s regimes.

The states of Central Asia—Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan—are closely watching the political situation in Afghanistan, a neighbor with whom three of them share a border. This situation concerns them very deeply.

∼∼∼∼∼∼∼∼∼∼
Blog author's comments:

Here is a map of  South and Central Asia:

Here is a map of present and potential members of the Turkic Council:

Aquamarine are the present members; blue are potential members.

Here is a map of the Fergana Valley, referred to in the article:

The full article is reprinted after the jump.

Central Asia is more important to you than you might think.

The countries named are all Turkic-speaking.  Four of them have joined Azerbaijan and Turkey in the Turkic Council, an intergovernmental agency dedicated to further deepening comprehensive cooperation among Turkic Speaking States, as well as making joint contributions to peace and stability in the region and in the world. Member States have confirmed their commitment to democratic values, human rights, the rule of law, and principles of good governance.

The Union will in time become something like the European Union.  Trade barriers between member states have been eliminated, and they are now engaged in joint military exercises.

Turkey has the strongest military in the Middle East.

Much of Central Asia is awash in petrochemicals, and is vigorously courted by the US, China, and Russia. NATO is currently scheduled to withdraw from Afghanistan by the end of this year; think of that with NATO's new agreement to become involved in Syria and Iraq, because of Islamist activity there.  The West is unlikely to cede Central Asia to Russia and China without a contest of wills.

Please take a look at the article; see what you think.