Syrian General Manaf Tlass: Neither Here Nor There Sunday, Jul 8 2012 

Uncategorized Sandboxer 6:18 pm

By Sharmine Narwani

The departure of Brigadier General Manaf Tlass from Syria continues to make headlines around the world. But amidst the fanfare, the question of whether this latest development has lasting significance is not at all clear. There are several points to consider:

First, gaining the “defection” of important members of the Sunni community and senior commanders of the Syrian Army has been a central goal of the external opposition and their foreign backers since the onset of protests in 2011. This is the Assad-must-go-no-matter-what crowd, and splitting key pro-regime communities (major cities, secular Sunnis, business elite, government officials, armed forces and minority groups) has been their only strategy to provoke regime change, outside of foreign military assistance.

Second, the regime-changers have gone to great lengths to actively promote “cracks” in these communities. This includes widespread misinformation campaigns as outlined by Stratfor last December, and through carefully calibrated unconventional warfare tactics as explained in this article. A slew of current and former regime officials/confidantes have been approached by external parties this past year to – if necessary – manufacture these fissures. One former senior government official who is known to be dissatisfied with Assad’s performance has told me personally that he was offered a specific large sum of money by the US Congress – brokered by a third nation – just to show up at a critical “Friends of Syria” opposition meeting. Gaining key defections from Syria has become that important.

Third, Brigadier General Tlass is, frankly, not that important from either a military or political perspective.

Since the news of his departure broke a few days ago, Tlass has stayed quiet. It is unlikely that he has “defected” – that would suggest he is joining the opposition, and it is doubtful that any but the most opportunistic of them would embrace a figure so closely associated with the Assad history in Syria.

But here’s a tidbit that hasn’t made the rounds yet in this well-hyped story: until very recently, Tlass was telling members of Basher al-Assad’s inner circle that he wanted the post of Minister of Defense. (more…)

 

In Lebanon, The Plot Thickens Wednesday, Aug 31 2011 

Foreign Affairs and Hezbollah and Israel and Lebanon and Middle East and Uncategorized and United Nations , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Sandboxer 3:03 pm

By Sharmine Narwani

The Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL), the UN Security Council-initiated investigation into the February 14, 2005 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri, formally unveiled its indictment of four alleged Hezbollah “supporters” last week.

There was nothing new in this document. Almost all details had been leaked to various media outlets at separate intervals since 2009.

But it is a compelling read nonetheless. There is no longer any need for conjecture, supposition or doubt – the heart of the case against the accused is now spelled out in black and white.

A Case Built Entirely on Telecommunications Data
The Tribunal’s case appears to be built on a simple premise: the “co-location” of cellular phones – traceable to the accused four – that coincide heavily with Hariri’s whereabouts and crucial parts of the murder plot in the six weeks prior to his death.

Using Call Data Records (CDRs) – which track incoming and outgoing calls, time, date, duration, and importantly, the location from which calls are made (identifiable by the nearby “cell towers” that carry a mobile phone call) – the STL identified a covert network of mobile phones called the “Red Network” used in the planning of the assassination.

The Tribunal reveals that CDR analysis links the Red Network to four other colour-coded cell phone networks, some of which are non-covert, i.e. the Personal Mobile Phones (PMPs) of the indictees. In short, what this means is that the suspected covert phone networks (Red, Blue and Green) were very frequently making calls from the same areas as the personal mobile phones of the four accused men.

Indeed, the intricate details and frequency of the various phone call-overlaps between the covert Hariri-tracking networks and the personal phones of the indictees make this appear to be a slam-dunk case. How could any of this be coincidence? In the two hours before the assassination, there were 33 calls along Hariri’s route within the Red Network alone, co-located with the PMPs of the suspects.

Not So Fast…
But there isn’t a literate soul in Lebanon who does not know that the country’s telecommunications networks are highly infiltrated – whether by competing domestic political operatives or by foreign entities. For its part, the Lebanese resistance group Hezbollah – with which the indictees are allegedly affiliated – has spent much of the past year explaining in painstaking detail the hazards of relying on telecom data that is readily penetrable by the state’s enemies.

This narrative has been backed by Lebanese officials, convicted “spies” and outed employees of telecom companies.

But how does this impact the STL’s meticulous circumstantial case?

On the one hand, Hezbollah supporters may very well have assassinated Rafiq Hariri – whether through direct orders from the resistance group’s leadership or in conjunction with other individuals or governments.

On the other hand, the telecommunication analysis provided by the Tribunal could instead represent an intricately planned and executed effort to frame Hezbollah.

It could go something like this:

Assume for a moment that there was in fact a genuine Hezbollah surveillance operation to track the whereabouts of Hariri. This, in itself, is not unusual by Lebanese standards – it is widely assumed in the Middle East that political camps engage in this kind of monitoring activities of key figures. Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah last summer even televised intercepted Israeli video footage tracking Hariri’s various routes to and from Beirut in the time period leading up to his death. No biggie, right?

Caveat: In this scenario, the Hezbollah operatives use their personal mobile phones during their surveillance ops. They have no covert phones as suggested by the Tribunal’s colour-coded networks theory. In fact, the colour-coded networks and their history of phone calls don’t even really exist – they have been entirely fabricated and then cleverly co-located with the Hezbollah PMPs by an unknown entity that hacked into cell tower data logs.

Or assume instead that the assassination plot is entirely accurate as outlined by the STL. There were indeed colour-coded covert networks led by the Red Network to carry out the dirty deed – only no Hezbollah operatives were involved.

Caveat: In this scenario, an unknown entity has simply co-located targeted Hezbollah-supporter PMPs with the colour-coded Networks to make it seem as though there is a connection with these individuals. (more…)

 

Iranian “Feud:” Much Ado About Nothing? Saturday, May 14 2011 

Uncategorized Sandboxer 5:43 pm

By Sharmine Narwani

A public spat between Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the country’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made the international headlines last week. Politics is rarely ever a harmonious business in any country, so why the brouhaha over this particular stand-off?

To be sure, the disagreement itself was an unusual occurrence. Khamenei’s very public reinstatement of Intelligence Minister Heydar Moslehi – citing Maslehat or the “greater good of the nation,” no less – shortly after Ahmadinejad removed him could only be viewed as a tough dressing down. And then Ahmadinejad unexpectedly raised the stakes further by boycotting cabinet meetings for eleven days.

The whole point of a Supreme Leader – or Velayat-e-Faghih – as conceived by the Islamic Revolution’s founders, is that he is the ultimate arbiter over both state and religious affairs.

Ahmadinejad’s defiant snit was a direct challenge to the authority of the Supreme Leader. It served to catapult this affair into the political stratosphere, and he was eventually forced to back down.

The Regional Dimension
But there’s more to this. Tehran sits at the epicenter of a geopolitical struggle between two battling regional worldviews. One ”bloc” is comfortable with existing American and Israeli hegemony in the Middle East and consists of many of the autocratic leaders now being swept away in the Arab Awakening. The other is the Iran-led “Resistance Bloc” that seeks to end this foreign hegemony and embrace regional and national self-determination.

As such, every twitch out of Iran is being pounced on by the pro-US bloc, now openly gunning for the Islamic Republic to experience its own domestic revolt, and doing everything it can to facilitate this.

The anti-Iran brigade also extends its aversions to Tehran’s closest allies in Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas, while keeping a tight lid on other regional players prone to take independent stances like Iraq, Qatar, Oman and now even Egypt and Lebanon.

A key reason for the escalation of activities against the Islamic Republic is the emergence of the Arab Awakening in Persian Gulf nations like Bahrain and Yemen, where a wave of reform could 1) threaten the dominance of Iran’s biggest regional foe, and close US ally, Saudi Arabia, and 2) fundamentally shift the regional balance of power toward the resistance bloc.

The wholly domestic dispute between Khamenei and Ahmadinejad thus serves as an opportunity to highlight and exacerbate divisions within Iran’s body politic – hence the intense media scrutiny.

What these regional players fail to recognize is that over thirty-two years, Iran has demonstrated that national security interests trump domestic politics every single time. (more…)

 

Three Mideast Stink Bombs Friday, Apr 8 2011 

Uncategorized , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Sandboxer 8:28 am

By Sharmine Narwani

Popular revolts may be spinning through the Arab world with a fervor and determination not seen in decades, but efforts to sidetrack the reform momentum are also gaining strength.

Three issues have plagued the region for decades and threaten to derail progress at every turn. I call them the Mideast’s “Stink Bombs” – hyper-divisive issues that inflame passions and serve a politicized minority only: 1) Religious vs. Secular; 2) Sunni vs. Shia; 3) Arabs vs. Iranians.

While protestors have been cautious in avoiding confrontations on these issues (who said the Arab Street is not smart?), political figures inside and outside the Mideast, and extremists on all sides, have sought at regular intervals to undermine national and regional unity with these polarizing issues.

The Stink Bombs have subverted the role of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, al Nahda in Tunisia, the Ikhwan in Jordan, and stirred sectarian strife between Shia and Sunni in Bahrain and Yemen – two countries that also depend on the Iran card to justify all their unlawful actions against civilians. The Stink Bombs have worked to prevent common cause on the Palestinian issue, and to undermine regional resistance to US, Israeli and western hegemonic designs, by keeping populations divided and in conflict.

Confidence in government authorities is at such a low ebb among Arab populations, that in some cases, these threats are being ignored or challenged head on. But that will not always be the case, and protestors and reformists alike will need to be vigilant in guarding against attempts to hijack progress with these long-held dogmas.

Let’s look at the Stink Bombs in more detail:

Stink Bomb #1: Religious versus Secular
This one has been played out skillfully through narratives that have long sought to associate Islam with extremism and terrorism. Washington’s close friends in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, Morocco, Algeria and other places have exploited the “Islamist” narrative to put a lid on moderate Muslim groups within their countries and gain unfettered US political and financial support for their elite.

For decades, grassroots Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood have been either banned outright or subjected to intimidation, detentions and political machinations that have deprived them of fair participation in governing bodies. After September 11, Washington’s narratives on Islamists held them all to be one and the same – on virtual par with America’s greatest enemy, Al Qaeda – and any effort to differentiate between groups was largely ignored in the political mainstream.

Any non-ideological US area specialist could have pointed to half a dozen groups on the US list of terrorist organizations that should not have been featured in that unfortunate blacklist, but they would have been fighting a tidal wave during the height of the Afghanistan and Iraq occupations, the 2006 Lebanon war, and the orchestrated removal of Hamas after its election victory.

When the Bush administration failed to achieve even its most elementary war goals, then UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband took a half-hearted shot at pointing out the obvious:

Miliband wrote in the Guardian in January 2010 that efforts to “lump” extremists together had been counterproductive, playing “into the hands of those seeking to unify groups with little in common.”

But instead, the West stood aside during recent elections in Egypt and Jordan when the ruling secular establishments absolutely undermined the participation of their respective Islamist political candidates and parties.

Copts forming protective circle around praying Muslims

During the wave of protests in Tahrir Square in January and February, the world witnessed the schism between populations and their rulers on this hot-button issue. After attacks on politically-secular Coptic Christians who make up ten percent of the nation’s populace, Egyptians demonstrated their skepticism about the source of this sectarian strife in a startling display of unity. That Friday, Copts linked arms to form a protective circle around praying Muslims. On Sunday, Muslims returned the favor for Christians.

To be sure, secularists and religious minorities don’t face an easy time in the Middle East, particularly with the boom in Salafist extremism and growing conservatism experienced, in particular, after the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Of the three Stink Bombs, this is the one that has some legs in a troubled Middle East where foreign intervention and autocratic rule has ensured stagnation on the political and social fronts. But this does not negate the very real threat that religious and secular groups – both ideologues in their own way – can be exploited to divide and manage populations.

Stink Bomb #2: Sunni versus Shia
With roots in an age-old rivalry between those who believed the Prophet Muhammad’s successors should be selected from among his faithful companions (Sunni) and those who believed that Muslims should be led by members of the Prophet’s family (Shia), this issue is essentially a political one – the Sunni and Shia share the most fundamental Islamic beliefs and articles of faith, after all. (more…)

 

Looking Under My Bed For Al Qaeda Wednesday, Mar 10 2010 

Uncategorized , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Sandboxer 7:11 pm


by Sharmine Narwani
I looked under my bed last night. Just in case. And don’t tell me you haven’t either. With Al Qaeda popping up in new countries every day, it seemed prudent to make sure a spanking new Salafi jihadist cell wasn’t being formed under my California Kingsize mattress.

Known Al Qaeda host nations: Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Pakistan, Jordan – purportedly even Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Turkey, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Syria, Xinjiang in China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Myanmar, Indonesia, Mindanao in the Philippines, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Libya, Nigeria, Tunisia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya, Dagestan, Jammu and Kashmir, Sudan, Kenya, Tanzania, Azerbaijan, Eritrea, Uganda, Ethiopia, and – drum roll – the United States.

Actually, with Al Qaeda’s strong internet recruitment abilities, let’s just scratch that last paragraph and grandly state that this entrepreneurial Salafi franchise is in potentially as many nations as McDonald’s.

Afghanistan was the start-up incubator. Operating out of a cave and strapped to a dialysis machine, the canny Saudi-born businessman Osama bin Laden took advantage of the hospitality of fellow Salafists — the Taliban — to engineer a magnificent American investment in his franchise, and grow a global brand. And so, thanks to the US’s penchant for disproportionate reaction, a rag-tag group of Saudi-funded jihadists hiding out in rough Afghani terrain with a small cadre of operatives scattered around the world, became the new hot stock overnight.

And like any investor worth his salt, the United States looked to an untapped market — Iraq — where it then launched its first world-class subsidiary. Yes, that’s right. There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq before the Bush administration initiated its ill-fated market penetration. Not under the watch of the fiercely-secular dictator Saddam Hussein, certainly.

But then American troops swooped in and Al Qaeda, Iraq was born. Every Salafi jihadist still smarting from the US occupation of sacred Muslim soil in Saudi Arabia during Iraq War I — the raison d’etre of Al Qaeda — now flocked into the new Iraqi battlefield to prevent a second occupation.

And when the US “surged” in Iraq and Afghanistan, they went elsewhere to revamp, re-arm and recruit. Hence, the presence in Pakistan. And when we “drone-d” in Pakistan, they swarmed to Yemen and Somalia. And when we “funded” Yemen, they reared up in Jordan.

Ergo, every time we make a move in the Muslim world, we invest in Al Qaeda’s nimble fund-and-recruit franchise enterprise. In the world of venture capital, the US would be akin to a Greylock, Softbank or Kleiner-Perkins.

Read full article

 

Saudis Give Nod to Israeli Raid on Iran – The Sunday Times Monday, Jul 6 2009 

Uncategorized , , , , , Sandboxer 6:47 am

Here we go… That coven of Iran-nuclear-drumbeaters that consist of Israel, Saudi Arabia and Egypt are off again.  Israel’s Mossad and other senior politicians have apparently been in secret talks with Saudi officials about gaining access to their airspace in the event that Israel decides to launch attacks on Iran’s alleged nuclear sites.

I often wonder if there is ever any attempt at injecting some plain old common sense into this debate.  If – and this is a big “if” – Iran actually ever gains nuclear weapons capability and decides against all logic to launch a warhead into Israeli territory…does it occur to the coven that amongst the many victims of nuclear fallout will be scores of Muslims?  Palestinians, including Iranian allies Hamas; Lebanese, including Iran’s closest regional pals, Hezbollah; Syrians, a close partner of the Islamic Republic?  Israel ain’t that big, and any nuclear attack will affect friends and foes alike.

But the wardrums will continue because – nay – there is no common sense here.  Just political posturing and distraction tactics to avert global attention away from the mind-numbing inability of these three American allies to strike a Palestinian peace deal, tackle real democracy and lead the region to a better future.

Their days are numbered as Mideast powerbrokers, and they are scrambling to make themselves relevant by creating bogeymen where they don’t exist.

Don’t you just love that the same guy who is taking these secret meetings with the Saudis just announced a few weeks ago that Iran’s ability to create nuclear weapons has just been moved to 2014?  Meir Dagan, Mossad’s chief for the past seven years, took away all sense of urgency by his latest proclamation, which incidentally now matches the CIA’s estimate for an Iranian weapons program.  So, then what’s with all the talk of air raids through Saudi airspace?  Perhaps they just need something to take the heat off that pesky issue of illegal settlements and peace with Palestinians.  Or maybe they’re more worried these days about Americans and Europeans getting all warm and fuzzy about Iranians – now that post-election events in the Islamic Republic have blown a hole through the Iranian stereotype and revealed a country that is politically and culturally diverse, and seems to take its democracy more seriously than most in the region.  That must surely scare the pants off some Saudis.

Bookmark and Share

 

Did anyone notice Mossad’s new outlook on an Iran bomb? – The Daily Star Tuesday, Jun 30 2009 

Uncategorized , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Sandboxer 4:24 am

Mossad chief Meir Dagan just contradicted Israel’s intelligence community by claiming that Iran will not have a nuclear weapon in hand until 2014.  Israelis have been extending this mystical date since the late 1990s, with the most recent scenario of Iran’s readiness to launch a warhead being…2009/10.  We are all either idiots who will readily believe whatever drivel Israel throws our way – or their intelligence is fundamentally and consistently flawed.  Either way, we should no longer be inclined to pay any attention to Israel’s beating of war drums over Iran’s nuclear program.  Hell, I could probably take an educated guess about the Islamic Republic’s nuclear agenda and beat the Israeli intelligence community by a mile.

Dagan’s announcement has placed Israeli PM Benjamin Netahyahu in a bind, however.  The peace-averse Israeli leader was counting on the Iran nuclear threat to divert attention from any real progress toward a two-state solution and his continued support of illegal settlement activity in occupied Palestinian lands.  Now that the head of Mossad has thrown a spanner in the works, what will Netanhayu’s next step be?  There is clearly no impending threat from an Islamic Republic that not only has no nukes in hand, but is also mired in post-election unrest that will necessitate a heavy domestic focus for the forseeable future.  Netanyahu is as cunning as they come, and his next manufactured distraction will undoubtedly be as entertaining as it is false.

 

The Trick When Talking to Iran – LA Times Monday, Jun 29 2009 

Uncategorized , , , , , , , , Sandboxer 5:58 am

The Obama adminsitration is going to try to open negotiations with Iran come what may – “talking” to foes is part of their core values.  And Iran’s nuclear program is item number one on their agenda.  Whether their negotiating partner is Khamenei-Ahmadinejad or a new reformist government doesn’t fundamentally matter.

“We do not believe that talking is a reward for good behavior, or that not talking is a good punishment for bad behavior. We’ve seen what comes from not talking. In 2001, Iran had zero [nuclear enrichment] centrifuges; now they have more than 5,000, and maybe more than 7,000. Not talking wasn’t a particularly useful thing.”

 

Israel’s Settlements are on Shaky Ground – LA Times Monday, Jun 29 2009 

Uncategorized , , , , , , , , Sandboxer 5:42 am

Sarah Leah Whitson in the LA Times:  “The debate over Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories is often framed in terms of whether they should be “frozen” or allowed to grow “naturally.” But that is akin to asking whether a thief should be allowed merely to keep his ill-gotten gains or steal some more.”

 

Want to Stop Israeli Settlements? Follow the Dollars – Washington Post Monday, Jun 29 2009 

Uncategorized , , , , , , , , , Sandboxer 5:12 am

Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territory have long been considered illegal by the international community. US President Obama’s recent demands that Israel cease all settlement activity reflect diverging interests amongst the two allies. After all, peace plans will go nowhere until Israel shows serious intent, and the settlement issue has emerged as the first major test of wills.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is playing games to see what he can get away with, and it’s time to do a “James Baker” on this slick dick. An old 1979 State Department legal ruling determined that Israeli settlement-building in occupied Palestinian territory “is inconsistent with international law.” Like the Bush-style offensive of clamping down on US-Muslim groups that send funds to supposedly dodgy end-users in the Mideast, the Obama administration can invoke the 1979 ruling as gospel, and chase down any and all US groups that send funds to aid Israel’s settlements.

Hey – if we are serious about pushing through an Israel-Palestine peace deal with a final settlement, we have to wean Israel off decades of mollycoddling so that they sit up straight and understand we mean business. Make it illegal to aid West Bank and Jerusalem settlement activities, and watch things grind to a halt. It doesn’t even have to be too confrontational – get the UN Security Council to do it…and this time sit on our veto.

 

Next Page »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,574 other followers