The Middle East two-step and the Syria-Israel talks that "aren't"

There is no doubt that the bulk of the Middle East is in the middle of a two-step dance. The region, as a whole, stands on the brink of reforms and - using that massively popular catch word today - change. Whether those changes are for the good, only time will tell. But there is no doubt there are hotbeds of "talk" going on everywhere.

Lebanon finds itself not only sans President, but slowly being devoured by Hezbollah, demanding and receiving legislative veto powers. Meanwhile Hezbollah and Israel came to terms, via a German broker, for a prisoner swap - Israel is to receive the remains of the two Israeli soldiers captured in 2006, plus information on a missing Israeli AF pilot from 1986. In exchange Israel hands over "the longest-serving Lebanese prisoner in Israel, Samir Qontar, four other Hizbullah prisoners, the bodies of Hizbullah fighters and maps of mines planted by the Israeli Army in South Lebanon."

Pakistan is busy striking deals with the tribal militants, but honoring the terms seems optional for both sides. S. Waziristan militants insist they remain open for business as a "centre for jihad". Meanwhile the Pak leadership assures the US they will not be pulling the army out of the mountainous regions (violating the agreement), and the militants refuse to exile, or turn over, foreign militants in their midst (also violating the agreement).

Instead some tribal areas are now, effectively, under Taliban rule. A side effect, of course, hits Afghanistan - seeing increased terrorist attacks as Pak militants, temporarily playing nice on their soil, cross the border to reek jihad havoc in Karzai's back yard.

On other fronts, Abbas wants to talk to Hamas. And Ahmadinejad is sipping cha in Japan. Not to be left out of all the talking goin' on, Iraq and US officials wrestle with the base foundation of the two security agreements meant to replace the UN Security Council mandate that expires in Dec 2008. This, of course, has commenter Doug over at Flopping Aces in an apocalyptic tizzy in the "lull in Iraq news" thread, anticipating doom with each leak of yet another 2nd hand, hearsay detail on the undrafted agreements. We'll all have to be patient to see what comes just how much control (or restrictions) the US wants Iraq to possess over our bases and military personnel.

Each of these constantly morphing talk-spots has their own indepth stories unfolding, and short of a great Disney/Pixar flick, is probably the best entertainment around... if you can keep up with it all.

But what's caught my eye this week is the continued attempts at talks, negotiations, and/or appeasement using Turkish eyes between Syria and Israel. Or should I say sorta "talks". Or perhaps talks that really aren't talks, because no one's talking. And if they are, they aren't saying the same thing.

Today we find the media still hasn't got a clue, and the stories vary in this May 30th article from the Jerusalem Post, depending upon the source info. But, by all standards, the two States haven't thrown in the towel on their unofficial efforts. Reaching an agreement is a major step forward for transforming ME relations. It not only affords Israel an additional buffer in the region - a Syrian policeman, so to speak - but puts a rift between Hezbollah, Iran and Syria. And there would be one more "sorta" western ally in the ME fold.

To add to the confusion, a May 21sth media account from Haaretz says that effort went down in flames "following Israel's refusal to hold talks on an official level - and a Syrian refusal to restrict the talks to an "academic level". But an Islam Online account the same day seems to indicate the efforts are still underway.

If we read today's June 6th Asian Times, it appears that the talks do seem to have some underground life - despite all the media confusion. More than interesting in this account is that Iran is rather miffed with Syria's steps closer to not only Israel and western allies, but also towards other modern Arab states.

What with chasing our tails on the carousel of conflicting info, it's almost impossible to confirm exacatly what is going on between the two. These vague "secret meetings", but done with full knowledge of Israel and Syrian officials (huh?), were (and still are?) considered indirect. (underline emphasis added for Obama fans...) They were meant to create a principle of agreement as a "non-document" ... or "a document of understandings that is not signed and lacks legal standing", and is political in nature. And all of this has been going on, in some fashion off and on, since 2004. So to avoid misinformation on specifics that no on can agree on as fact, I'll speak in generalities.

The historic bone of contention with Israel and Syria has always been the Golan Heights borders (using territory as of June 4th, 1967), water (Sea of Galilee, Jordan River, and Lake Kinneret), and Syria's promise to end support for Hezbollah and Hamas, plus distance itself from Iran.

Israel's Olmert is ready to give up the Golan Heights, despite the objects of the Israeli's (70% per those pesky polls...). Israeli's firmly believe this is Olmert's way of diverting attention from accusations of accepting bribes from a US businessman. 18,000 supporters of the Jewish Golan settlers have promised to bolt the coalition of Olmert gives away the territory.

Israel's motivation for a tentative peace with Syria... as long as the price is not too high to accept... is self-evident. They remain an island in the Middle East under constant threat and assault. But what is Syria's motivation in bolting the Hamas/Hezbollah/Iran fold?

Certainly, in the wake of Israel's bombing of the suspected Syrian nuke site last year, and their only partial cooperation with the IAEA to inspect other sites, they have first hand experience that Israel doesn't hesitate to exercise preemptive strikes when they feel it's warranted.

But Syria has other reasons. And it comes down to simply economic survival and oil.

Syria is a non-OPEC oil producer. And the oil output of Syria, and other non-OPEC members (including Bahrain, Oman, Yemen) has been steading dwindling in the past years. Add the fact that al Qaeda strikes in Yemen have hindered their oil exploration, effectively scaring off companies who would willingly come in to increase production.

Syrian Minister of Petroleum and Mineral Resources Sufian Alaw worries that the decline, due to technological problems and depletion of reserves, will lead to Syria soon becoming an oil importer instead of supplier. Tho Syria is not an OPEC member, they are dependent upon the organization for defense of their oil prices. With the rising costs of oil, and the effect of int'l sanctions on Syria, they are taking some economic hits that do not envision such a rosy future.

Thus Syria has been playing both sides... on one hand, they show up at the Annapolis Middle East Peace Conference last year, as if to prove they do not take their marching orders from Tehran. On the other hand, they assure Iran that a working alliance with the west will not cause them to abandon their Iran/Hezbollah and Hamas allies.

Yet it is these half-hearted steps that has the US, which has previously opposed Israeli-Syrian chats, now stand neutral and without major opposition. Bush recognized that Syria had the most to gain by peace with Israel, enabling a lifting of the isolation imposed by the beltway since 2003.

As far as Hezbollah, giving up support for them is not so costly for Syria, per Joshua Landis of Syria Comment. In an interview for CFR discussing the possibilities of such a peace between the two states, Landis points out that if Israel willingly cedes Golan Heights back to Syria, they have no need to arm Lebanese Hezbollah for armed resistance against Israel. A very easy concession to make.

The one sticking point, per Landis, is Hamas in Syria. They cannot turn over Hamas leader, Khaled Meshaal. Turning away Palestine would be a "bitter pill" for the Syrians.

Syria faces a cross roads of what is their greater need... a tentative peace with Israel, and the financial relief of being a quasi-western ally, open to foreign investments? Or continued alliance with the enemies of the west, and a paralyzed economy. We already know they will concede... now it's to see just how much.

PT I: Hezbollah & Clinton era DTSA... 6 Degrees of Separation?

May 22nd turned into an odd cascade of bizarrely related events. Greg Grant over at Tribal Wars drew my attentions to a WSJ article with his post ... Communications Networks and Irregular War. Simultaneously on the Hill, Hawaii's Sen. Akaka was giving a speech on Dodd's Export Enforcement Act of 2007. The link between these two events is not only a "six degrees of separation" convergence, but may potentially span events and whistle blowing from over a decade ago.

From Grant's Tribal Wars article:

You think irregular fighters realize the force multiplier effect of a secure communications network? An interesting article in todays Wall Street Journal details Hezbollah's victory in Lebanon. I found the bit about Hezbollah's comms network, and the lengths they went to wire the country with fiber optic, fascinating. After the fighting in 2006, it was obvious command and control was one of Hezbollah's strong points. Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah apparently calls the network the group's "No. 1 weapon."

"Fascinating"? I was beyond fascinated... Something started clicking upstairs. More from the referenced WSJ article:

Hezbollah reached a bargain with the weak Lebanese government that essentially gave the Islamic group veto power in a new government to be formed.

The deal comes two weeks after Hezbollah flashed its military might by seizing Beirut neighborhoods to protest efforts to rein it in. The trigger was unusual: Hezbollah was expanding a secret communications network, and the government wanted it dismantled.

Okay... Hezbollah's getting a more powerful foot in the door with veto powers. Got that. But what was that about a "secret communications network"??

The catalyst for Lebanon's recent spasm was the government's discovery several months ago that Hezbollah was secretly expanding a network that could provide secure communications in times of battle. The network, the fight it sparked and Wednesday's resolution provide a dramatic illustration of Hezbollah's surging power in Lebanon.

Prime Minister Siniora ordered the network dismantled in early May. He also ordered the dismissal of an airport official his government labeled an ally of Hezbollah. After Hezbollah's violent response -- it seized neighborhoods, then handed them over to the neutral army -- the government was forced to rescind both orders last week.

To paraphrase the next events, the suspicions were raised last year when the Telecommunications Minister got a tip that there were spools of fiber optics being purchased in a southern Lebanon village. After investigations and reports of mysterious workers doing installations over private lands, they discovered that Hezbollah had expanded the network to over 200 miles... wireless, and safeguards to continue even if damaged in times of war.

State officials always knew Hezbollah had a wireless network communication system direct to Syria. However they thought it "limited" and not a threat. In fact, they had reported it to the UN some years ago.

However they had no idea the scope of the secret expansions - with miles of cable laid under the newly paved roads. A feat accomplished in conjunction with the Iranian Headquarters for the Reconstruction of Lebanon, who's completed about 400 reconstruction projects in the country since 2006. Needless to say, the Lebanese government officials are most unhappy.

The telecom minister said some of the equipment was imported from "the West," declining to be specific. Lebanese officials also believe Iran supplied some.

Since the government's public challenge to the network, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah has left little doubt of its importance. In a news conference May 8, he defended it as a vital weapon against Israel, whose occupation of southern Lebanon from 1982 to 2000 helped give rise to Hezbollah.

Calling the system Hezbollah's "No. 1 weapon," the black-turbaned leader declared that "it is forbidden to touch [anything] linked to the networks, whether an engineer, a company or a mayor. Touching them is like touching me."

Meanwhile, back on the Hill... Sen. Akaka says:

...snip... The U.S. export control system is a relic of the Cold War and does not effectively meet our national and economic security needs.

Recent examples demonstrate the challenges of controlling sensitive exports. Dual-use technology has been diverted through Britain and the United Arab Emirates, UAE, to Iran. A recent attempt by two men to smuggle sensitive thermal imaging equipment to China shows that Iran is not alone in its desire for sensitive technology. However, the effort to control the flow of dual-use technology goes beyond our borders. Working with the international community is critical as technologies which were once only produced in the U.S. are now being produced elsewhere.

Let's see. Syria, Iran, China, telecommunications, imports from west, US export controversies. I feel the dust blow off a few brain cells, filled with hazy memories... This is not a new story. YES! Got it! Dr. Peter Leitner. A Clinton era whistle blower who achieved considerably less fame, nor the revered iconic status awarded to la femme Plame. A rather warped reality when you consider Valerie's concern and "damage" was centered on, and confined to, her personal life. That's if you call book deals, movies and lucrative private enterprises... "damage".

But Leitner and his whistle blowing subject - export licensing - is considerably less sexy and appealing to Joe Q. Public. The nation was captivated with the dramatized "outing" of a domestic-based, paper-pusher-and-personnel-recruiting spy with a good set of gams. "Ho hum" about export licensing and a few radios, right?

So I once again dug out some old links under "Syria" I had stored for the Paul Sperry WND article, "US Equipped Terror Sponsors" back on Sept 12, 2001. Leitner was discussing how the Clinton admin "rubber-stamped the shipment of top-end military-related telecommunications equipment to Syria". Much of this article bears repeating today, almost seven years later.

"We're giving them spread-spectrum radios, which are almost impossible to break into. We're giving them fiber optics. We're giving them a high level of encryption. We're giving them computer networks that can't be tapped," Leitner said.

Spread-spectrum radios, originally designed for military use only, change their frequency constantly.

snip

Leitner posits that the NSA wasn't able to detect the Islamic terrorists' plot because of the "high quality of the communications gear that they've been acquiring over the last couple of years, thanks to the Clinton administration's decontrols on advanced telecommunications equipment."

Terrorists' secured telecom gear "makes it infinitely more difficult to get even early warning signs" about their activities, he said.

snip

"I've testified to Congress that it will take serious numbers of body bags before we wake up to the need to tighten dual-use export controls," he said. "Unfortunately, we've got them now."

"This is so tragic and yet so preventable," he said. "Now we're going to have to knock out their [terrorist] camps, just like we had to bomb the Iraqis several times now to try to take out the fiber-optics network that the Chinese are installing in Iraq's air-defense systems."

"Yet, it was the Clinton administration that gave the Chinese the technology to give to Iraq," he noted.

This was 2001. Just three months earlier that year, now under the early Bush admin, the Commerce Dept was still asking Leitner to okay "exports of dual-use telecom equipment to Syria".

He denied the request, and was asked to reconsider. He denied it again, arguing in a letter to Karen Vogel, the Commerce export licensing officer who requested the approval, that:

"Doing so vastly upgrades the C3 and C41 systems of the Syrian military and Intelligence Services. My concerns are also obviously compounded by the fact that Syria is one of the foremost state sponsors of terrorism."

Leitner continued: "Since an 'upgraded telecom infrastructure' will also greatly facilitate Syrian planning, coordination, secrecy and execution of terrorist acts, as well as direct military communications, I see absolutely no basis for any position other than a denial."

Vogel argued in an earlier letter that her request came on the heels of eight previous approvals of licenses for similar exports to Syria.

Which brings me back to the Hezbollah/Syria network. A network "secure in times of battle" suggests to me technology such as spectrum spread with it's random changing frequencies. Fiber optics? Could it be that this network was undetectable by Israel's usually superior intelligence? And, if equipped with masking technology, how likely is it that we, ourselves, managed to provide the very equipment that allows the enemy to... yet again...plot right under our noses? All this 7 years after 911?

Part II is the story, as much as I can piece together, of Leitner - both before this article, after and where he is now. What he had done and tried to do in the 90s, and what the Commerce and admin officials did to him.

But most importantly, what is the status today of these lackadaisical export regulations that allows the enemy to not only hide their plans, but potentially put dual use nuclear weapon technology within their reach?

Stay tuned for Part II... coming soon.

A new era of power struggles in Pakistan...the same ol' players

Nawaz Sharif has returned to Pakistan. And unlike his previous attempt, where he was immediately deported, he now has a tentative welcome from Musharraf.

It's hard to tell whether Sharif unpacked, or prepared files to run for PM in the Jan elections first. But there's no denying Sharif is back, and again ready to take control... and pontificating all the "right" phrases.

On his return on Sunday, Sharif vowed to “continue his fight against dictatorship”.

In his brief address at the airport in Lahore, he said: “Pakistan was not created for dictators or emergencies. It was created for democracy and the rule of law. I am here to play my role in ridding the country of dictatorship and bringing back the rule of law.”

About boycotting the next elections, he said the All Parties Democratic Movement - an alliance of parties opposed to Musharraf's rule - would assess the situation after the expiry of the four-day notice it had given to the government.

“But the movement is committed to democracy and constitutionalism. That is why it has demanded restoration of the judiciary to its pre-Nov 3 position.”

Musharraf declared a state of emergency in Pakistan on 3 November, citing rising extremism and an unruly judiciary. He sacked several Supreme Court judges who had shown judicial independence and replaced them with other judges.

Sharif, told the crowd that he had not come to the country under any deal.

“My roots are among the masses and I will never ditch them. I will live and die for the people of Pakistan,” he said amid a thunderous applause.

What a laugh... the words "democracy and constitutionalism" now bandied about by Sharif is truly a publicity campaign that belies Sharif's history. This is no pro-western, pro-freedom leader, as he or unsuspecting, history challenged western media would have us believe.

Even from the not-so-western-friendly Al Jazeera profile site

As chief minister of the populous Punjab from 1988 to 1990, Sharif challenged Bhutto, who became prime minister after Zia's death in an aeroplane explosion.

Sharif - with the military's blessing - was elected prime minister after Bhutto's dismissal in 1990, but after three years he was sacked on corruption charges following differences with Ghulam Ishaq Khan, the then-president.

Instead of accepting the dismissal, Sharif launched a scathing attack on Khan, considered his former mentor and top representative of the military-led establishment.

Second term

Sharif bounced back to the premiership in 1996 after the dismissal of Bhutto's second government on corruption charges.

He then won a massive two-thirds majority in 1997 elections, which emboldened him to take on the army - the institution which has ruled Pakistan for more than half its existence since independence 60 years ago.

Sharif also moved to increase the powers of his office, reversing a constitutional amendment that allowed the president to dismiss the prime minister.

Later, Pakistan's western allies grew concerned when he sought to introduce sharia (Islamic law), with himself as the so-called "commander of the faithful".

Let's review... Changing the constitution to increase his power and insure he couldn't be canned as PM, corruption charges (like Bhutto), and convicted (with life sentence imposed) for hijacking, attempted murder and terrorism. Then, of course, there's that pesky attempt to instill Shariah law in Pakistan. Sounds like a staunch freedom & democracy lover to me... not.

This is no new welcome entity in Pakistan. Sharif, who appointed Musharraf as chief of the army, did work side by side until they parted ways over Sharif's personal power quest and plans for making Pakistan a strict Islam nation.

So the big three are back... slugging it out for Pakistan's future. AQ is building up in Afghanistan, wearing Taliban insignias. And this would not make Musharraf a happy camper.

The battles for Pakistan, and for Lebanon - where pro Syrian/Hezbollah and pro-democracy govt entities, sans a stepped down President, battle for control while the country remains under control of the military - are two important one's to be watched. Both nations are important in the battle to contain the global Islamic jihad movement.

Media's simplistic "Sunni vs Shia" analyses again proven wrong...

We've been told over and over by an undereducated media that Iraq is merely a civil war - Sunni vs Shia violence - and that Saddam was never a danger as he could never have collaborated with the likes of Bin Laden and peers. It appears beyond a stubborn media (and Congress') comprehension to grasp the true convolution of relationships between Wahhabi and Deobandi mentalities, and the way they interact and function - yea... even survive - with Arab/Islamic states and with each other.

Again Ray Robison, Richard Duniway and "Sammi" have been proven correct in their co-authored work, Both in one Trench. The book, providing translations and analyses of documents confiscated in Iraq in 2003 proves that Saddam had been working and funding the global Islamic jihad movement. He held power and control, yes. But to do that, he had to form alliances with those the media tells us he hated.

Echoing the very same assessment is today's Jawa Report, Syrian Intelligence Linked to al Qaeda in Lebanon".

Fatah al-Islam is an al Qaeda affiliated group in Lebanon. Why would Syria support an al Qaeda linked group when the Syrian Baathists are so deeply hated by the Islamists? The answer is that the Islamists aren't opposed to strategic alliances, even with regimes they consider 'apostate'.

Below quote is from the Jawa Report referenced NY Sun article, Syrian Intelligence Linked to Terrorist Group.

"Direct contact between some of Fatah al-Islam's leaders and some senior Syrian intelligence officers, which were revealed in the interrogations, are consistent with the suspicion that Syrian intelligence has used Fatah al-Islam to serve its political and security objectives in Lebanon," Mr. Siniora wrote, according to Mr. Ban's report to the Security Council.

For comparison, a summary by Ray Robison in the Introduction of Both in One Trench:

The Saddam regime supported Islamic terrorists the same as it supported other
‘secular’ terrorists. The key to understanding this issue is the logical distinction
between working with Islamic extremists to achieve mutual objectives outside of
Iraq versus having them exist uncontrolled inside Iraq. Saddam’s regime was “open
for business” to leaders from al-Qaeda, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the Taliban, Hamas,
Afghani warlords and other Islamic extremist organizations. A singular instance or
two of the Saddam regime meeting with Islamic terrorist leaders could possibly be
discounted in the overall scheme of things. However, document after document
indicates that Saddam’s strategy was to support Islamic terrorists to achieve mutual
objectives. His embrace of Islamic extremists, at odds with his supposedly secular
regime, was a survival technique.

Eventually the truth of Saddam, his nefarious contacts, hidden deeds and intents that most certainly did threaten the US will come out. In the meantime, the naysayers will have their day spreading lies and disinformation. Because of hatred for this country? Or because of sheer stupidity and an aversion to research?

Hard to say. But either one is unforgivable as it relates to the security of this nation.