Center for American and Arab Studies

Executive Summary

The Washington Think Tank community produced a flurry of reports before closing down for the Christmas holiday.  They range from the Iranian nuclear agreement, to the civil war in Syria to the Tunisian constitution.

The Monitor Analysis looks at the move by the GCC to create a joint military command and the American move to recognize this command and give it the same status in receiving military hardware and assistance that is granted to NATO.  We look at the threats faced by this new joint command and where a greater military coordination by the GCC nations is likely to occur.

 

Think Tanks Activity Summary

The Washington Institute looks at the politics of Syria’s Kurds.  They conclude, “The United States should reach out to the PYD (the Democratic Union Party, a Syrian Kurdish group affiliated with the Turkish Kurdistan Workers Party). Yet Washington must condition such recognition on the PYD’s commitment to pluralistic democracy…The group must also address Turkish concerns about its ambitions. Ankara has fought a twenty-nine-year battle against the PYD’s patron, the PKK, and fears the emergence of a new PKK safe haven on its border with Syria. Thus far, the PKK has not conducted any cross-border raids, and the PYD has gone to great lengths to ensure a calm frontier. Nevertheless, Turkey has sought to stem the PYD’s growing influence by propping up the KNC, though to no avail.  Perhaps the right mix of incentives from Washington and Ankara could nudge the PYD toward becoming a reliable ally. In a revolution that has witnessed the proliferation of jihadists, the emergence of secular moderate elements should not be shunned.”

The Washington Institute also looks at the Syrian government’s military solution to the civil war.  They conclude, “While the regime is not certain to win the kind of victory it seeks, and may have to settle for less, the war is now moving in its favor and prospects for a reversal do not look good.  Barring a sudden collapse of the armed resistance, which for the Islamist core seems unlikely, the regime will only slowly defeat rebel forces and recover territory. But the regime is implacable and its allies are steadfast.  Regarding Geneva, the regime’s approach to the war suggests that it will not negotiate seriously with the rebels. And given its increasing success on the battlefield, the continued support of its allies, and a divided and feckless opposition, there is no reason why it should.”

The CSIS looks at the shaping of Iraq’s security forces.  In speaking of the violence in Iraq, the CSIS suggests, “The US must do what it can to improve this situation in spite of the failure of its effort to create a true strategic partnership that would survive the departure of its combat forces. As has been discussed earlier, the US retains critical national security interests in Iraq. These interests center on giving Iraq a successful political and economic structure and making it a securer source of petroleum exports, eliminating civil violence and the risk of a return to a serious civil war, reducing or eliminating the threat of Sunni and Shi’ite terrorist elements, limiting Iranian influence over Iraq’s Shi’ite factions. They can best be served by supporting Iraqi governance and security forces by providing such support present critical challenges.”

The German Marshall fund looks at the development of a new Tunisian constitution.  Despite the challenges faced, they conclude, “The good news is that the international community is in a better position to assist with Tunisia’s policy objectives after the constitution is passed. There could be a role for the international community in breaking the current conflict, either by providing an impartial mediator or closely supervising the next elections. The United Nations (UN) thus far has had little direct impact on the political transition beyond support to the elections commission despite an ambitious agenda by the United Nations Development Programme; providing a mediator or taking a more central role in administering the elections could be a natural role.”

The Carnegie Endowment looks at the awakening of political forces from the Arab Spring and how they will play out in 2014.  They note, “There are three key dynamics shaping the evolution of the Arab Awakening. The first and perhaps most important consequence of the Arab uprisings is the transformation of Islamist movements—mostly offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood—from opposition groups into major political forces in most countries undergoing transitions… The second fight is especially worrisome. The tension between Sunnis and Shia is rising to an alarming degree in countries like Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, and most horrifically in Syria. And political demands in all these countries are turning sectarian. In many cases, particularly in the Gulf, this “sectarianization” of politics is being aggravated by government policies of exclusion and discrimination… The last factor shaping the Arab Awakening is the secular forces, which have not easily accepted the rise of political Islam. These forces have behaved in a way that seems to suggest that they are fine with democracy only as long as it brings them to power.”

The CSIS looks at the interim Iranian nuclear agreement.  They conclude, “It still remains far from clear, however, that sanctions and negotiations can stop Iran from moving toward a nuclear weapons capability. It is already clear that Iran is building up its long-range missile forces and is steadily building up its capabilities for asymmetric warfare in ways that can be used to deliver a wide range of attacks. It also continues to use its Al Quds force, intelligence services, and diplomats to pose a growing threat to the Arab states and Israel and to seek an axis of influence that includes Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon.  Accordingly, the report traces the reasons the US, its Arab allies, and Israel may still face a point where they will have a grim choice between preventive strikes and forming a de facto coalition to contain Iran.”

 

ANALYSIS

GCC Nations Create New Joint Command

In the face of a weakening US presence in the region and a potentially stronger Iranian presence, the GCC nations approved the creation of a joint military command structure last week.  The three key areas of cooperation will be missile defense, Gulf maritime security, and counter terrorism.

The US quickly responded positively.  U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, who was in the Gulf in recent days, outlined steps to increase security cooperation in the Gulf region and maintained that the US would continue to base forces in the Gulf region,  “We have a ground, air, and naval presence of more than 35,000 military personnel in and immediately around the Gulf,” he said.  This includes 10,000 US Army troops with tanks and Apache helicopters, roughly 40 ships at sea including an aircraft carrier battle group, missile defense systems, radar, surveillance drones and warplanes that can strike at short notice, he said.

In addition, this week Obama signed an order that opened the door to sales of missile defense and other weapons systems to the GCC as a bloc.  This places the GCC in the same select group of organizations as NATO and the UN in terms of receiving military assistance.

The joint GCC command isn’t a new era of GCC military cooperation.  In 1984, the GCC decided to create a joint military force of 10,000 soldiers divided into two brigades, called the Peninsula Shield Force (PSF), based in Saudi Arabia near the Kuwaiti and Iraqi borders.  It currently contains about 40,000 troops.

However, the military role of Peninsula Shield in the last 30 years has been scant.  A force of about 3,000 men from the PSF, in addition to forces of its member states, took part in the U.S. (and other coalition forces) military campaign to force Iraqis out of Kuwait in March 1991.  10,000 troops and two ships of PSF were deployed to Kuwait in February 2003, prior to the invasion of Iraq, to protect Kuwait from potential Iraqi attacks. It did not participate in operations against Iraq.

Its most active military role was in March 2011, Peninsula Shield forces, requested by the Bahraini government, entered Bahrain via the causeway from Saudi Arabia. The forces were from Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

 

Improving GCC Military Cooperation

Although the populations of the GCC nations aren’t great, their combined military forces are (on paper) a formidable force for the region.  The nations rely on technology to act as a force multiplier for their smaller military forces.  In fact, the GCC put $130 billion into military spending in 2012.  “Our estimates showed that there was a real-term increase of over six per cent in 2012, reaching around $130 billion,” said Jeremy Binnie, Middle East and Africa editor at the London-based Jane’s Defense Weekly.  The big ticket items were missile defense systems, ships, and aircraft.

In terms of the new GCC military cooperation, the biggest impact in terms of spending will be an integrated missile defense system for all the nations.  Although each GCC country could develop its own system, the cooperation will allow for an integrated early warning system and deployment of missiles and radar where they would best meet the needs of the GCC – without consideration of national boundaries.  Expect increased interest in a major, integrated Patriot/THAAD (Theater High Altitude Air Defense System) purchase.

However, purchases will be a minor part of the new integrated system.  Each nation will insist on purchasing its own ships, armor, and aircraft.  Counter terrorism and maritime protection are less a function of large military purchases and rely more on cooperation between the various organizations.

Clearly, the GCC nations have been coordinating their efforts.  However, an integrated command can boost that coordination.  It can also give the GCC a chance to expand its roles and specialize the respective national military forces of its members.

In terms of maritime strategy, the GCC nations have to move from simple coastal protection to the protection of their economic zones inside the Arabian Gulf.  Key among these are convoy protection, countering Iranian potential retaliatory threats to close the Strait of Hormuz, monitoring Iranian presence in the Gulf, and projecting GCC power along the Gulf shoreline and onto oil platforms.

Historically, convoy protection has required considerable coordination.  The GCC nations have focused on this with the creation of CTF152, which provides maritime security throughout the Gulf.  However, that isn’t enough if faced with an Iranian attempt to choke maritime shipping within the Gulf.

Assuming that GCC nations will be committed to protecting all maritime shipping in the Gulf, the various ships of the GCC fleets will have to improve their command and control, their close maneuvering skills, and their defensive plans for convoy protection.  To maximize their reliance on Washington, they are cooperating considerably with the US Navy, which has considerable skill in convoy protection.

The GCC navies also need to focus on keeping the Strait of Hormuz open in the face of Iranian opposition.  From a passive point, this includes convoy protection, but from an active point of view, this means being able to neutralize Iranian anti-ship missiles on several islands in the Strait, most notably Abu Musa.  This was done with the Islands of Loyality Exercise last year where the GCC nations focused on neutralizing Iranian military power on the Tunb islands and Abu Musa.

Another active role for the GCC nations will be counter-mine exercises, since Iran has previously deployed anti-ship mines to hamper shipping in the Gulf.  Every year the GCC nations and 24 other countries hold an International Mine Counter Measures Exercise in the Gulf.

Counter mine warfare is also an area of high technology cooperation between GCC nations.  Autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs), including larger unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs) and smaller tethered remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) are being used more and more in finding and neutralizing enemy mines.  Coordinating the type of robotic vehicles to be used, developing a system to share the information amongst the GCC navies, and developing tactics would be critical to keeping the Gulf mine free during any clashes .

One area of weakness for the GCC nations’ maritime strategy is projecting power along the Gulf coast.  Although air power can hit anywhere in the region within hours, naval ships have “staying ability” and can act as the base for amphibious landing that can land the heavy equipment that airborne forces can’t deploy.  They can also land on the numerous oil platforms in the Gulf. According to former American military officers served in the region, the UAE has the best amphibious forces among GCC Countries and is best prepared to conduct landing from the sea in support of military operations. They (former officials) are claiming that the UAE also has the ability to seriously damage Iran’s oil exporting infrastructure thanks to its investment in cruise missiles.

 

Another area of GCC military cooperation could be logistics, which has been a weak point of the GCC.  This is a field where NATO was a major benefit during the Cold War.  Not only did it standardize munitions and calibers of small arms, it had a unified logistics system of joint storage and stocking so an American unit could order a similar item from a British logistics system using an identical stock number.

 

The GCC nations have focused more on the major weapons systems and not the munitions needed to make them operational for long times.  Three years ago, Saudi Ara­bia committed to the purchase of nearly 800 air-to-air missiles (AAMs), 1,000 anti-shipping and anti-air defense missiles, and 4,000 guided bombs. The last need was prompted by Saudi Arabia’s rapid expenditure of its entire guided bomb arsenal in fighting against the Houthi rebels on the Saudi-Yemeni border in the summer of 2009, requiring emergency resupply from U.S. operational reserves. Between 2007 and 2011, the UAE likewise purchased over 400 U.S.- delivered AAMs and 2,800 guided bombs.

In addition, there have been recent purchases of large numbers of anti-tank missiles.  The Defense Security Cooperation Agency has notified Congress that Riyadh will be given permission to buy 14,000 tube-launched, optically tracked missiles and other weapons in two separate deals valued at nearly $1.1 billion dollars. Saudi Arabia will also eventually receive more than 1,700 similar missiles.  This indicates that Saudi Arabia has realized the need to deepen its munitions reserves.

American military experts advise that a better integrated logistics network would allow munitions to be shifted quickly and a centralized GCC reserve to be maintained.  In addition, GCC purchases of commonly used munitions could allow for larger orders, lower prices, and greater availability.

Same experts advocate that the GCC nations needs to coordinate their military reaction to a whole spectrum of threats, ranging from simple terrorism to the perceived (but not realistic) threat of a nuclear Iran.  This not only includes planning, but assigning areas of responsibility to various GCC nations

This brings us to:

 

The Major Threats Facing the GCC Integrated Military Command

Protecting Economic Centers.  The GCC nations have some of the world’s most economically important targets in their region – ranging from financial centers to oil production facilities.  They aren’t only threatened by other countries, but many terrorists whose goals may be very different, but would seek to cause severe economic disruption from a shutdown of the Gulf oil industry.

Obviously, the biggest targets are in Saudi Arabia – The Ras Tanura oil export terminals and Abqaiq refin­ery in Saudi Arabia.  And, this is where improved counter terrorism coordination between GCC nations, the US, and European intelligence services is expected.

From a military point of view, protecting economic centers requires the development and coordination of elite, highly mobile Special Forces skilled in counter terrorism.  The GCC nations have developed such groups and have received training from both US and British Special Forces.  However, specializing and coordinating these groups would prevent the supplication seen today.  For instance, Saudi Special Forces could specialize in protecting and retaking petroleum facilities on land.  Meanwhile, UAE forces, who have more seaborne experience, would focus on defense and retaking oil platforms in the Gulf.

Air and missile defense.  This is one area which has received a lot of attention and will probably receive the greatest attention with the new military integration.  In 2006, the Saudi Arabian deputy minister of Defense and Avia­tion, Prince Khaled bin Sultan, laid out Riyadh’s think­ing that Iran’s missiles were the key threat facing his country, noting that the threat “won’t be the Iranian Air Force, or Navy. It won’t be ships or boats. It will be missiles.”

The US will remain a critical player in the ballistic missile defense.  US secretary of Defense Hagel said last week that the Pentagon “will better integrate with GCC members to enhance missile defense capabilities in the region,” adding “the United States continues to believe that a multilateral approach is the best answer for missile defense.”

The US Navy also deploys several cruisers with anti-missile capabilities in the region.

Perceived (or imagined) Iranian Threat.  This is the major worry for GCC nations – not a nuclear threat, but a threat to their economic security through a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and harassment of shipping throughout the Gulf.

This is where coordination between the GCC nations is the most critical.  Clearly Iran is outgunned with modern armaments by the GCC nations, but they will have to wield it as a coordinated force if they are to be successful.

The Iranian Navy lacks modern equipment and most of Iran’s abilities lie with the Revolutionary Guards fleet of gunboats that can swarm the Gulf.  They will rely upon numbers to overwhelm the GCC navies

The GCC nations rely on more modern, more capable fleets that can project power further and stay at sea longer.  Their air forces are better able to provide critical air cover.  They also have the advantage of having worked with the larger American, British and French fleets.

All the GCC states have invested heavily in the last decade in a new generation of power­ful offshore patrol vessels that combine good seaworthiness and the ability to stay on station longer.  They are well-armed, fast attack naval vessels with day and night sensors and effective offensive weapons systems, such as lightweight precision missiles and robotic stabilized cannons.  These ships can out-see and out-shoot any Iranian counterpart.  And, their ability to stay at sea longer makes up for the greater numbers of smaller Iranian craft that can’t travel far or stay at sea for long times.

In case of an Iranian threat to the Gulf shipping as result of retaliation to an attack on Iranian targets or interests by US or its allies, the GCC nations have to decide on what action to take and move aggressively.  Convoy protection is passive and cannot win – it merely slows the damage to the commercial shipping fleet.

Used aggressively, the GCC nations have a powerful maritime threat if they can or know how to use it.  Their ships and aircraft can strike key Iranian naval facilities like those on Abu Musa and neutralize them.  They can use guided munitions to strike and destroy Iranian commercial oil facilities.  And, they have the ability to carry out amphibious operations against smaller Iranian targets along the coast.

This is where political will and military integration comes in.  If the GCC nations see the threat and decide to react aggressively, they have the tools.  They however, need the integration necessary to carry it out.

That’s why the GCC announcement to develop a joint military command can be a positive aspect of the regions defense.  The GCC nations have developed the capabilities for air and missile defense, maritime strategy, and counter terrorism (even selectively).  However, national pride has often stood in the way of using them effectively.

 

PUBLICATIONS

The US and Iran: Sanctions, Energy, Arms Control, and Regime Change

By Anthony H. Cordesman, Chloe Coughlin-Schulte and Bryan Gold

Center for Strategic and International Studies

December 17, 2013

The interim agreement on Iran’s nuclear programs reached between the P5+1 and Iran has made this a major policy issue for the US, the other members of the P5+1, Iran, Israel, and the other states in the region. It raises major question about the extent to which sanctions drove Iran to negotiate, the impact of the agreement, prospects for broader forms of arms control, and how reaching an agreement affects the real world options for changing the behavior of Iran’s regime.  The report provides an in-depth analysis of US and Iranian competition focusing on four interrelated areas – sanctions, energy, arms control, and regime change. It shows this competition has been steadily building since the fall of 2011, when the IAEA issued a new report on the possible military applications of Iran’s nuclear program. Iran has continued to issue threats to “close the Gulf,” and has stalled negotiations, spurring a renewed round of sanctions that have had an increasingly significant impact on Iran’s economy throughout 2012 and continuing into 2013.

Read more

 

 

Shaping Iraq’s Security Forces

By Anthony H. Cordesman, Sam Khazai and Daniel Dewit

Center for Strategic and International Studies

December 13, 2013

Two years after the withdrawal of all US military forces from Iraq, the Iraqi military is facing major challenges as it seeks to confront a resurgence of Islamist violence. The failure to maintain any residual US force in the country to train and support Iraqi counterterrorism operations has placed heavy constraints on the capabilities of the Iraqi security forces and on US policy options for confronting terrorism spilling into Iraq as a result of the deepening crisis in Syria. The development of the Iraqi Security Forces has proceeded haltingly, and as a result Iraqi military and police units are ill-equipped to confront the non-state threats currently operating inside Iraq.

Read more

 

 

Year Four of the Arab Awakening

By Marwan Muasher

Carnegie Endowment

December 12, 2013

How will history judge the uprisings that started in many parts of the Arab world in 2011? The label “Arab Spring” proved too simplistic from the beginning. Transformational processes defy black-and-white expectations, but in the end, will the awakenings be more reminiscent of what happened in Europe in 1848, when several uprisings took place within a few weeks only to be followed by counterrevolutions and renewed authoritarian rule? Or will they more closely resemble the 1989 collapse of the Soviet Union, after which some countries swiftly democratized while others remained in thrall to dictatorship?  Whatever the case, it is clear that the process of Arab transformation will need decades to mature and that its success is by no means guaranteed. The movements driving it are more unanimous about what they are against than about what they are for. But the debate to define this awakening has begun.

Read more

 

 

Tunisia’s Constitutional Process: Hurdles and Prospects

By Duncan Pickard

German Marshall Fund

December 18, 2013

Three unsettled and related issues — the completion of the constitution, the legal framework for elections, and the replacement of the current government — jeopardize progress that has been made in Tunisia’s democracy so far. The chief political parties of Ennahda, currently in power, and Nidaa Tunis, a leading secular party led by long-time politician and former prime minister Beji Caid Essebsi, are currently negotiating the terms of a deal that would cover these three contentious issues. The fundamental socio-political tension in Tunisia can be boiled down, if somewhat crudely, into these two camps: for Nidaa Tunis and a return to the progressive, French-style secularism of former president Habib Bourguiba, and for Ennahda and the rebirth of a Tunisian political identity rooted in Islam. This divide is the theme of the current crisis and likely will remain even in the new constitutional order.

Read more

 

 

The Fractious Politics of Syria’s Kurds

By Barak Barfi

Washington Institute

December 18, 2013

PolicyWatch 2184

On November 12, the Democratic Union Party (PYD), a Syrian Kurdish group affiliated with the Turkish Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), announced the creation of an interim government in areas under its control in northeastern Syria. The plan has the potential to increase rifts within the opposition and exacerbate regional tensions. To minimize them, Washington should help forge a pan-Kurdish coalition that can devote all of its attention to fighting al-Qaeda elements seeking to exploit Syria’s civil war.

Read more

 

 

The Syrian Regime’s Military Solution to the War

By Jeffrey White

Washington Institute

December 18, 2013

PolicyWatch 2185

It has become commonplace to say that “there is no military solution” to the conflict in Syria. That claim, invoked by Western officials including the U.S. secretary of state, is used to justify an emphasis on diplomacy (the Geneva II process) and limitations on assistance to the armed opposition.  The war could indeed have a military outcome, and in light of current trends, that outcome could be a regime victory. The outlines of a regime strategy for winning the war are visible. This strategy hinges on the staying power of the regime and its allies, the generation of adequate forces, operational success, and continued divisions within rebel forces. It is subject to serious constraints, especially limitations on the size and effectiveness of regime and associated forces, and “game changers” could alter its course. But a regime victory is possible — and that is what the regime is counting on.

Read more

 

 

 

 

Think Tanks Activity Summary

A forum was held at the Brookings Institution last week on US/Israeli relations that included Obama and Kerry.  The 2013 Forum examined the political changes taking place across the Middle East, including the resumption of the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks; the ongoing nuclear negotiations with Iran; and the deepening Syrian civil war and resulting humanitarian crisis. Forum speakers and participants discussed the implications of these events on U.S. interests in the region, U.S.-Israel relations and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.  Video highlights can be viewed by clicking on the link found at the end of the Monitor.

 

The CSIS writes about the negotiations with Iran.  As with the Monitor analysis, they note that the negotiations must include Congress and the Israelis.  They state, “Several forces drive Congress. Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s critique that the deal is too permissive to the Iranians resonates with many, and others seek to check the president’s supposed instinct to compromise with enemies. Some Congressional leaders insist that their firm position gives the president leverage in negotiations with Iran, as the president can argue that some Iranian terms are unworkable because they would be unacceptable to Congress. But any such argument relies on the premise that there are conditions under which Congress would come along. To succeed at all with Iran, Iranians have to believe Congressional acquiescence is possible.”

 

The CSIS looks at Iran’s missile capability.  It notes, “that a nuclear arms race already exists between Israel and Iran – albeit one where only Israel now has a nuclear strike capability. The practical problem this raises for Iran – and for stabilizing this arms race – is that it will face a possible Israeli first strike option until it can secure its nuclear armed forces. This pushes it towards a concealed or breakout deployment, and an initial phase where it would have to launch on warning or under attack until it has a survivable force. It then must compete with powers with far larger stockpiles which include boosted and thermonuclear weapons until it can create a more sophisticated force of its own. The options will result in a high-risk arms race, particularly during its initial years, for all sides and do so regardless of the level of containment.”

 

The Carnegie Endowment writes that Syrian Muslim Brotherhood is forming a political party, the National Party for Justice and the Constitution (Waad).  Their analysis says it will fail and note, “The Muslim Brotherhood may genuinely seek to establish a viable, inclusive new party, but the ambiguity about Waad’s purpose and prospects bode poorly for it. The Brotherhood has never shaken off the perception that it pulls all the strings in the opposition’s exile platform, the Syrian National Council, and skeptical observers believe it will do the same with Waad. The attempt to make up for Waad’s lack of presence on the ground in Syria by stacking it with “nationalist figures” and other worthy “personalities” further reduces confidence in its ability to survive as an autonomous party.  This is a shame, because Waad’s political program is an impressively detailed, 91-page document that touches transparently on every issue of importance to Syria’s political, economic, social, and administrative development in an admirably liberal framework. But the harsh truth is that Waad lacks the substance to become a viable, functioning party able to survive the current conflict.”

 

The Washington Institute looks at the security threat posed by the Syrian civil war refugee problem.  They note, “Lebanese President Michel Suleiman said that Lebanon is facing a “crisis of survival” due to the influx of Syrian refugees, saying that “social tension will increase with the fierce competition for jobs and services.” Lebanon’s Interior Minister Marwan Charbel recently asserted that many refugees are in fact rebel fighters and therefore are a threat to Lebanon’s security. Hezbollah MP Walid Sukariya also remarked that refugees are carrying out “killing operations” targeting factions in Lebanon that support the Assad regime, while some are in the country to carry out “acts of sabotage.” Lebanese MP Sleiman Frangieh, another figure historically close to Syria, said that up to 50,000 Syrians have fled to Lebanon carrying arms.”

 

The Carnegie Middle East Center asks about the foreign soldiers in Syria.   When it comes to impacting the civil war, they note, “Many of the foreign fighters on the side of the rebels come in with very little battle experience and are first put through training camps…There are also veterans from places like Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chechnya, Yemen, and Libya…Those who have had prior involvement in fighting have mattered on the battlefield, in training, and in strategy. The foreigner-dominated Muhajirin wa-Ansar Army, which is linked to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, was decisive in the takeover of the Menagh Air Base in August 2013. Foreigners also fought zealously in Latakia this summer, where they were involved in cleansing Alawites from captured areas.  The foreigners are likely even more important for the regime. Those who have come into Syria at the behest of Iran are professional fighters. They have ample experience, either against Israel or against American forces in Iraq. Hezbollah’s participation was key for taking back the border town of Qusayr from the rebels in May and June 2013. Iraqi Shia militiamen have been helping to cleanse and starve out Sunni enclaves in the Ghouta region surrounding Damascus.”

 

The Washington Institute asks if Iran will lash out at Saudi Arabia?  They reason, “the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, will soon become a target for Iran, because while the al Qaeda-affiliated Abdullah Azzam Brigades claimed responsibility for the Iranian embassy blast in Beirut, it is difficult to believe that Iran and Hezbollah will not retaliate against Saudi Arabia, as the chief backer of Sunni Muslims in Lebanon and the Sunni revolt in Syria. Indeed, Hezbollah officials including Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah, as well as the pro-Hezbollah Lebanese daily Al Akhbar — whose articles frequently reflect the Shiite militia’s views — have attributed the bombing to a group tied to Saudi Arabia, suggesting that the Kingdom’s embassy, diplomatic personnel, or nationals in Lebanon or abroad could be the next targets.  Should Tehran hit Riyadh, it could transform and broaden the ongoing Saudi-Iranian proxy war in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen into a more overt, deadly, and destabilizing conflict.”

 

ANALYSIS

Kerry Offers Security Guarantees to Israel

 As US Secretary of State John Kerry barnstormed the Middle East, it became clear that providing security guarantees to Israel would be a keystone in progress in Iranian and Palestinian negotiations.  Without them, pro-Israel forces in the US Congress would make any deal nearly impossible.

 

The push began a few weeks ago when Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu slammed the tentative Iran nuclear deal.  In a case of damage control, Kerry visited Israel last week, spoke to the Brookings Institution on Saturday, and made a policy speech on the Middle East on Wednesday.

 

Kerry insisted last Thursday that Israel’s security is a top priority for Washington, both in nuclear talks with Iran and peace talks with the Palestinians.  Kerry was in Israel for a day of talks with Israeli and Palestinian leaders aimed at breaking the logjam in the peace negotiations which stalled since they began in late July.  He met for more than three hours with Netanyahu in what was their first face-to-face meeting since the controversial nuclear deal struck with Iran.

 

“I can’t emphasize enough that Israel’s security in this negotiation (with Iran) is at the top of our agenda,” Kerry said at a joint news conference in Jerusalem.  “The United States will do everything in our power to make certain that Iran’s nuclear program of weaponization possibilities is terminated.” Kerry also stressed the two men had spent “a very significant amount of time” discussing the peace talks with the Palestinians. “Israel’s security is fundamental to those negotiations,” he said.

 

The most important issue as far as Israel goes is the negotiations with Iran.  Iran’s nuclear capability poses a larger threat in Israel’s eyes than Palestine, and Israel appears to be holding this issue over the heads of the Western negotiators in Geneva.  If Israel is not happy with the Iranian deal, there is no hope of a Palestinian deal or an Iranian deal that passes muster with Congress.

 

Consequently, Israel has become a “behind the scenes” partner in the Iranian talks as they have had considerable input on what they consider to be acceptable curbs in Iranian nuclear development according to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz.  Since the start of these talks between Iran and the P5+1 nations, Israel has been in continuous contact with the negotiating teams there, not only to keep itself updated but also in order to try and insert last-minute modifications to the agreement, and to prevent concessions to Iran in regard to its heavy water reactor in Arak.  In return for this, the Israeli PM has curtailed his criticism of the deal with Iran.

 

Part of the promised American security commitment is the appointment of American General John Allen (USMC-Ret) as a special envoy for US/Israeli security issues.  Kerry described Allen’s role as that of “assessing the potential threats to Israel, to the region, and ensuring that the security arrangements that we might contemplate in the context of this process, will provide for greater security for Israel”.  Kerry said he and Allen had offered Netanyahu “some thoughts about that particular security challenge” in a couple of discussions.  According to a report in Maariv newspaper, Allen was to have outlined a “bridging proposal” which will enable Israel to reduce, as much as possible, its military presence in the Jordan Valley.  However, they stressed that these were “ongoing” discussions, not the presentation of a plan. In his remarks at Saban Forum last week Kerry disclosed the wider range of the security work that he tasked Gen Allen to embark on:
“General Allen is joined by dozens – literally, I think there are about 160 people: military experts, intel experts and others working to analyze this so what we put on the table is deadly serious, real, because these stakes are real. And we have highly qualified defense officials working with dozens of organizations in the United States, including the Office of the Secretary of Defense; the Defense Security and Cooperation Agency; the Defense Threat Reduction Agency; DARPA, which is the Pentagon’s research arm that created the Internet; not to mention the Joint Staff and the United States Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines. They’re all hard at work, analyzing what began, frankly, back in 2011 as a preliminary analysis was made, and now is becoming state of the art as we ramp it up for this possibility of peace. They’re all hard at work in close consultation with their IDF counterparts. And we will engage in further close evaluation with Shin Bet, with Mossad, with every aspect, and with the Palestinians – and with the Palestinians, which is critical.”

 

Although the Iranian nuclear issue is seen as the most important, there are voices in Israel that warn that a Palestinian agreement must be reached.  In fact the focus on Iran was heavily criticized by a former head of the Shin Bet internal security service, Yuval Diskin.

 

“The consequences of not having a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are more existential than the Iranian nuclear project,” Yuval Diskin told a conference in Tel Aviv.

“Israel must freeze settlement building immediately” in order to reach a much-needed agreement with the Palestinians, Diskin said.

 

Despite Diskin’s comments, it is clear that the key to any peace accord must primarily address Israel’s concerns about Iran.

 

 

What an American Israeli Security Agreement Would Address

 

In addition to the security measures at the expense of Palestinians outlined previously and considering past Israeli concerns and the science of nuclear weapons, it is likely that the following will comprise the bulk of the agreement – what guarantees and restrictions on the Iranian nuclear program come out of the Geneva talks, what the US secretly agrees to allow Israel to do militarily to Iran ) hypothetically) if the deal falls through, and what the US will tangibly do to support Israeli security.

 

Israel knows that Iran has crossed the uranium enrichment line, but wants to limit further advancement.  This means Israel has tacitly accepted that Iran can build a first generation nuclear device, but wants to keep them from developing a second generation device.

 

As Israel sees it, first generation nuclear device using uranium 235 would be very difficult to load on current long range Iranian missiles since they weigh much more (the American first generation atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima weighed about 4.5 tons – this is not indicative of the final weight of an Iranian 1^st gen nuclear device, but shows that 1st generation uranium devices are not as sophisticated and miniaturized as 2^nd, 3^rd, and 4^th generation designs).

 

According to reports, Israel’s focus has shifted from concern about enrichment to other technologies that would make an Iranian nuclear device more practical.  That’s one reason why the Arak heavy water nuclear reactor has become so critical.  Heavy water reactors are critical to the production of plutonium, a nuclear weapons material that is critical to the development of smaller and more sophisticated second and third generation nuclear weapons.  By stopping the Arak nuclear plant, Israel can help limit Iran to the development of a first generation nuclear device.

 

Israel is also focusing on nuclear detonation devices.  Unlike uranium 235, which can be triggered in a very simple gun/target device, plutonium must be triggered by imploding it with a sophisticated array of detonators and explosives that can crush a plutonium sphere into a critical mass.  Eliminate the detonator technology and Iran faces considerable problems constructing a plutonium device.  That makes the development of thermonuclear devices and warheads small enough to fit into a missile much harder.

 

Of course, these demands don’t detract from Israel’s desire to limit Iran’s enrichment program – especially the enrichment to weapons grade.  Israel asked that world powers insist the agreement committed Iran to convert all of its 190 kilograms of 20-percent enriched uranium into oxide, which cannot be used to develop nuclear weapons.  This will slow, but not stop Iranian development of a first generation nuclear device.

 

ISRAELI “FANTASY SCENARIO” OF MILITARY ATTACK

 

Israel would also want some sort of guarantee that they could act militarily if Iran breaches the agreement.  This wouldn’t be publicized or put on paper, but would be critical to receiving tacit Israeli agreement to any Iranian deal.

 

Such guarantees would probably contain several assurances.  First would be that the US would not initiate any sanctions against Israel (or neighboring nation that allows Israel to use their airspace) for carrying out an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities if Iran abrogates the agreement.  The second is that US forces in the Arabian Gulf would “look the other way,” if such an attack were launched.  Finally, Israel would want access to special American munitions like bunker busters to be able to carry out such an attack.

 

The final aspect to Israeli agreement would be a larger American/Israeli military cooperation.  This would include joint military exercises as has been scheduled in a few months.  However, it would undoubtedly include additional military aid in areas like anti-missile defense for both short range and long range missile threats.  This would also help encourage Israel to soften its stance in its dealings with the Palestinian Authority.

 

Palestinian Deal goes through Tehran and Geneva

 

The reason Kerry is emphasizing Israeli security is that it is the hinge on which the whole Obama/Kerry Middle East policy hangs.  An agreement with Iran on nuclear development that doesn’t’ receive tacit Israeli approval (at the least) is bound to fail as a pro-Israel US Congress pushes for more Iranian sanctions, which would abrogate the agreement from the Iranian point of view.  This, in turn would hinder working with Iran on solving Syria’s internal/regional war.

 

This forces Kerry to balance the desires of both Israel and Tehran in order to get a deal.  At this point this means allowing Iran uranium enrichment capability and the road to a first generation nuclear device.  However, Israel will draw the line at allowing Iran access to technology that gives them the ability to build second generation nuclear devices that are much more portable and pose a greater threat to Israel.

 

But, Israel will not agree to this unless they have a military option.  Although they are aware that Obama will not want them to strike Iran, they will insist that they will retain the right to do so.  If the US fails to recognize that, rest assured that Israel will work to sabotage the agreement in Congress.

 

Finally, Israel will want a higher profile American security presence, especially given the bad relations between Obama and Netanyahu over the last few years.  That will make Iran more willing to adhere to any agreement and open the door for a security agreement with the Palestinian Authority.

 

Kerry has his work cut out for him.  American Middle Eastern policy requires an Iranian nuclear deal coming out of Geneva – one that Iran agrees to and one that Israel can live with.  That requires an Israeli security agreement – one that Israel agrees to and one that the Palestinian Authority can live with.  Whether the pieces can come together has yet to be seen.

 

PUBLICATIONS

Three Negotiations on Iran

By Jon Alterman

Center for Strategic and International Studies

December 11, 2013

 

Reaching a comprehensive deal with Iran over the country’s nuclear program will be tough for President Obama. Even successful bilateral negotiations would only be the first step, because in fact, his negotiations with Iran are actually three sets of interconnected negotiations. One set is with Iran, one is with Congress, and the third is with partners in the P5+1. Succeeding with the Iranians without succeeding on the other two fronts would leave the United States and its allies far less secure than if Obama had not negotiated at all.  For all of the focus on the complexity of negotiating with the Iranians, those negotiations are relatively straightforward. The president’s emissaries are in direct discussions with Iranian government officials, and the parameters of the discussions are known. Iran is seeking sanctions relief, and the United States—with its allies—is seeking verifiable guarantees that Iran will not develop nuclear weapons.

Read more

 

 

Iran and The Gulf Military Balance II: The Nuclear and Missile Dimensions

By Anthony Cordesman

Center for Strategic and International Studies

December 9, 2013

 

Volume II: The Nuclear and Missile Dimensions addresses missiles in terms of their capabilities in conventional and asymmetric warfare, as well as U.S., Arab Gulf, and allied options for missile defense. At the same time, it analyzes Iran’s nuclear and other WMD programs, Tehran’s possible use of nuclear-armed missiles, and U.S., Arab Gulf, and Israeli options for deterrence, containment, and preventive strikes.  The report shows that Iran’s current missile and rocket forces help compensate for its lack of effective air power and allow it to pose a threat to its neighbors and U.S. forces that could affect their willingness to strike Iran should Iran use its capabilities for asymmetric warfare in the Gulf or against any of its neighbors.At another level, Iran’s steady increase in the number, range, and capability of its rocket and missile forces has increased the level of tension in the Gulf, and in other regional states like Turkey, Jordan, and Israel. Iran has also shown that it will transfer long-range rockets to “friendly” or “proxy” forces like the Hezbollah and Hamas.

Read more

 

 

Uncertain Future for the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood’s Political Party

By Yezid Sayigh and Raphaël Lefèvre

Carnegie Endowment

December 9, 2013

 

With the death and destruction in Syria ongoing, the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood is forming a political party, the National Party for Justice and the Constitution. Known by its acronym, Waad—“promise” in Arabic—the party is meant to represent the Brotherhood, currently in exile, in an eventual democratic transition. Describing itself as “a national party with an Islamic framework [marjaiyyah] that adopts democratic mechanisms in its programs,” Waad is in theory open to all segments of Syrian society.  The Brotherhood’s concern to showcase its commitment to inclusive, pluralist politics and to reiterate its identity as a “centrist” Islamist organization is commendable given the growing radicalization and sectarianism in Syria. But delivering on its promise will prove a tough challenge. Religious and ethnic minorities as well as secular Sunni Muslims are likely to dismiss Waad as a mere facade for the Brotherhood.

Read more

 

 

An Unregulated Security Threat

By Andrew J. Tabler

Washington Institute

December 10, 2013

NOW Lebanon

 

As more and more Syrians flee to neighboring Lebanon, the situation there is a growing national security concern not only for Lebanon, but the entire region. While Hezbollah and Iran are supporting the Assad regime in Syria, their increased vulnerability in Lebanon should give them pause, as the recent bombing of the Iranian embassy and the assassination of Hezbollah operative Hassan al-Laqis show. Instead of continuing their carte blanche support for Assad, the Party of God and Iran have increased reason to constrain him, not only through the international effort to destroy Syria’s chemical weapons, but also via a future political settlement in which the Assad family cabal “steps aside” in favor of a viable transitional government that can truly end the conflict.

Read more

 

 

Is Iran Set to Lash Out at Saudi Arabia?

By David Schenker

Washington Institute

December 10, 2013

 

The November 19 double suicide bombings of the Iranian embassy in Beirut may have looked shocking in the headlines — they killed 23 people. But they also should not have come as a surprise.  Since 2011, Tehran has earned its karma in Lebanon. The attack, whose victims included an Iranian diplomat, was likely payback for the Shiite theocracy’s unwavering support for the Bashar al-Assad regime’s brutal repression of the largely Sunni uprising in Syria. Aided by Iranian troops, weapons and its Lebanese Shiite proxy militia Hezbollah, over the past three years, al-Assad’s government has killed tens of thousands of mostly Sunni Syrians.  The real question is what comes now — and I expect a surge in regional violence. Paradoxically, the international “first step” nuclear agreement with Iran increases rather than diminishes the chances that the Shiite theocracy in Tehran will take steps that exacerbate the regional sectarian conflict.

Read more

 

 

Who Are the Foreign Fighters in Syria?

Interview of Aaron Y. Zelin

Carnegie Middle East Center

December 5, 2013

 

On the side of the Sunni Arab rebels, a conservative estimate would place the number of foreigners at 5,000 individuals, while a more liberal estimate could be upward of 10,000. These totals are for the entire conflict, not necessarily how many are currently on the ground there. Many of them have been killed, arrested, or have since returned home. The speed of this mobilization is unprecedented, compared to for example the foreigners who fought against the United States in Iraq or the Soviets in Afghanistan.  The majority comes from the Arab world, with Saudi Arabia, Libya, and Tunisia in the lead — although the number of Iraqis could be higher than what’s publicly known. The second-largest grouping is Western Europeans, especially from the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, and the Netherlands. Additionally, there are some from the Balkans, the Caucasus, and many other places. By my count, we’ve seen Sunni fighters from more than 60 countries. There has also been an unprecedented number of foreigners coming in to fight for Assad’s regime. While the Sunni jihadis are coming in through informal networks, most of the pro-Assad fighters are Shia Muslims who believe in the teachings of Iran’s former religious and political leader Ayatollah Khomeini and are directed through Iran’s state-sponsored apparatuses.

Read more

 

 

Saban Forum 2013—Power Shifts: U.S.-Israel Relations in a Dynamic Middle East

Forum

Brookings Institution

December 6-8, 2013

 

On December 6-8, the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings hosted its 10th annual Saban Forum, titled “Power Shifts: U.S.-Israel Relations in a Dynamic Middle East.” This year’s event featured webcasted remarks by U.S. President Barack Obama, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman.

Read more