Categories
-Top News Arab News Asia News

Could Israel’s Gaza Conflict Spark Regime Changes In Iran, Syria?

A little bit of back story traced to the so-called Arab Spring is essential to explain the impending blood bath in Gaza and the possible geopolitical pathways that it is expected to reveal….writes Atul Aneja

Amid the fog of war, the accumulation of war material in the eastern Mediterranean stands out as the fulcrum that could define the course of the on-going Hamas-Israel war.

The US carrier task force led by the aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford is spearheading the amassing of mega-firepower in these waters.

The carrier group also includes armed- to the teeth warships comprising USS Normandy — a guided-missile cruiser. Besides, the USS Thomas Hudner, USS Ramage, USS Carney, and USS Roosevelt are part of the battle group. The Arleigh-Burke-class guided-missile destroyer is also pulling in military heft into the task force.

A second US carrier group, USS Dwight D. Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group will also be deployed in the eastern Mediterranean, the US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin announced on Saturday. The official purpose of the deployment is to “deter hostile actions against Israel or any efforts toward widening this war following Hamas’s attack on Israel.”

The British, the essential junior partner of the Anglo-Saxon alliance after World War-2 are also pitching in with two Royal Navy ships, P8 surveillance aircraft, three merlin helicopters and a company of Royal Marines – to the eastern Mediterranean.

It is likely that the massive accumulation firepower has a dual purpose. One is to deter the Iran and its allies to enter the Gaza military theatre, as officially stated. But a broader geopolitical Israeli-western enterprise could also be in the works, with Iran, Syria, and Lebanese Hezbollah in its cross-hairs.

A little bit of back story traced to the so-called Arab Spring is essential to explain the impending blood bath in Gaza and the possible geopolitical pathways that it is expected to reveal.

After the success of western backed regime change projects in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya in 2011, the Obama administration trained its guns on Syria under the rubric of the Arab Spring. But that goal could not be accomplished on account of military intervention by Russia, which was diplomatically backed by China, especially during voting at the United Nations Security Council.

The turning point of the Russia-China stance was the killing of Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi on October 20,2011. Qadhafi was hounded by NATO backed Islamists, who then managed to accomplish regime change in a pivotal oil-rich North African state.

With the toppling of Qadhafi, high decibel alarm bells began to ring in Moscow and Beijing. So, instead of abstaining from western backed resolutions supporting the advance of the Arab Spring, Russia and China vetoed the resolution, amounting to consent and legitimacy, for toppling the Bashar Assad government in Syria.

After Qadhafi was brutally murdered in his home base at Sirte, both Russia and China concluded that the cascading Arab Spring was a giant geopolitical project. The question that then arose was—will the Arab Spring stop at the gates of the Arabia, or, instead, enter new territory, governed by “authoritarian” leaders?  In Moscow and Beijing, it was concluded that regime change project post-Qadhafi would first target Syria, and thereafter go for the jugular in Iran.

Consequently, for both Moscow and Beijing in that order, Syria was identified as the first defence line to stall the supercharged regime change storm. In anticipation of regime change in Tehran, the two Eurasian giants saw Iran as their second defence line. It was understood that if Tehran fell, the Eurasian core, the existential bulwark for both Russia and China, would stand exposed to sweeping tide of serial regime changes.

Unsurprisingly Putin’s Russia was first off, the blocks, militarily intervening using air power to prevent Bashar’s fall. To fortify the Eurasian buffer, Russia and China also took the strategic decision of build a special relationship with Iran, which is now both a part of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and BRICS grouping of the emerging economies.

Now fast forward to the accumulation of forces in the eastern Mediterranean and the Gaza crisis. After failing to achieve their objective of weakening Russia through the Ukraine war, NATO, this time with Israel is once again back in the Middle East targeting the “axis of resistance.” This phalanx in the Levant comprises Syria, Iran and Tehran backed Hezbollah. Incidentally the West has an axe to grind with Hezbollah. In 2006 the Shiite group had successfully fought Israel, thus embarrassing former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who anticipating quick Israeli success, had prematurely described the war as the “birth pangs” of a new Middle East.

So, the question that arises after Saturday’s surprise attack by Hamas on Israel, is whether Tel Aviv is now working with the West to accomplish the unfinished and maximalist agenda of regime change in Tehran? Is the accumulation of firepower in the eastern Mediterranean part of a bigger regional enterprise? Some Middle East watchers think that the Gaza counteroffensive has a bigger objective.

For instance, in an interview with Russia Today, Michael Maloof, former senior security policy analyst at the US Department of Defence, is of the view that Netanyahu would like Washington to get directly involved in the conflict with Hamas because he hopes to expand the war to Lebanon and Iran.

Maloof points out that deployment of USS Gerald R. Ford and five guided missile destroyers to the Eastern Mediterranean “meets Netanyahu’s wildest dreams.”

“He wanted the US involved in this conflict,” the former Pentagon official told RT.

Netanyahu “wants to open up the war with Lebanon, by attacking Hezbollah” in pursuit of his ultimate objective, “to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities,” Maloof added. For that to happen, “he has to have a Gulf of Tonkin moment, if you will.”

Maloof recalled how US President Lyndon Johnson essentially started the Vietnam War by sending ships to the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964. An alleged North Vietnamese attack on two US destroyers was then used as a pretext for direct involvement.

Reading the tea leaves well, Iran has gone into overdrive to curb Israel’s perceived geopolitical ambitions.

Unsurprisingly, during his visit to Lebanon that began on Thursday, Iran’s foreign minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, warned the United States to restrain Israel.

“America wants to give Israel a chance to destroy Gaza, and this is… a grave mistake,” he charged, adding, “if the Americans want to prevent the war in the region from developing, they must control Israel,” an AFP report quoted him as saying.

On the same visit which included stops in Baghdad and Damascus, Amir-Abdollahian stressed that on Saturday that it was still possible to prevent a regional expansion of Israel’s war Hamas, but time was running out.

“There is still a political opportunity to prevent a widespread crisis in the region,” Amir-Abdollahian told a press conference in Beirut.

But “maybe, in the next few hours, it will be too late”.

The Iranian minister warned that pro-Iran militants “have designed all the scenarios and are prepared, and their finger is on the trigger to shoot”.

(India Narrative)

ALSO READ: US, Qatar deny Iran access to $6 billion from prisoner deal

Categories
-Top News Arab News Asia News

Hezbollah Under Spotlight Amid Israel-Hamas Escalation

There is no doubt for Hezbollah not to feel the heat of Israeli offenses which may pressure the latter to escalate its operational tempo to a certain point of threshold….writes Anant Mishra

With Israeli Defence Forces encircling Gaza, military experts are beginning to anticipate Lebanon’s response, with escalating border clashes pointing towards skirmishes along a second front.

If the conflict prolongs, this is a possible outcome that could engulf this limited war into a full-blown regional conflict. With Hamas threatening execution of hostages as a presumed leverage, the risk to miscalculate strategic/tactical decisions are higher for both sides.

That said, the sequence of violence appears to be limited yet stable along the Blue Line – the United Nations demarcated boundary corresponding to the Lebanese southern border, which has witnessed limited shelling, with some incursions.

According to a Beirut based expert on proxy militia, key leadership of anti-Israeli groups discussed coordination and cooperation at greater levels within the groups at wider extent in the last six months between Hezbollah in Lebanon, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) and Hamas along with other Tehran-backed groups operating in Iraq, Yemen & Syria. Hence, it is incomprehensible for Hezbollah to simply stand aside and watch Israeli defence forces intensifying their offensives against Hamas in Gaza.

There is no doubt for Hezbollah not to feel the heat of Israeli offenses which may pressure the latter to escalate its operational tempo to a certain point of threshold. If the war in Gaza escalates, Hezbollah will employ offensive manoeuvres along the thin Blue Line. It may reiterate ambush tactics against Israeli foot patrols or intensify mortar/rocket strikes targeting Shebaa Farms, a mountainous region along the Lebanese southeastern border, under Israeli occupation since 1967.

It may covertly launch rocket attacks into Israel (without taking credit, under the assumption of Hamas led attack). It may rally Tehran backed proxy militia groups to target Israel from the Syrian Golan Heights, where the group continues to enjoy certain presence.

From a preliminary appearance, Hezbollah continues to provide covert support to Hamas below a certain threshold, with an intent to avoid any escalated response from Israel. If Hezbollah escalates, a response from the Israelis could result in an ending escalated driven cycle of violence. To prevent a full-blown escalated conflict, Iran may have tied down Hezbollah’s operation to limited support.

For Tehran, Hezbollah is the most potent external proxy component with military expertise, last resort perhaps to deter against and Israeli or US offenses against Iran. It is highly unlikely for Tehran to lay resources in the hands of Hamas that too, in a limited yet escalated conflict. By the same logic, Israelis do not wish to open a second front against Lebanon, instead prioritising rescue of hostages in Gaza and eliminating leftover Hamas fighters in the region.

It is highly likely for Hezbollah to reinforce Hamas fighters in case of an Israeli ground invasion. However, if the level of violence increases and Hamas appears to be pinned against an aggressive ground force, Hezbollah may be forced to indirectly support Hamas through tactical advisers, engaging Israeli defence forces through rocket attacks, relieving some pressure on Hamas fighters.

Hamas rejects Australia’s decision of listing it as terror group

It is highly unlikely for Israeli defence forces to employ a large-scale ground and air assault in Gaza and in Lebanon, simultaneously. Even for the highly trained and state of the art technology equipped Israeli Defence Forces, employing air power alone against Hezbollah will not be sufficient, giving necessary breathing space for the Hezbollah leadership to regroup. That said, reinforcing armour with sizeable ground forces deep into Lebanese’s territory will result in a serious loss of lives, a tactical gamble. That said, conducting a joint air and ground assault in Gaza and Lebanon simultaneously, is a critical decision for Tel Aviv, especially if Hamas fighters reinforce in smaller pockets elsewhere and strike. Confrontation with Hezbollah could escalate at least on the Syrian front, forcing proxies to target inside Israel from Iraq and Yemen.

For Hezbollah, if Tehran directs its leadership to assist Hamas with full force, the organizational leadership would do so at the cost of expunging all its military arsenal or might. This could expend all available resources in its expense, plunging Lebanon into an everlasting humanitarian misery, facing backlash even from its staunch Shia proponents in the country.

Taking the note of caution employed by Israel and Hezbollah on an escalated conflict, the best scenario for confrontation could be of sustained engagement between the two actors, largely localised along southern Lebanon and northern Israel, falling short of a full-blown war. In such a situation, Hezbollah may reinforce Quds Force with Radwan Brigade to conduct cross border skirmishes—which the group specialises. This could result in Israeli Air Force targeting critical infrastructure sites in Lebanon and conducting limited armour incursion crossing the Blue Line.

To prevent such an incursion, Hezbollah may resort to mass missile attack, forcing Israeli defence forces to call for long range precision guided munitions against key launch pads. Such engagements do not qualify for traditional definition of skirmish with the potency to escalate if either of the sides makes a tactical miscalculation. That said, Israeli Defence Forces may instead employ pre-emptive rocket strikes against known Hezbollah hide outs, with an intent to wipeout any potential arsenal, neutralising threat to Israeli cities.

With Hamas unpredictable and incomprehensible attack on southern Israel and Israel’s tactical encirclement of Gaza, the Israeli-Hezbollah engagement stands probable. With Israeli Defence Forces calling for reservists on the Southern Lebanon border, it is yet to see how this war unfolds.

(India Narrative)

ALSO READ: US, Qatar deny Iran access to $6 billion from prisoner deal

ALSO READ: Iran Envoy to India says Iran played no role in Hamas attack on Israel

Categories
-Top News Arab News Asia News

Jordan Quells Pro-Palestinian Protesters Heading West Bank Border

Jordan had concerns about the potential for an expanded regional conflict stemming from the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza, as a significant portion of its population is of Palestinian descent…reports Asian Lite News

The Jordanian riot police used force to disperse a large group of pro-Palestinian demonstrators who were attempting to access a border area adjacent to the West Bank, which is under Israeli occupation, Daily Mail reported.

Thousands held anti-Israel demonstrations across the country. Jordan was worried a regional widening of violence arising from the war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza could have repercussions for itself given that a large percentage of its population are Palestinians, Daily Mail reported.

Jordan lost the West Bank including East Jerusalem to Israel in the 1967 Middle East war. The Palestinian territory was seeing a rise in violence between Palestinians and the Israeli military and settlers even before the Gaza conflict erupted.

Witnesses today said police fired tear gas to halt about 500 demonstrators who had reached a highway security checkpoint outside the capital Amman, Daily Mail reported. The highway leads to a main border crossing into the West Bank.

The interior ministry had issued a ban against holding anti-Israel marches in the sensitive border area, but said other licensed protests would be allowed.

The outpouring of Arab anger against Israel over its siege and bombardment of Gaza retaliating for a devastating cross-border Hamas attack also fuelled a large rally on Friday in downtown Amman, Daily Mail reported.

ALSO READ: ‘Hospitals in Gaza at breaking point’

ALSO READ: ‘Iran complicit, in a broad sense, in Hamas attack’

Categories
-Top News Arab News India News

‘Israel-Hamas Conflict Shouldn’t Hinder India’s Relations with Iran’

Experts said that the Israel-Hamas conflict should not be allowed to dampen India-Iran ties….reports Mahua Venkatesh

Amid a new emerging world order, India is not only looking at resetting its trade and economic ties with Iran but is also keen to use it as a commercial transit hub.

“In addition to bilateral trade and investments, India is interested in using Iran’s commercial transit capacity due to its geographical location,” India’s Ambassador to Tehran Rudra Gaurav Shresth said, adding that trade and economic activities between the two countries have expanded in the last few years despite the US sanction on Tehran.

Experts said that the Israel-Hamas conflict should not be allowed to dampen India-Iran ties and New Delhi must continue its focus on connectivity.

Iran, which is strategically located, can provide easier and seamless connectivity between India and Europe. It provides access to the landlocked Central Asian nations through its corridors as well.

Both the countries have now pressed the pedal on the Chabahar Port project after much delay. The 7,200 km long International North South Transport Corridor (INSTC) is also expected to boost India-Iran ties and push trade between the two. Once the route is fully operational, Iran’s role as a transit hub will become amplified. According to Tehran Times, Iran will then be able to earn $20 billion in transit profits annually, something helping it reduce its dependence on oil revenues amid the American ban on the sector.

Meanwhile, Iran has indicated its interest in inking a Preferential Trade Agreement with India.

Hossein Selahvarzi, Head of the Iran Chamber of Commerce, Industries, Mines and Agriculture (ICCIMA) who met Shresth noted that issues related to high customs tariffs and financial transfer that cause roadblocks in trade need to be resolved at the earliest.

Iran is among the six countries that have been given a go ahead to be part of the BRICS (Bazil-Russia-India-China-South Africa) bloc. Iran is also a full member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO).

In August, Prime Minister Narendra Modi held a bilateral meeting with Iranian President Seyyed Ebrahim Raisi on the sidelines of the BRICS summit in South Africa to discuss matters of bilateral and regional importance including connectivity and trade.

That apart, several high profile visits of officials of both nations have taken place too.

National Security Advisor Ajit Doval who visited Tehran in May met Raisi and discussed issues relating to connectivity and trade. Deputy NSA Vikram Misri too undertook a visit to Iran soon after. Several senior Iranian ministers including its Minister of Defence and Armed Forces Logistics Brigadier General Mohammed Reza Gharaei Ashtiyani and the Deputy Agriculture Minister Mohammad Mehdi Borumandi have paid a visit to India.

Raisi has underlined the need to take India-Iran ties to a “new level” especially with a focus on economic and commercial engagements.

Until 2018 – when the US sanctions kicked in, Iran was one of the primary oil suppliers for India. “For New Delhi, letting go of Iranian crude supplies was a difficult transition as it moved to other suppliers such as Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and as far as Nigeria and Angola to spread its energy import risk,” Observer Research Foundation said.

ALSO READ: Canadians Prefer Diplomacy in Khalistani Conflict with India

ALSO READ: ‘Iran complicit, in a broad sense, in Hamas attack’