Cyprus, Greece and Egypt Move Closer Contra Turkey

As we briefly reviewed last summer, Turkey's bullying action from the Aegean to Cyprus to Libya was having the effect of pushing surrounding nations closer together - and getting the attention of larger powers on the other side of the Mediterranean as well.

After a series of provocations by Turkey, it was only natural that the nations of the Eastern Mediterranean would either have to fold or stand up.

They've taken the later option; 

Egypt, Cyprus and Greece have demanded respect for the sovereignty and sovereign rights of states in their maritime areas in the eastern Mediterranean.

The demand came in a joint statement from the three countries’ foreign ministers during their meeting in Athens, where they discussed cooperation to deepen their political and economic commitment, regional challenges and delivering a clear message that the region had the potential to be peaceful and stable.They welcomed the preparations for the establishment of a Tripartite Secretariat, based in Nicosia, Cyprus, that launches later this year, and for the founding charter of the EastMed Gas Forum that enters into force on March 1.

The charter establishes the forum as a regional organization based in Cairo. The forum is open to all countries that share the same values ​​and goals and have the desire to cooperate for regional security and prosperity.

...

They stressed the importance of respecting the sovereignty, sovereign rights and jurisdiction of each state over its maritime areas in accordance with international law, while condemning any activities that violated international law.

Their statement said the expected words about Syria, Israel, the Palestinians, and Libya, but there is no question here the concern revolves around their mutual history with the Turks/Ottomans. 

On balance, this is good for the international community. Turkey needed to be checked, and these neighbors - in an East Med "community watch" - put their obnoxious neighbor at the end off the cul-de-sac on notice. 

Good.

Does our broader Middle East strategy need "recalibration?"

Do you get the feeling now and then that our thinking about the American role in the Middle East is a bit ossified - that in some ways we are just going through the motions not so much from thought, but from motor memory?

Bruce W. Jentleson from The Century Foundation, has some thoughts on the topic worthy of your consideration.

I am not fully in line with some of his points as they come from the other sides of the world-view spectrum from me, but in general his call for a "recalibration" of America's position in the Middle East is spot on. His entering argument is a reasonable frame of reference for a conversation.

This reappraisal of interests and reassessment of strategy—here more broadly termed “strategic recalibration”—has four fundamental elements when applied to the Middle East.3 First, strategy needs to shift from regional dominance to regional balance. The United States must accept that Russia and China are global powers with interests in the region, and stop seeking to minimize their presence and assure American preponderance. Instead, a forward-thinking strategy should combine competition, collaboration, and complementarity. Second, in relations with traditional Arab allies, and Saudi Arabia in particular, the United States has to move beyond the “support our friends” mantra and be more assertive of its own interests where they differ on counterterrorism, domestic political reform, and overall regional security architecture. Third, even if U.S. policy toward Iran will continue to focus on containment, depending on the latter’s aggression, Washington should also seriously and creatively pursue diplomacy, and probe possibilities for substantial improvement in relations with Tehran. Fourth, even though the United States and Israel have faced divisive issues in the past, their greater divergence on the issues of Israeli-Palestinian peace and Iran, combined with political changes in both American and Israeli domestic support bases for the U.S.-Israeli relationship, poses significant challenges that must be addressed. The United States needs to maintain its commitment to Israel’s core security even as it supports a two-state solution.

His first point is best. The USA should act more like a mercantile republic, and less like an empire. Russia, China, and others have interests there. As long as they don't interfere in a hostile way with ours, why not accept that fact? What is the cost/benefit that we are willing to accept to keep them out if the nations of the area want them in?  

Russia;

Russia now clearly wants back into the Middle East. Syria is the most obvious example. Russia’s September 2015 military intervention in the Syrian conflict has had a number of objectives. These include direct, tangible objectives such as supporting the regime of Bashar al-Assad and solidifying an ongoing military presence in the region through expanded military basing in Syria. But Russia’s actions also have indirect, message-sending objectives such as taking a stand against yet another American-supported regime change and—along with its moves in Ukraine—demonstrating that it is back in the global geopolitical game. But Syria is not the sole focus of attention, as Russia has also been increasing relations with other major countries in the region.

Russian-Egyptian relations have grown closer since General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi came to power in his 2013 military coup. Moscow and Cairo convened their own tracks of Syrian peace talks as alternatives to the official United Nations (UN) Geneva talks, which were dominated by the United States. Egypt supported Russian efforts to block UN Security Council resolutions seeking to end the September 2016 Aleppo siege and the humanitarian crisis it caused. In October 2016, Russia and Egypt held joint military exercises, something the United States and Egypt had done regularly until 2011. More meetings have been taking place at the ministerial level in search of new economic and military agreements. Russia supplies close to 60 percent of Egyptian wheat imports; with inflation projected as high as 36 percent and Sisi trying to maintain bread subsidies to avoid food riots, this external economic support is vital to Egypt’s internal political stability.7 In March 2017, Russia deployed special forces to western Egypt. These forces then reportedly moved into Libya in support of Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar, head of the Libyan National Army, who had been receiving some U.S. support but now is referred to as “Moscow’s man.”8

China;

China’s Middle East role is also increasing. Oil is China’s principal interest in the region. It imports almost 60 percent of its oil, and over half of that comes from the Gulf. The United States imports just 28 percent of all the oil it consumes, with just 16 percent of imports coming from the Gulf. It has been estimated that by 2020 (albeit based on pre-Trump policies) imports will be down to 11 percent of total American oil consumption, which the United States could satisfy solely with imports from Canada and Mexico.18 Still, it is doubtful that the United States would choose that option. Even if it did, security of world oil supplies would still be a U.S. interest because of both its allies’ dependencies and the broader economic effects, including on financial markets, of such security. But given the shared interests in Gulf oil, and China’s arguably greater interest, the United States does not stand to lose much if anything by letting China take on some of the responsibility for, stakes in, and costs of assuring the security of Gulf maritime shipping routes. China already conducted joint navy exercises in the Gulf with Iran in 2014 that, while focused more on their bilateral concerns, did show the Chinese Navy’s oceanic reach (“blue-water capacity”).

China’s own natural preference is to free-ride on the U.S. Navy. It is not Trumpian economic nationalism or Rand Paulian isolationism to propose shared roles and shared costs. Indeed, having more than just American ships in those waters could provide further disincentive for terrorists or Iran to attack or otherwise disrupt Gulf shipping. Shared operations could be structured like the multilateral antipiracy operations off the Horn of Africa, with more informal complementarity than direct coordination. Much detail would need to be worked out, but this collaboration could be an example of collective interests taking precedence over zero-sum competition. Those concerned that expanded economic relations and military presence will bring China greater influence can take some comfort in the fact that U.S. leverage remains limited despite Washington’s far more extensive economic, military, and diplomatic ties.19

His conclusion should be, if nothing else, a conversation starter.

Given that Russia and China have interests in the region, and a number of regional states are interested in increased relations with them, regional dominance is simply not a viable strategy. Nor is it necessary for American interests. A combination of competition, collaboration, and complementarity is more likely to be effective. Traditional allies should not be abandoned, but the United States needs to be more honest with itself and with them—Saudi Arabia in particular—about the mix of shared and divergent interests, and be more assertive of its own interests where they differ on counterterrorism, domestic political reform, and regional security architecture. Opportunities as well as threats need to frame relations with Iran. To the extent that Iran’s aggression continues, containment needs to be the principal response. But the United States should pursue, creatively and seriously, possibilities for a breakthrough that would improve relations, and do so in ways that allow it to be consistent with commitments to regional allies. Further, the United States needs to maintain its commitment to Israel’s core security while supporting a two-state solution and, as warranted, pursuing diplomacy with Iran.

The makers and implementers of American foreign policy may well need to reappraise U.S. interests and corresponding strategies worldwide, but such a reappraisal, the essence of strategic recalibration, is especially crucial for the Middle East.

The Free Water Effect of Migration

Europe has set the conditions for ... well ... you know what.

I'm discussing over at USNIBlog - come read and tell me what you think.

Fullbore Friday

You may have missed one of the most import speeches given in the Arab world in a long time.

From Jonah Goldberg;

The slaughter in Paris Wednesday shocks the conscience but hardly shocks the intellect. In other words, no one is surprised that Muslim extremists are capable of doing this sort of thing. And nearly everyone expected in the early moments of this story that the culprits would be revealed to be Islamic extremists.

It is a sad commentary that the more shocking and, arguably more significant, event came a week earlier in Cairo. Egyptian President (and strongman) Abdel Fattah al-Sisi delivered a possibly epochal speech at Al-Azhar University on New Year's Day. More than a thousand years old, Al-Azhar is considered by many to be the epicenter of scholarly Islam.

Addressing the assemblage of imams in the room, al-Sisi called for a "religious revolution" in which Muslim clerics take the lead in rethinking the direction Islam has taken recently.

Raymond Ibrahim provides and excerpt;

I am referring here to the religious clerics. We have to think hard about what we are facing—and I have, in fact, addressed this topic a couple of times before. It’s inconceivable that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire umma [Islamic world] to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world. Impossible!

That thinking—I am not saying “religion” but “thinking”—that corpus of texts and ideas that we have sacralized over the centuries, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible, is antagonizing the entire world. It’s antagonizing the entire world!

Is it possible that 1.6 billion people [Muslims] should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants—that is 7 billion—so that they themselves may live? Impossible!

I am saying these words here at Al Azhar, before this assembly of scholars and ulema—Allah Almighty be witness to your truth on Judgment Day concerning that which I’m talking about now.

All this that I am telling you, you cannot feel it if you remain trapped within this mindset. You need to step outside of yourselves to be able to observe it and reflect on it from a more enlightened perspective.

I say and repeat again that we are in need of a religious revolution. You, imams, are responsible before Allah. The entire world, I say it again, the entire world is waiting for your next move… because this umma is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost—and it is being lost by our own hands.

President al-Sisi, Fullbore.

Islam must be fixed from within. We should all pray for al-Sisi and other modernizers like him.

Chinese Apache? Begins with an "E" and ends with a "T"

Our friends at WiB and ChinaDefense have had their puzzl'r puzzl'n over the pictures of what looks to be an AH-64 Apache on a flat-bed in the Middle Kingdom.

A few theories are out there. Let's play some with them.

1. "This was a plant for some reason. They wanted it seen, otherwise it would be covered."
--- Never assign to complicated conspiracies what is best assigned to simple human incompetence. Call it the "Snowden must be a CIA operative" school of crazy. Odds; 10%

2. "This was from a crash in AFG or IRQ that was smuggled out."
--- No. Look at it. It is in too good shape ... and I've seen what we do with helos we have to leave on the field. Odds; 1%

3. "The Chinese have stolen the plans are have copied the entire helo."
--- They have a perfectly fine attack helo on their own. Down to the paint job copy then put it on a flat bed? Odds; 2%

4. "A movie prop." No. What movie ... and not. Odds; 1%

No - I am more likely to ascribe the Chinese getting an Apache to one of the Seven Deadly Sins or combo of a few. Lust, wrath, greed, pride ... those liberty risk factors.

Let's look who actually has Apaches making shadows on the ramp; USA, GBR, UAE, ROC, SGP, SAU, NLD, KWT, JPN, ISR, IDN, GRC, and .... wait for it ... EGY.

So, on that list, which country and/or military has the ingrained corruption, present dislike to the USA, need of new friends, and could use the money and influence that China can bring that the USA can't/won't?

OK, GRC ... but seriously. Who on that list also have the chaos to let something like this slip through? OK, GRC again ... but work with me.

Yep, Egypt. That is where my money is. Pay the right people the right amount of money. Put it in the right container or on the right ship ... and there you go.

I remember being escorted by an Egyptian Apache through the Suez and talking to some folks on the Flag Bridge the wisdom of selling Egypt all our best equipment. Well, there you go.

You have the pic above, below is one taken recently in Egypt of one of their Apaches.

China got an Apache from Egypt by some corrupt military type for money, influence, and just to spite the Americans who supported the Muslim Brotherhood? Odds; 51%

The Echoes in Egypt

Should our policy makers have been shocked by what has happened in Egypt? Was it really unpredictable?

How smart was it for this Administration to throw in with the Muslim Brotherhood early and often?

Well, when you have Egypt experts who were educated in the politically correct ahistorical Middle East Studies Departments - you get what you get.

Shall we let history get in the way? Of course. Via Arnoud De Borchgrave;

Next day, Cairo erupted in what became known as "Black Saturday" and the "Big Cairo Fire." It was huge. Some 300 buildings were torched, including the old Shepherd's Hotel where we were staying.

Martial law was decreed throughout Egypt. Losses to fire included 30 major companies and banks (including Barclays), 310 stores, 117 residential units, 92 bars, 73 coffee shops, 13 hotels, 40 movie theaters, either automobile showrooms, 10 weapons stores and 16 clubs.

Casualties were comparatively light -- 26 killed and 552 injured.

It was the handiwork of the banned Muslim Brotherhood.

It is a great story. Read it all.

History will not tell you the future, but it will help you make the odds.



Hat tip PD

Egypt's Counter-Revolution?

What is going on in Egypt is as important, if not more so, than what is going on in Turkey.

In both cases, you have the forces of modernity - relatively speaking - in two nations pushing back against the retrograde forces of fundamentalist Islam.  This isn't just important for those nations as globally, no one prospers as long as fundamentalist Islam waxes.

If you aren't following our old friend Sandmonkey on twitter - you need to.

Holy shit...even Haram street. unbelievable... RT @marianayounan شارع الهرم الآن #ارحل pic.twitter.com/X10PFo5CAB
— السيد مانكي (@Sandmonkey) June 30, 2013

A Sober Look at the Middle East, on Midrats

The "Arab Spring" has not turned out as well as many hoped, and in much of the Arab and Muslim world, the will of the people does not necessarily translate in to freedom and a pro-Western leadership. 

With many more years to go in the Long War struggle, how do we navigate through the rapidly changing world which is mostly beyond our control? While we cannot back away, we also cannot control. 

Is there a better way - and how do we more towards a more honest discussion of the world as it is, not how we wish it to be?

Join us Sunday, 30 SEP from 5-6pm EST to discuss this and more.

Using his latest article in Defense News, Navigating Chaos, as a starting point for our discussion, our guest for the full hour will be returning guest J. Michael Barrett, CEO of Diligent Innovations and a former director of strategy for the White House Homeland Security Council.  

Join us live if you can, but if you miss the show you can always listen to the archive at blogtalkradio - the best way to get the show and download the archive to your audio player is to get a free account and subscribe to the podcast on iTunes.

Listen to Midrats

The new, new Egypt

Take a gander of the very brave woman to the right. That is the Egypt we wish we had - one of the likes of Hala Mustafa & Tarek Heggy. Unfortunately - that isn't the one we will get.

No - look at the series of pictures I posted in March - there is the trendline. In the Muslim world - women are the canary in the cultural coal mine.

In what is one of the best articles written on Egypt recently - I highly recommend you read Michael Totten's latest. Read all of it.

Egypt’s revolution against Hosni Mubarak captivated the world. It helped inspire an armed rebellion against Moammar Qaddafi’s hellish dungeon in Libya and peaceful protests against Bashar al-Assad’s Baath Party regime in Syria despite his government’s ruthless repression. The only problem with the Egyptian revolution is that it was not a revolution. It was a coup d’etat against the president by the army.

The coup d’etat had the support of the people, of course. It might not have happened had mass demonstrations not broken out, and it certainly wouldn’t have otherwise happened on the day that it did. Still, no one from Mubarak’s political opposition is in charge. The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces rules the country as a military junta.

Hala Mustafa is distraught by all this. She’s one of Egypt’s most prominent liberal intellectuals and the founder and editor-in-chief of Democracy magazine.
...
Cairo’s regime is an Arab Nationalist military dictatorship, but it’s built on the a standard issue authoritarian model rather than a totalitarian one to keep order. The odds that anyone in her office would be arrested were small, and the odds that any of us would be kidnapped or assassinated by the state were infinitesimal. Even so, Egypt is not the free country some mistake it to be.

“The moment of liberal change hasn’t come yet,” she said. “The regime today is the same one that was founded in 1952. This is still the Nasserist regime. I was hoping this revolution would bring something different, that we could return to the liberal tradition that existed before Nasser destroyed it. Egypt had a historic opportunity to revive its liberal past, but the moment has passed. The military didn’t encourage that path, the Muslim Brotherhood jumped over everybody to manipulate the process, and the liberal secular forces retreated.”

Egypt really did have a liberal tradition, at least relative to what it has now, before the so-called Free Officers led by Gamal Abdel Nasser launched their military coup against King Farouk in 1952. Egypt was hardly a democracy at the time, but it was much more open and tolerant and oriented toward the West than it is now. Nasser changed everything when he imposed socialism (in the Russian rather than Scandinavian style), pan-Arab Nationalism, and a particularly virulent strain of violent anti-Zionism.

That was then - a world lost.

The key to today remains - as I stated in April - how the military and the Muslim Brotherhood act and react with each other. Well, we have more information on that. We will have to learn to deal with the retrograde, violent, misogynistic cult of the bruised forehead.

The Muslim Brotherhood has lost some of its popularity, too, for a number of reasons. It denounced and intimidated Egypt’s liberal and leftist activists, it is colluding with the military dictatorship, and Egypt’s political space in the post-Mubarak era has opened up space for more parties. Last year the Muslim Brotherhood was the only real opposition in town. It could count on the anti-Mubarak “protest vote.” That is no longer true. Both the Islamists and the army have less legitimacy than they recently did.

But what if they save each other by banding together? That’s what Hala Mustafa is afraid of. She’s frustrated that Western analysts don’t seem to get this, but Paul Berman said as much himself not long ago in The New Republic.

“The Egyptian army,” he wrote, “which must be dreaming of action, is also maneuvering to survive, and if the generals have not already cut a deal, surely they are working on one, which can only mean that, in the Arab world’s leading country, the army and the Brotherhood are arranging a do-over of their unfortunate falling-out in 1952, and this time the results will make room for both of them.”

No doubt Washington and Jerusalem prefer to do business with the military instead of the Brotherhood even if the regime was founded in a spirit of Arab Nationalism and Egyptian supremacy. But what if the U.S. and Israel will soon have to contend with both?

Will Egypt's Military Go Kemalist?

With the Islamist Zeitgeist in the Arab world right now, I don't think we will be that lucky - especially being that Egypt doesn't have anyone even close the Ataturk, sadly.

There is some hope though that as the Muslim Brotherhood tries to gain as much power that they can using the Popular Front playbook, that the Egyptian military may play a moderating role.

Egypt's military rulers have said they will not allow religious "extremist factions" to control the country, the Al Masry Al Youm newspaper reported Tuesday.

"Egypt will not be ruled by another Khomeini," members of Supreme Council of the Armed Forces were quoted in the report as saying at a meeting with newspaper editors.
...
"The Council will not allow extremist factions to control Egypt," Deputy Defense Minister Mohammed Mokhtar al-Mella reportedly said.

The comments by the Armed Forces came amid concerns over the growing influence of the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt's largest opposition group, as well as Salafi groups.

Although Salafi groups do not participate in politics, some of its leaders have said they are considering a political role following the January 25 revolution.

This must be watched very closely. Very.

Understanding Egypt in four pictures

There is so much going on here, so little time to type.

I really don't need to though, the pictures tell so much.

1. This shouldn't just make Egyptians sad, but all of us sad. Look at the faces and the brightness. See the change. Once where there was hope - there is only bleak brooding.

2. Decades of the West's Left's self-hate shows. No one wants to look like something that hates itself and is weak. Culture looks for the strong horse.

3. Radical Islam's misogynistic need to cover their women because the men lack mental and physical control is not traditional or culturally specific. Within living memory, women were treated with the respect of equals. Of course, in Egypt they still mutilate small girls genitalia ... but at least on the surface they were trying to join this century.

4. When you don't stop a cancer - it grows. The Egyptian elite did not stop the misogynist cancer, and look where it got them.

Behold

Cairo University graduates in 1959, 1978, 1995, and 2004.

Hat tip Roissy.