Crooke & Others on Greater West Asia

One of the main points made by Pro-Resistance analysts as well as those who’re genuinely neutral is the degree of predictability regarding the Zionist and Outlaw US Empire/NATO responses to Al-Aqsa Flood, thus the Axis-of-Resistance as they call themselves can react appropriately as they know their opponents’s chess moves before they make them—a very important strategic advantage that almost always results in defeat of the opponent in chess. Those who have followed Alastair Crooke’s analysis of West Asia and Ukraine’s happening will be familiar with that. One piece of evidence that’s part of the long ongoing context to the West Asia’s struggle to become liberated is the Iranian missile strikes in response to the Zionist/Empire Terrorist Foreign Legions attacks against Iranians. We saw what happened after Trump had Soleimani assassinated in 2000—very precise and powerful Iranian missiles wrecked a portion of a key airbase while not killing anybody because it gave warning. The attack today targeted a Zionist collaborator who thought his safe house was safe since it was adjacent to the US Consulate in Ebril—4 Iranian missiles cancelled him, his family and his house without touching the Consulate. Another strike was carried out in Syria targeting a base of Terrorist Foreign Legion assets, but there’s little info now about that outcome. The point is Iran can conduct strikes when it desires, not when it’s forced. AND Iran has the capability to raze all US/NATO military bases in West Asia. Plus, the Ebril strike showed US AD incapable of deterring such an attack.

That event leads us to the next important item, Al-Mayadeen’s interview of military spokesman for the Iraqi Hezbollah Brigades Sayyed Jaafar Al-Husseini published 9 January 2024. Yes, that’s Iraqi, “To stand with Lebanon if Israelis attack: Iraqi Hezbollah Brigades”:

Solidarity and Liaison between the Iraqi and Palestinian Resistance

Al Mayadeen: Greetings and welcome to our esteemed audience everywhere [in the world] to this special interview with the military spokesperson of the Iraqi Kataib Hezbollah [Hezbollah Brigades], Sayyed Jaafar Al-Husseini.

Welcome, dear sir. Let's get straight into the questions.

Since the onset of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, how would you assess your communication with the Palestinian Resistance Factions on all levels? Is it meticulous politically and in regards to on-field actions [militarily]? 

Al-Husseini: In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Since the early days of the Al-Aqsa Flood battle and the criminal aggression against the Palestinian people in Gaza or other areas of occupied Palestine, lines of communication have persisted. This communication was not born [now] at this stage but existed prior. However, after the Al-Aqsa Flood, this communication deepened and became a continuous and daily affair, both directly and in liaison with other brothers present in different places. This communication and these connections have become more cohesive than ever before.

Al Mayadeen: On what level? political and field [military] levels?

Al-Husseini: On all levels. We are talking about the military aspect, the political level, and even at the popular level. We are present and engaged in this communication, and we also aspire to be more proximate to Gaza in the coming stage.

Capacities of the Iraqi Resistance

Al Mayadeen: What are the capabilities of the Islamic resistance in Iraq? You announced targeting and hitting a site in the occupied territories with a precision-guided missile, as you mentioned, a developed cruise missile after the Islamic resistance in Iraq [umbrella term of Iraqi resistance factions including Kataib Hezbollah] had previously used one. What are the capabilities of the Islamic resistance in Iraq?

Al-Husseini: In regards to the capabilities of the Iraqi resistance, we have repeatedly emphasized that the capacities of the Iraqi resistance have become more robust, and abundant, and are certainly beyond what the enemy [Israel] might imagine. 

We have addressed this in various media outlets, affirming that the resistance in Iraq has capabilities and capacities that perhaps only the Americans are aware of, as they have experienced them [firsthand] in some battles and confrontations [in some areas in Iraq]. However, at this stage, we have become more transparent about using the capabilities we employ.

The Iraqi resistance, after the [Al-Aqsa] Flood, launched operations, primarily targeting American bases inside Iraq and some bases in Syria. They used drones and short-range missiles, including [locally] upgraded [precision guided] short-range missiles in these operations.

In advanced stages, the resistance went beyond that and employed aircraft [drones] with longer ranges that reached the depth of the occupied territories, targeting vital targets within the [occupation] entity.

This includes "Eilat" [Umm al-Rashrash], targets in the Dead Sea, and vital targets even in the Mediterranean Sea that the resistance targeted using these aircraft [drones]. 

There are also other suitable weapons in our arsenal however it wouldn't be smart to specify them at this time

[Also] other suitable weapons were employed, but it wouldn't be smart to disclose the type of these weapons and the tactics used. However, [we can confirm] that the hand of the resistance has reached there [the Israeli occupation].

At this stage, the Iraqi resistance has, for the first time, employed short-range ballistic missiles, targeting prominent American bases such as Ain al-Assad and others.

Al Mayadeen: You targeted American bases in Iraq with ballistic missiles?

Al-Husseini: Yes, Ain al-Assad was one of the [US occupation] bases that were targeted by the Islamic Resistance in Iraq with short-range ballistic missiles. These operations are escalating, and so are the tactics.

The use of this type of weapons and missiles was initially reserved for certain bases and targets. [Prior] there were specific targets being hit by these [high-tier] missiles. However, afterward, the resistance commenced a new phase of escalation by using long-range missiles. We are talking about an upgraded cruise missile targeting a vital position in Haifa by the Islamic Resistance in Iraq.

We [in the Iraqi resistance] are now proliferating our capabilities at this stage, but it won't stop at this level.

[Contending] the scattered American bases and the plots of the [occupation] entity corresponds to the crimes perpetrated against the Palestinian people, whether in Gaza or elsewhere (Al-Husseini re-emphasizes the equation set by the Islamic resistance that "Israel" and the US will continue to be subjected to operations by the Iraqi resistance so long a ceasefire is not achieved in Gaza). 

[The Israeli occupation] seems to be hellbent on escalating the conflict further and it seems determined to shed the blood of the Palestinians. As long as this enemy insists on that, we, as the Islamic Resistance in Iraq, will continue to expand the geography of these operations [to widen the scale of the bank of targets] and as well as the nature of the targets [to opt for more sensitive targets]. Geography is not an obstacle... 

Intensified aggression against Gaza to be met with escalation 

Al Mayadeen: That's what I was going to ask about. What do you mean by geographical expansion of targets?

Al-Husseini: The battle has erupted, and there is significant potential in it. Geography is open to us, and all American sites are [legitimate] targets for the Islamic resistance. We are talking about the American presence in the entirety of West Asia. The resistance is capable of reaching any point where Americans are present in West Asia, and this is by the grace of God. We are committed to that so long that the Zionist-American war machine persists in its crimes. We will persist in targeting Americans and those that coat-tail them. 

Al Mayadeen: What do you mean by those coat-tailing the Americans?

Al-Husseini: To speak blatantly, there are some who support the Zionist Occupation subliminally [in our region]. Specifically, there are some Gulf Arabist [regimes], namely the [United Arab] Emirates which plays a very malicious role. We have heard of some reports about the UAE paving the way for a route into the Israeli occupation (as an alternative to the blockaded Red Sea route). From the UAE to Saudi Arabia through Jordan to reach the Israeli occupation. 

If they choose to go through with this initiative, the [Iraqi] resistance will be faced with new options. Other options will be up on the table for the resistance to contend this form of support for the Israeli Occupation. 

These countries will be subjected to whatever the resistance surmounts if they choose to go through with this initiative. 

This is not to say that they [the aforementioned countries] do not currently play any malicious role: no. They do.

The days ahead of us may involve countries like those we have mentioned, Gulf countries. We are talking about the American bases in the Gulf, and we are talking about other regions. There will be a word for the resistance [regarding these bases] in due time.

Strategy: Ceasefire in Gaza and lifting the Blockade primary consideration

Al Mayadeen: Some hawkishly warn of American retaliation, and allow me to ask you here: Some fear that what is happening with the Islamic resistance in Iraq may come at a cost. Do you take into consideration these potential outcomes, or have you decided to engage in this epic and that's the end?

Al-Husseini: To be clear and direct with you, anything might befall us now, talking about costs, retaliation, [vengeful] attacks whether targeting individuals, sites, or any party, we do not hyper fixate on these matters [currently]. 

We do not look at these matters. Before us, currently, there is one primary concern: that the occupation ceases committing massacres against our people in Palestine, that the siege on our people in Palestine is lifted, and that the prospect of displacing Palestinians is devoid [and extracted from political discourse]. 

I’d say the man is focused on the goal as are his compatriots. Contrast that deeply thought-out strategy with what Crooke describes as Biden’s “gut feeling” choices, what would be called Shoot from the hip—without aim or purpose. Crooke’s latest SCF essay, “Gut Feelings Make for Strategic Errors – U.S. Lured Into Battlescape in Gaza, Yemen and Now Iraq,” follows:

China and Russia have been remarkably quiet, watching carefully the global tectonic plates shifting around in response to the ‘two wars’ (Ukraine and Israel’s ‘multiwar’). Really it is not surprising; both states can sit back to simply watch Biden and his team persist with their strategic mistakes in Ukraine and in Israel’s multiple wars.

The interlacing of the two wars will, of course, shape the new era. There are substantive risks, but for now they can observe with comfort from afar as a climatic juncture in world politics unfolds, gradually raising the pace of the attrition to a circle of fire.

The point here is that Biden, at the centre of the storm, is no cool-headed Sun-Tzu. His politics are personal and highly visceral: As Noah Lanard has written in his forensic analysis of How Joe Biden Became America’s Top Hawk, his own team say it plainly: Biden’s politics is seated in his ‘kishkes’ – his guts.

That can be seen in the disdainful and graphic way in which Biden sneers at President Putin as an ‘autocrat’, and the way he talks about victims of the Hamas attack being massacred, sexually assaulted, and taken hostage, whilst “Palestinian suffering is left vague – if mentioned at all”. “I don’t really think he sees the Palestinians at all”, says Rashid Khalidi, Professor of Modern Arab Studies at Columbia University.

There is a long and reputable history of leaders making the right spur of the moment decision from their unconscious, without careful rational calculous. In the ancient world this was a highly prized quality. Odysseus exuded it. It was called mêtis. But this ability was contingent on having a dispassionate temperament and an ability to see things ‘in the round’; to grasp both sides to a coin, we would say.

But what happens if, as Professor Khalidi implies, the ‘kishkes’ are filled with anger and bile; instinctive sympathy for Israel, fuelled by an outdated view of the Israeli domestic scene. “He just does not seem to acknowledge the humanity of [others]”, as a former Team Biden member put it to Lanard.

Well, mistakes – strategic mistakes – become inevitable. And these mistakes are luring the U.S. in – deeper and deeper (as the Resistance foresaw). Michael Knights, a scholar at the neo-con Washington Institute think-tank noted:

“The Houthis are high on their successes and will not be easy to deter. They are having the time of their lives, standing up to a superpower who probably cannot deter them”.

This comes on the back of an Ukraine war already reaching – or at – its foregone conclusion. Both in the U.S. and amongst its allies in Europe, it is recognised that Russia has prevailed overwhelmingly, and across all ‘domains of conflict’. There is next to no chance that this situation can be recouped, irrespective of money or fresh western ‘support’.

The Ukrainian military taste the bitter fruits of this fact daily. Many in Kiev’s ruling classes ‘get it’ too, but are frightened to speak out. The cadre of hardliners behind Zelensky however insist to press on with their delusion of mounting a new offensive.

It would be a kindness to ‘those about to die’ in another futile mobilisation for the West to call a halt. The endgame is inevitable: An agreement to end the conflict on Russia’s terms.

Ahhh, but do not forget Biden’s ‘kishkes’: This outcome would mean Putin ‘winning’ and Biden’s hope of a victory garland turning to ashes. The war must be kept going, even if its only achievement be to fire long-range missiles directly into the civilian cities of Russia (a war crime).

It is obvious where this is going. Biden is in hole that only can deepen. Can’t he stop digging? Some in America may wish he would, as the Democratic electoral prospects dim. But it seems probable that he can’t, for then his nemesis (Putin) would ‘win’.

Of course, his nemesis has already won.

On Israel, Lanard continues:

“ … Biden often has traced his unyielding support for Israel … to “a long, long discussion” with Henry “Scoop” Jackson – a notoriously hawkish Senator (once described as ‘more Zionist than the Zionists’).

“After Biden became vice-president, he stuck with his ‘no daylight” belief’: (‘that peace will only come from there being “no daylight” between Israel and the U.S.’). In a memoir published last year, Netanyahu wrote that Biden made his willingness to help clear from early on: “You don’t have too many friends here, buddy,” Biden reportedly said. “I’m the one friend you do have. So call me when you need to”.

In 2010, when Netanyahu infuriated Obama with a major settlement expansion while Biden was in Israel; Peter Beinart reported that whilst Biden and team wanted to handle the dispute privately, the Obama camp took an entirely different route: Secretary Clinton gave Netanyahu 24 hours to respond, warning: “If you do not comply – it might have unprecedented consequences on the bilateral relations – of the kind never seen before.”

“Biden was soon in touch with a stunned Netanayhu … Biden completely undercut the Secretary of State [Clinton] and gave [Netanyahu] a strong indication that whatever was being planned in Washington was hotheadedness – and [that] he could defuse it when he got back”.

When Clinton saw the transcript, she “realized she’d been thrown under the bus” by Biden, one official said. Beinart concluded:

“that during a critical period early in the Obama administration, when the White House contemplated exerting real pressure on Netanyahu to keep the possibility of a Palestinian state alive, Biden did more than any other cabinet-level official to shield Netanyahu from that pressure”.

Clearly such accounts put Biden to being viscerally to the Right of some in Netanyahu’s War Cabinet – “We’re not going to do a damn thing other than protect Israel,” Biden said at a fundraiser this December; “Not a single thing”.

Such unwavering backing is a sure recipé for coming U.S. strategic errors – as Moscow, Tehran and Beijing will have surmised.

Former Israeli diplomat and current Washington insider, Alon Pinkas, considers that although an Israeli-Hizbullah war would be devastating for both sides, “why does it feel Inevitable?”

“Whilst Washington is wary of such a development … Israel seems resigned to the idea. So much so – that a Washington Post article quoted U.S. officials expressing “alarm”, and estimating that [Netanyahu] is encouraging escalation as a key to his political survival”.

Yet, what do Biden’s kishkes say to him? If an Israeli military operation to ‘move’ Hizbullah north of the Litani ‘feels’ inevitable to Pinkas; and with Israel ‘resigned to it’, would it not also be likely – given Biden’s unwavering backing for Israel – that Biden is somehow resigned to a war too?

What of the Washington Post report on Sunday that Biden has tasked his staff with preventing all-out war between Israel and Hezbollah?

That report – clearly purposefully leaked – was likely intended rather, to inoculate the U.S. from blame for complicity, should war in the North break out.

Was a quite different messaging being transmitted via Senator Lindsay Graham to Netanyahu at their meeting last Thursday – and to Mohamed Bin Salman (whom Graham met later at his desert tent) – just as in 2010, Biden was ‘on the quiet’ telling Netanyahu to ignore Obama’s messaging about the necessity for a Palestinian State?

(Senior U.S. figures are not wont to meet both with the Israeli PM and subsequently the Crown Prince without touching base with the White House command).

The key to understanding the complexity for launching military action in Lebanon lies with the need to view it from a wider perspective: From the perspective of the neo-cons, confronting Hizbullah invokes the pros and cons of a broader U.S. ‘war’ with Iran. Such a conflict would involve different and more explosive geopolitical and strategic aspects since both China and Russia are in strategic partnership with Iran.

U.S. Envoy Hochstein is in Beirut this week, and has been reportedly tasked with binding the Lebanese and Israeli sides to the provisions of the (never implemented) 2006 UNSC Resolution 1701.

The Lebanese government has proposed to the UN a road map for implementing 1701. The ‘map’ envisages finalising agreement on all thirteen disputed border points and proposes demarcating the boundary between Lebanon and Israel accordingly. But, as Pinkas points out, such a configuration of the issue is wholly misleading, for Resolution 1701 is not simply an unresolved territorial dispute in Lebanon. The major focus of Resolution 1701 was (and is) the disarmament and displacement of Hizbullah, yet the Lebanese government’s plan doesn’t mention Hezbollah at all, which poses clear questions about its realism and purpose.

Why would Hizbullah be persuaded to disarm, when Netanyahu, together with Defence Minister Gallant, have announced through a joint statement this weekend that “the war is not nearing its end: both in Gaza and on the northern borders” with Lebanon.

Gallant, last weekend, warned plainly enough that Israel will not tolerate the approximately 100,000 Israeli residents displaced from their homes in northern Israel and being prevented from returning home on account of Hizbullah’s threats. Should the Hochstein diplomatic solution not emerge (with Hizbullah disarmed and removed from the south), then Israel, Gallant promised, will take military action. “The hour glass will soon turn over”, he warned.

Perhaps the most daunting and ominous thing about an Israeli-Hezbollah military confrontation is its apparent inevitability, Pinkas concludes:

“The sense that it is a foregone conclusion. In the absence of a mutually agreed upon and durable political agreement, and given Hezbollah’s raison d’être and Iran’s regional motivations, such a war may be just a matter of time”.

So, when Blinken arrived in Israel, he unsurprisingly faced deep scepticism on the possibility of reaching an agreement with Lebanon for Hizbullah to withdraw to the far side of the Litani River, Israeli commentator Ben Caspit reports. (Well, certainly, if the subject has not been raised at all with Hizbullah!).

Were Israel to invade Lebanon in order to attempt to drive Hezbollah away from the border, it would, of course, be invading a sovereign UN member state. Irrespective of the circumstances, it immediately would be denounced internationally as an illegal aggression.

Is the point of these negotiations then, to try to get the Lebanese State to agree to a ‘stripped-down’ (Sheba’a farms ignored) accord that accepts 1701 in principle, so that Israel cannot be accused of invading a sovereign state?

Might this too be a tactic, acceded to by Hizbullah, to avoid blame in Lebanese circles for triggering a war that would damage the state, through placing the onus on Israel for launching an attack on Lebanon? Is this 1701 initiative no more than a charade with its eye on possible legal consequences?

If so, how does this affect any message Biden might be sending Israel on back channels? We know that one set of U.S. messages sent to Iran is that the U.S. does not want war with Iran. Is this setting the scene for Biden again to indicate that his own unwavering support for Israel remains intact? Almost certainly.

Russia, Iran and China and much of the world naturally are watching as the U.S. allows itself to be drawn into a series of overlapping strategic mistakes – one leading to another – that will undoubtedly reshape the global order to their advantage.

Crooke expands on the above and more in his weekly conversation with Judge Napolitano that can be viewed at the link. The half-hour is well spent. There’s one important point regarding Geopolitics Crooke makes about Western relations with the Global Majority related to the censorship shown the South African performance at the ICJ hearings—clips from both sides are shown. All that did was put more holes into the West’s feet it keeps shooting into.

A quick note about the Taiwan election outcome: The pr-independence party candidate won with just over 40% of the vote meaning close to 60% of Taiwanese voted against the DPP, which reflects the recent local and parliamentary elections. It appears most Taiwanese would like a Hong Kong-China type relationship, which means unification but autonomy, a situation IMO the CPC would honor as it has with Macao and Hong Kong.

*
*
*
Like what you’ve been reading at Karlof1’s Substack? Then please consider subscribing and choosing to make a monthly/yearly pledge to enable my efforts in this challenging realm. Thank You!