Q: are we not MENA? A: we are the rolling middle east, north africa and other geopolitical hot spots thread 2016!

thread to chat about, but not limited to: Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Yemen, UAE, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Palestine, Israel, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia and sometimes Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Cyprus, Djibouti, Georgia, Mauritania, Somalia, Sudan and Turkey.

some new years weekend updates:

Iranian Protesters Ransack Saudi Embassy After Execution of Shiite Cleric

Gunman Kills 2 in Tel Aviv in Attack on a Busy Street

link to last year's two year ago's thread:
Rolling MENA 2014 (Middle East)

He stated that "people must rejoice at [Nayef's] death" and that "he will be eaten by worms and will suffer the torments of Hell in his grave"

i get the feeling that ppl in the middle east are much cooler w/ celebrating the death of their enemies than us in the anglo west

I wonder how much the execution of Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr is going to reverberate in non-Muslim-majority states

And if the move to permit oil exports from the US is going to coincide with the "getting worse before it gets better" nadir of antidemocratic governance in MENA states - like, superpower(s) getting less and less dependent on these joints is definitely not going to improve the situation of the middle and working class in the near term

i think that makes sense. one element of foreign policy that i think gets forgotten when ppl call for breaking relations w/ an 'ostensible' ally (whether israel, turkey, saudi arabia, other) is the leverage the west can apply to states through continued support. the united states spent a lot of money during the cold war to bring a number of these nations over to the western orbit and even though there's not really the specter of international communism to push back there are still v good reasons to have countries at least beholden on some level to western ideals + human rights aspirations (even as the west itself often does not live up to them - still it's better to have the ideal and fall short than to say fuck it i don't care).

though he is among some a controversial figure i found this bernard lewis piece on islam + the state from 1976 to be v interesting (though i'm sure not without problems) and worth reading:
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-return-of-islam/

one of the 4 ppl just convicted for the duma arson; looks like he just got out of a phish show

http://www.jpost.com/HttpHandlers/ShowImage.ashx?id=323316&h=530&w=758

BBC says Saudis break off diplomatic ties with Iran.

Some takes on the Saudi executions:

Saudi execution of Nimr al-Nimr along w/ al Qaeda members is straight from Assad's playbook – lumping nonviolent activists with terrorists.

Saudi Grand Mufti tells state TV that the death sentences carried out today are “just.”

— Ahmed Al Omran (@ahmed) January 2, 2016

Nimr, from the Awamiya area, in the Eastern province of Saudi Arabia caught the Saudi regime's wrath after giving sermons calling for reforms in the conservative kingdom where women are not even allowed to drive cars and for “taking the lead” in anti-government protests in 2011-2012. In July 2012, he was arrested by police after being shot in the leg and in October 2014 sentenced to death for “disobeying the ruler” among other charges.

http://www.juancole.com/2016/01/saudi-arabia-executes-top-shia-cleric-nimr-al-nimr-under-terrorism-charges.html

The execution was in keeping with a newly aggressive stance adopted by King Salman, who has worn the crown for a little less than a year since the death of his half-brother, Abdullah. It sent a powerful message that Saudi Arabia is intent on standing up to its regional rival, said Theodore Karasik of Gulf State Analytics, a consulting group.

“The Saudis hope to demonstrate that they are on the offensive in terms of the Sunni-Shiite divide, and they have just upped the ante on that significantly,” he said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/bahrain-cuts-ties-with-tehran-as-crisis-widens-in-saudi-iran-split/2016/01/04/145c8824-b271-11e5-8abc-d09392edc612_story.html?tid=pm_pop_b

bahrain, UAE, + sudan also reducing diplo ties w/ Iran. should i feel surprised pakistan hasn't yet?

no

say more please

Pakistan has excellent relations with Iran and always has done.

Pakistan and Russia are positioning themselves as potential intermediaries for discussion.

my impression was that they had significant ties to saudi arabia - am i overstating those ties or have they just diversified well enough that they can claim to be a neutral party?

The ties with Iran are stronger but they have a decent relationship with both.

wow i had no idea! they're a sunni majority country, right? also am i remembering correctly that saudi arabia was heavily involved in developing their nuclear program?

Historically Pakistan didn't make a distinction between sects in official data. It's a Sunni majority country but has a large Shia minority.

Jinnah and possibly Benazir Bhutto were Shia and Bhutto's mother was from Iran.

ok lol: Militant in Islamic State video believed to be British bouncy castle salesman

If only sales of inflatable bouncy castles had been better he might not have become an extremist

Dhar, who is also known as Abu Rumaysah, is one of Britain's most high-profile Islamists and an associate of Anjem Choudary, Britain's best-known Islamist preacher who is due to go on trial next week accused of terrorism offences.

A convert from Hinduism who lived in east London, Dhar regularly attended protests staged by the now banned organization al-Muhajiroun

http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/04ed/dpwvmuqv8aa7qsqzg.jpg

i feel like getting all of these guys together in one place to form a coherent political entity would be like the bronx scene in the warriors

Lol u know what that scene is based on right

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabasis_(Xenophon)

Shouldve said film there - that particular scene also specifically based on the bronx gang peace treaty mtg iirc

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoe_Avenue_peace_meeting

Not a good development

US and UK military sales to Saudia Arabia will never stop, I guess

No.

This is interesting in Saudi news:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/12087397/Saudi-Arabia-looks-at-listing-worlds-largest-oil-producer.html

Suspect I might finally run out of excuses to go next month.

'UK military personnel are not directly involved in Saudi-led Coalition operations, we are offering Saudi Arabia advice and training on best practice targeting techniques,' says Ministry of Defence

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/we-caved-obama-foreign-policy-legacy-213495

US/Egypt policy

Obama was appalled. “We can’t return to business as usual,” he declared after the slaughter. “We have to be very careful about being seen as aiding and abetting actions that we think run contrary to our values and ideals.”

Several weeks later, Obama halted the planned delivery of U.S. military hardware to Cairo, including attack helicopters, Harpoon missiles and several F-16 fighter jets, as well as $260 million in cash transfers. He also cast doubt on the future of America’s $1.3 billion in annual military aid to Egypt—a subsidy on which Cairo depends heavily, and much more than the United States sends to any country in the world aside from Israel.

But a fierce internal debate soon broke out over whether and how to sanction Egypt further, a fight that many officials told me was one of the most agonizing of the Obama administration’s seven years, as the president’s most powerful advisers spent months engaged in what one called “trench warfare” against each other. It was an excruciating test of how to balance American values with its cold-blooded security interests in an age of terrorism. Some of Obama’s top White House aides, including his deputy national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, and the celebrated human rights champion Samantha Power, now U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, urged the president to link further military aid to clear progress by Sisi on human rights and democracy. But Secretary of State John Kerry, then-Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Hagel’s successor, Ash Carter, argued for restoring the aid. Trying to punish Sisi would have little effect on his behavior, they said, while alienating a bulwark against Islamic radicalism in an imploding Middle East. “Egypt was one of the most significant policy divides between the White House and the State Department and the Department of Defense,” says Matthew Spence, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense for Middle East policy.

For months, Obama tried to split the difference. In meetings and phone calls with the Egyptian ruler, by now paranoid and resentful about America’s intentions, Obama and Kerry urged Sisi to respect human rights, while also seeking his help in countering the the metastisizing Islamic State in nearby Syria and Iraq. Sisi did little of either.

In the end, Obama folded. This past March, he called Sisi once again, this time to explain that he would release the cash transfers and delayed hardware—including the F-16s—and end the administration’s threats to block the larger $1.3 billion annual aid package.

“We caved,” says a former senior administration official who participated in the debates.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/we-caved-obama-foreign-policy-legacy-213495#ixzz3wh2Hgap4

same ol, same ol

Iran Accuses Saudi Arabia of Attacking Embassy in Yemen

xp thx for sharing that article curmudgeon - it's nice to read about the reasons behind US support for various human rights abusing countries without the claim that it's a bribe to keep them acting nicely towards israel

same Politico writer on Obama and Saudia Arabia

For his part, Obama continues to pursue policies meant to reassure the Saudi royals that the U.S. is on their side. Obama has assisted the Saudi military campaign against Iranian-backed rebels in Yemen, despite qualms within the administration about civilian casualties and questions about whether the Saudis have a clear endgame. He has also supported efforts to depose Assad, an Iranian ally whom the Saudis despise, although the Saudi regime complains that Obama has not opposed Assad vigorously enough.

And while Obama occasionally urges the Saudis to liberalize their repressive political and legal system, he is careful about criticizing the kingdom's dismal human rights record. Neither the White House nor the State Department has specifically condemned the execution of Nimr and his 46 fellow alleged terrorists. White House press secretary Josh Earnest said little more than that the U.S. has "raised significant concerns about the human rights environment in Saudi Arabia."

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/obama-saudi-arabia-iran-royal-family-217385#ixzz3wlcnYKzx

CNN)—At least five people were killed and 10 others were injured when a "projectile" hit a hospital supported by Medecins Sans Frontieres in northern Yemen on Sunday, the group said.

Three of the injured were members of MSF, and two are in critical condition, the group said.

Several buildings collapsed and people may still be trapped in the rubble, according to MSF, also known as Doctors Without Borders.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/10/world/yemen-hospital-hit/index.html

is it weird that so many MSF institutions keep getting hit? are they operating in more dangerous locations (in yemen, syria, afghanistan, etc) than they normally do? or is this just terrible luck?

c. they are being repeatedly targeted

but each event has been a different group bombing them - the US (with Afghanistan intelligence) in Afghanistan, airstrikes in Syria presumably either Russia or SAF, Yemen either rebels or Saudis.

MSF was hit in Syria?

a few different times

DUBAI/NEW YORK—Airstrikes in Syria have killed at least 35 Syrian patients and medical staff in 12 hospitals in northern Syria since an escalation in bombings began in late September, the international medical humanitarian organization Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) said today.

According to staff at the hospitals, the attacks, which have also wounded 72 people, targeted medical facilities in Idlib, Aleppo, and Hama governorates, including six supported by MSF. Overall, six hospitals have been forced to close, including three supported by MSF, and four ambulances were destroyed. One hospital has since reopened, yet access to emergency, maternity, pediatric, and primary health care services remains severely disrupted.

http://www.msf.org/article/syria-barrage-barrel-bombs-destroys-msf-health-facility

(sorry, quote isn't from the link - quote is from one article and the link is a particular example)

this one is from Nov:
http://www.businessinsider.com/doctors-without-borders-say-one-of-their-hospitals-in-syria-bombed-in-air-strike-2015-11

Looks like there could have been a bombing in Sultanahmet.

At least nine reported dead.

Erdogan: “Pick a side. You are either on the side of the Turkish government, or you’re on the side of the terrorists.”

i'm reading that nine out of the ten victims were germans

can't shake the tasteless thought that this happened right by where arius spontaneously shat his guts out ~1700 years ago

i don't totally disagree w/ obama here (about fears being a bit overblown) but something about this juxtaposition i find kinda tasteless + i'd think that obama would be sensitive to coming off like he doesn't care enough about terrorism:

http://i.imgur.com/pasxD0o.png

AP NewsAlert: Pentagon: 2 Navy boats in Iranian custody but Iran tells US that crew will be returned 'promptly'

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.761741

United States Secretary of State John Kerry and White House National Security Adviser Susan Rice told a Palestinian delegation in Washington 10 days before the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution against Israeli settlements that the U.S. would not impose a veto on such a resolution if its wording was balanced, according to a document released by an Egyptian news site.

The State Department denied the contents of the document.

It is not possible to gauge the authenticity of the report published on the site Al-Youm Al-Sabaa. However, if it is authentic, it reinforces some of the claims that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s bureau has voiced against the White House over the past few days.

The five-page Arabic document released by the site appears to be a summary of the meeting, composed by the Palestinian delegation. If the document is authentic, it was probably leaked by officials in the Egyptian government.

so [possibly] the egyptians are leaking documents to make the US look bad for collaborating with the Palestinians. what a weird world we live in now.

Russia, Turkey and the FSA appear to have negotiated a ceasefire starting today.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/29/syrian-government-and-rebels-have-signed-ceasefire-agreement-says-putin?CMP=share_btn_tw

Talks to follow in Astana.

Hope it is in good faith and sticks this time (I'm nothing if not a naive optimist)

It looks like the trade off with Turkey is Ahrar al-Sham and Jaish al-Islam being redefined as 'legitimate' rebel groups rather than terrorists. Russia had previously refused to do this in previous discussions with Saudi Arabia. I would guess this means AAS will be expected to break its alliance with Al Nusra.

The United States again ranked first in global weapons sales last year, signing deals for about $40 billion, or half of all agreements in the worldwide arms bazaar, and far ahead of France, the No. 2 weapons dealer with $15 billion in sales, according to a new congressional study.

Developing nations continued to be the largest buyers of arms in 2015, with Qatar signing deals for more than $17 billion in weapons last year, followed by Egypt, which agreed to buy almost $12 billion in arms, and Saudi Arabia, with over $8 billion in weapons purchases.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/26/us/politics/united-states-global-weapons-sales.html?_r=0

Interesting piece on Russia's developing relationship with Hifter (who I will never not read as 'Hitler'), in Libya.

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2016/12/general-hifter-moscow-new-political-front-libya.html

Egypt v Ethiopia (with no mention though of Ethiopia's authoritarian government vs its own people)

The Egyptian motive in the horn of Africa is not secret that it wants to encircle the historical perceived enemy – Ethiopia from halting the ongoing construction of Renaissance Dam which is being built on the Nile River. Thus, Egypt is conspiring to weaken Ethiopia by engaging in proxy war through supporting Eritrea, Al Shabaab terrorist groups in Somalia and some local anti-peace elements. Hence, it is simple to conclude that Egypt can side with anybody ready to wage war against Ethiopia for the sake of securing the Nile River fully. Egypt’s move is, thus strategically and is expected.

The Qatari government is also famous for sponsoring anti Ethiopia groups in the region including Eritrea, Al Shabaab, and local rebels. Surprisingly, the tiny oil rich Qatar is against Saudi influence in the Arab world by projecting its own influence in the horn of Africa and beyond. Qatar is also strong in sponsoring Eritrea to involve in Somalia’s proxy war against Ethiopia.

Exactly, the proxy war is among Egypt, Iran and Saudi for own deep interests in the horn of Africa. Qatar, Eritrea, UAE might have big role but are not the deciders. Saudi is known for organizing and spreading fundamentalist Islamists in the horn particularly to Ethiopia. And again, Eritrea, Djibouti, Somalia are next-door countries to Ethiopia. What happened to those countries has direct implications to Ethiopia. I do not see anything Ethiopia is doing to halt such serious encirclement against it by the stated countries so far. The strength of Al Shabaab against Ethiopia in Somalia attributed hugely to Saudi, Qatar, and Egypt through Eritrea. What is more worrying is that the stated opposing Arab countries are one in the issue of being against Ethiopia.

http://hornaffairs.com/en/2016/12/21/arab-military-incursion-implication-ethiopia/

Given Eritrea's roughly 55/45 religious mix, I suspect Arab meddling means trouble for them before it means trouble for Ethiopia.

While the EPRDF has ruled Ethiopia for 25 years and 4 presidents, Eritrea has had only Isaias Afewerki during the same period. Its a military autocracy comparable to North Korea in its 21% GDP devoted to military spending, and indefinite duration conscription. They've already had at least one aborted coup in 2013.

Time for a 2017 thread I guess

Any title ideas

front page of haaretz right now basically says bibi is done - corruption evidence against him is ironclad. but they've been known to sensationalize stuff before. if he does get taken down for this, it'll be yet another example of how the israeli criminal justice system works better than ours which apparently can do nothing with our own petite dictator.

rafsanjani died

Wonder if it will have an impact on the presidential elections (May 19th)

not sure how it would. rouhani v popular, only competition (ahmadinejad) has been disqualified from running. rouhani will almost certainly win reelection.

Meant more in the hearts and minds of people, though you're probably right (and he was p much on the same page and friends with Rouhani)

NY Times:

Two of Mr. Rafsanjani’s most important protégés — Hassan Rouhani, the current president, and Mohammad Khatami, a former president — both owe their political careers to him. But Mr. Rouhani, up for re-election this year, is fighting for his political life. Mr. Khatami, who has been sidelined by conservative adversaries for years, is now even weaker.

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/08/world/middleeast/iran-ali-akbar-hashemi-rafsanjani-dies.html

Guardian:

“Rafsanjani’s death will weaken Rouhani’s government and will also negatively affect the country’s reformist movement,” Sadeq Zibakalam, a prominent Tehran University professor, told the Guardian in a phone call from the Iranian capital.

“Rafsanjani’s political life can be divided in two parts. In the first part, he was part of the establishment and the country’s political system. Until Imam Khomeini’s death, he had an immense power in Iran.

“But after his time as president and particularly in the past two decades, he lost his influence and only had a ceremonial position. That was because he leaned towards democracy and freedom, which were the primary values of the revolution itself. This earned him a great deal of animosity among radical factions who attacked him and insulted him repeatedly until his death.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/08/iran-former-president-rafsanjani-dies-aged-82

The absence of Rafsanjani's moderating and mediating role will be hugely felt in Iran's political scene.

Have to say Western media on the whole are not reporting much on his blood lust and crackdown on minorities. Rafsanjani as president was responsible for the assasination of Kurdish leader Abdul Rahman Ghassemlou in Vienna, for one.

(NYT did a way better job than most others)

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/08/us/politics/russia-turkey-syria-airstrikes-isis.html?action=click&contentCollection=World&module=RelatedCoverage®ion=EndOfArticle&pgtype=article

Russian warplanes have carried out airstrikes to support Turkey’s offensive in northern Syria against the Islamic State, an important evolution in a budding Russian-Turkish partnership. The deepening ties threaten to marginalize the United States in the struggle to shape Syria’s ultimate fate.

...
Some analysts say Russia appears to have arrived at an accommodation in which the Turks are moving to establish a security zone in northern Syria to preclude Syrian Kurds from setting up an autonomous region. In return, the Turks appear to be backing off their efforts to unseat President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, who, with Russian help, is strengthening his hold on the country’s major cities to the south.

“The Russian-Turkish rapprochement is largely tactical,” said James F. Jeffrey, a former United States ambassador to Turkey. “Russia can live for now with a Turkish enclave in northern Syria if it does not threaten the Assad regime. And it allows Russia to exploit the U.S. shift to Turkey’s rival, the Y.P.G., by providing air support to the Turks against the Islamic State, which the U.S. inexplicably is not providing.”

Russia is also hosting intra-Palestinian negotiations with no involvement from the US.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/morocco-bans-production-sale-burqas-reports-113112940.html

normally not a big jacobin fan but i think this interview is good and a corrective to a lot of misconceptions [primarily on the left] about the meaning of the war in syria:
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/01/syria-war-crisis-refugees-assad-dictatorship-arab-spring-intervention-russia/

But this answer seems kind of naïve and dream-like

I think the entry point to defeating ISIS and Al Qaeda in the region is by toppling Arab dictators but also opposing any kind of foreign intervention, Western or Russian, in the region because those jihadist groups oftentimes justify their wars and their struggle by showing that there is foreign intervention, that the West is fighting Muslims, that there is Western threat, and so on. If there was no foreign intervention or Arab dictatorship, I don’t think that those groups could really operate. They need the chaos. They need marginalization, poverty, dictatorship, lack of political spaces, to operate and function. Without that, they wouldn’t get much momentum or power.

it's true that most attempts to oppose colonialism in the middle east have been crushed in short order, but I don't think they're unaware of that. as for "If there was no foreign intervention or Arab dictatorship, I don’t think that those groups could really operate", well, given how these jihadist groups came about, it has some intuitive appeal

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/11/opinion/assad-has-won-in-syria-but-syria-hardly-exists.html

Two professors note some mostly obvious stuff and also contend:

although Mr. Assad still maintains some independence, Moscow and Tehran, and even Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, will have much to say in Damascus moving forward. Not only will Mr. Assad have to listen, he will probably have to withstand the pressure of his patrons’ urging him to step down at the end of his presidential term in 2021.

Will they really ever urge him to steep down?

lol why would he step down

given how these jihadist groups came about, it has some intuitive appeal

reality says that when there is a power vacuum and a scrum to fill it, the first strategy every competing group will use will be to seek powerful allies from outside the country, in order to bolster their own strength. so, removing "foreign intervention" is a pure pipedream. then, if any government is able to emerge from the chaos the author prescribes, it is 99% certain to take the form of a dictatorship, so removing "arab dictatorship" is nowhere in sight, either.

maybe a question for discussion but I think folks like Bannon, Flynn and Trump are 100% convinced that the #1 enemy of the US is RADICAL ISLAM and the love affair with Russia is central to a new alliance against muslims of some sort. Who is their primary adversary? Iran? What about the Saudis? What about Israel?

Russia has good relations with both Iran and Israel and has been moving towards a better relationship with Saudi. KSA is a major investor in Chechnya.

If Flynn, etc believe Russia is part of an alliance against Islam, and it's certainly true that a lot of the US far-right seems to, it would run counter to a lot of the Russian far-right who view Putin as encouraging the 'Islamification' of Russia by supporting Kadyrov and tolerating migration from Central Asia (though the degree of toleration is questionable). Putin's leading western-backed critic, Alex Navalny, wants to end visa-free travel with Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, etc.

What we are seeing at the moment is Russia trying to position itself as the leading dealmaker / powerbroker in the Middle East and Central Asia, through Syrian peace talks, Palestinian negotiations, sweetheart arms deals with Lebanon, the formation of the Eurasian Union, collaboration with Turkey.. That would be odd sort of war.

Some new bad-ass alliance against ISIS is probably part of the appeal, though.

SV otm (as per usual, you're the new Nabisco around here as far as I'm concerned). Would only like to add that they have been very welcoming to the (Syrian) Kurds, too, allowing them to set up their first "European" HQ in Moscow. Much to the dismay of Erdogan.

You have to be impressed by how Russia has seized the opportunity to become the leading nation calling the shots in the Middle East. The EU and America failing that area as miserably as they did has helped them of course, but still. Walking the tight rope of being seen as an ally, or at least supportive to Israel, Iran, Kurds and Turkey: that's no small feat. (Turkey shooting down that Russian fighter jet proved a god send: they had Erdogan by the balls and played it out brilliantly).

I am worried by the Oblomovian, apathetic stance of 'the west' in this. And even more about the west itself not seeming to worried about this.

xp

I appreciate SV's comments tho I feel like reading him is how to get a line on Russian/Putin apologia (much like I imagine reading me is a lot like getting Likud in the best light), not necessarily the most accurate geopolitical reading, ymmv. (Game recognize game.)

Anyway, I have a slightly different read on this question. First of all I think you need to distinguish between ppl like Bannon who have a particular view of Islam, and Trump and most Trump voters whose perspective is far less sophisticated. I think that the threat that Trump + Trump people think Islam poses is that of radical violence + terrorism primarily. A true 'clash of civilizations.' I think Bannon has a different perspective tho - not a clash of civilizations but a clash between a civilization (Islam) and a non-civilization (the West). He views the West as a kind of decadent post-religion culture that has lost touch with its foundational roots (Judeo-Christianity) and corrupted Capitalism into this kind of klepocratic Capitalism. NB that he paints Putin as precisely the wrong kind of capitalist so any kind of alliance he views is tempered by these considerations. For Bannon then I think Russia, and Israel, represent a kind of Judeo-Christian model that has retained pre-postmodern meaning + religion and can therefore push back on Islam. I base this primarily on his Vatican speech. Thus Russia (and Israel) can represent a kind of aspirational model - nationalist, self-interested (which he sees as a good thing), religious/social meaning. But not without drawbacks (crony capitalism, at least in the case of Putin). Whereas I think whatever weird relationship Trump has w/ Putin and Russia does not necessarily carry this nuance (or at least not this particular nuance).

The European immigration/demographic crisis plays a large role in Bannon's worldview; that it's a civilizational threat to the European West. I think Trump has tried to replicate it w/ Latinos playing the role of Muslims in the US but it doesn't really make any sense (European descendent Christians are not a replacement model for US culture just because they happen to speak Spanish). From Russia's perspective they don't need the West as an aspirational model bc obv we're just decadent morons squandering our heritage bc of misguided liberalism, low birthrates, and presumably Holocaust guilt. Putin is interested in promoting Russian power (cf Dugin here primarily I would think) and Russia has a totally different historical relationship model for interacting w/ Islam that can tolerate Muslim immigration (and even include Muslims as part of the Empire) without risking their own identity. It's really only the kind of thing you can do if you do have a strong identity (and presumably shares some similarities to Israel which can have a much, much higher % of Muslims in their country than France or England - and more openly hostile - and I don't think they see their Jewish identity as a threat -- if anything the threat is to their Democratic identity, which, incidentally (or not), is the problem w/ Russia as well. They're not at risk of ceasing to be Russian - they're at risk of ceasing to be Democratic (not really at risk obv, this ship has already sailed)). This is also presumably the decision that the European Right feel like they need to make now - jettisoning Democracy to some extent, or curtailing/reversing immigration, but some kind of corrective or risk becoming Muslim majority countries. Anyway I think Bannon types esp in Europe - if they felt like they weren't under threat, would have no problem w/ Islamic countries and might even appreciate them as similarly committed to national self-interest (as a kind of piece of this International Nationalist paradigm I've been thinking a lot about esp on the West Right-Wing Drift thread), just do it /over there/ not in /our/ countries. Whereas Trump and whatever other US right-wing morons don't really have even this level of sophistication and for them it's more like /THE MUSLIMS ARE COMING/ which yeah, wtf do you do w/ Russia in that case (whereas Bannon can use them as a model and a strategic partner) but of course Trump relationship like I said w/ Russia is so complicated and implicated already that who the fuck knows how you can even read ideology into it.

and I don't think they see their Jewish identity as a threat threatened*

OT Ynet claims that US intelligence warned Israel not to trust Trump w/ any intelligence
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4906642,00.html

fwiw, i hold no brief for Russian nationalism or Russian 'interest' and think that Putin runs a semi-autocratic, semi-kleptocratic government that turns a blind eye to appalling corruption and abuse of wealth-given privilege and has been guilty of what i would frame as war crimes on at least two occasions. The fact that i also think he's better for Russia than either his predecessors or anyone who could viably look to challenge him from outside his party in the short term is an indictment of them, rather than an endorsement of him. It has been disappointing to see people like Mark Ames and Yasha Levine, who were literally harassed out of Russia for insulting / investigating the powerful, or Russian-Americans like Leonid Bershidsky - who is vehemently anti-Putin, re-framed by their critics as "Kremlin-apologists" for taking a different view of the facts on the ground. The expansion of Russian influence in the Middle East or elsewhere is no more of a moral good than the entrenchment of US influence but it doesn't particularly help to understand the risks, challenges and opportunities if you're working from the analysis provided by the Daily Beast, or whatever.

For Bannon then I think Russia, and Israel, represent a kind of Judeo-Christian model that has retained pre-postmodern meaning + religion and can therefore push back on Islam. I base this primarily on his Vatican speech. Thus Russia (and Israel) can represent a kind of aspirational model - nationalist, self-interested (which he sees as a good thing), religious/social meaning. But not without drawbacks (crony capitalism, at least in the case of Putin).

There was a widely circulated quote from a KKK guy recently along these lines - that Russia has always been a historical bastion of Christian values against the influence of permissive liberalism on one side and Islam on the other, so it's not impossible that Bannon thinks it's true. It is, however, a pretty bizarre claim to make. Although Putin has courted the Orthodox church a bit more in recent years, Russia is not a particularly religious country compared to most of Western Europe, let alone Ukraine and Poland. Something like 5% of people go to church semi-regularly and most polls indicate that a kind of amorphous 'spiritual but not really religious' sensibility dominates. People often associate culturally with Russian Orthodoxy in the way that British people vaguely associate with the Church of England but the idea that religious morality is more of a factor in Russia than it is in France or the Netherlands is basically a fiction imo.

What Putin has done, though, is opportunistically play up to a broader idea of 'traditional values' which may have a partly religious connotation but is essentially distinct. As his popularity has waned in Moscow and St Petersburg he has pushed a 'red-state' strategy of appealing to cultural conservatism on a range of issues (gay rights, quite notably, but others).

The fundamental difference between Russian nationalism, as officially pushed by the state, and Israeli nationalism is that non-white, non-Christian Russians are meant to be inside the tent in a way that Israeli Arabs and Palestinians never really will. Mistaking Russian nationalism for white nationalism or Judeo-Christian chauvinism is a mistake - from Putin's key allies (Surkov is Chechnyan and has been discussed as a possible successor to Kadyrov, to Shoigu - who is Tuvan, to Kadyrov himself), to the multi-ethnic, officially anti-fascist youth cadre of Nashi to the huge effort taken by United Russia to solidify its appeal in Muslim-majority areas, the state policy is to bring everyone into the fold. Racism and ethno-nationalism are present in lots of aspects of Russian culture to some extent but the European/Christian anxiety is at least as much if not more of an issue for Putin's Western-leaning critics who see him as too wedded to the idea of Russia as a Eurasian, rather an European entity. Which is not to say Bannon might sincerely believe the opposite.

Lots of interesting stuff from all of you. Nothing to add, just listening.

People often associate culturally with Russian Orthodoxy in the way that British people vaguely associate with the Church of England

English people of course.

lol, yes.

A minor point but, er, not so minor in the history of the UK.

President Abbas asks Putin to stop Trump from moving US embassy to Jerusalem.
https://twitter.com/KhaledAbuToameh/status/819945148595499008

so many wtfs

It bothers me so much that we know very little about whatever it is Bannon actually thinks

Bannon is like the nasty tick whose head is burrowed in Trump's hide, spilling its diseased guts straight into his bloodstream.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/18/iraq-has-retaken-east-mosul-from-isis-says-army-general

2 days old news. Not yet on the internet is that ISIS is giving up because Trump said "radical Islamic terrorism" and said he would "eradicate them from the face of the earth"

bc 2017 deserves its own terribly named MENA thread before the end of Jan:
I Never MENA Hurt You; I Never MENA Make You Cry 2017 (Middle East, North Africa, and Other Geopolitical Hotspots)

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/new-houthi-weapon-emerges-a-drone-boat

ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates — The Houthi boat that attacked and hit a Saudi frigate Jan. 30 in the Red Sea, reported earlier as a suicide boat, was instead carried out by an unmanned, remote-controlled craft filled with explosives, the US Navy’s top officer in the Mideast said.

“Our assessment is that it was an unmanned, remote-controlled boat of some kind,” Vice Adm. Kevin Donegan, commander of the Bahrain-based US Fifth Fleet and head of US Naval Forces Central Command, told Defense News in an interview here Saturday.

The attack on the frigate Al Madinah appears to be the first confirmed use of the weapon which, Donegan said, represents a wider threat than that posed by suicide boats and shows foreign interests are aiding the Houthis.

is there a 2017 mena thread? sorry if so

there is, FYI:

I Never MENA Hurt You; I Never MENA Make You Cry 2017 (Middle East, North Africa, and Other Geopolitical Hotspots)

(miss u, search function)

ok thx