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

While in Iraq, jihadists set off bombs

http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2016-05-17/three-bombs-kill-at-least-63-people-in-iraq

From the interesting piece Mordy linked upthread:

<q>Why is it time to give up on the idea of an Iraqi state, and why do Westerners get to foist weak ethno-sectarian federalism or dissolution upon them? Iraq’s difficult experiment with democracy — thrust upon them by the United States and its allies — has been running for about 13 years. Iraqi democracy is in its infancy. While the violence there is terrible, why is now the time to give up and try something new? Why not three years, five years, or perhaps 10 years from now?</q>

While this is a valid question, it should pose more as a mirror to the West, instead of troubling 'Iraq' with this. Good luck telling the Kurds in Iraq threat the West is done tinkering about for a while and will let things be as be for ten years...
Iraqi-Kurdistan is closer than ever to establishing their own state. The Barzani's, in control, have moderately close and ok relations with both Turkey and Baghdad. The former heavily investing in the region, and seeing Iraqi-Kurdistan in a very different light as Eastern Kurdistan (the Kurds in Turkey. Diyarbakir etc). The latter, Baghdad, is failing to support the Kurds and Peshmerga in the North on a daily basis.
Giving the Kurds their own state isn't "giving up". For them, this isn't the time for the west to say: let's take a break and see how democracy in Iraq evolves. They are on the brink of finally having their own state (which in theory they already have, being the autonomous region they are).

Regardless, the Kurds in Iraq will call their own autonomy anyway, probably very soon, through the long-awaited referendum. Neither the West nor Turkey, nor Iran, would oppose. Which is quite unique in and of itself.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/22/magazine/doctors-with-enemies-did-afghan-forces-target-the-msf-hospital.html

it's a long piece but here's a particularly dramatic part:

In 2011, M.S.F. opened the hospital in Kunduz, a location it chose because it believed, presciently, that the province’s bloody past presaged a violent future. But some members of the Afghan government and security forces there had little respect for M.S.F.’s neutrality and resented its treatment of wounded Taliban. When I visited Kunduz in November, their anger was still surprisingly raw, despite the recent destruction of the hospital. “They give them medicine; they transport and treat their injured,” Gard, the commander of the quick-­reaction force, told me. “Their existence is a big problem for us.” And though the hospital treated many more wounded for the government, there were rumors that M.S.F. had carried out unnecessary amputations on them, according to Fawzia Yaftali, a member of the provincial council. “The general perception was that M.S.F. supported the Taliban,” she said.

On July 1, an episode occurred that should have been, in retrospect, a warning sign for all involved. A team of Afghan police commandos from elite units mentored by United States and NATO special forces — the 222 and 333 Battalions, which were later part of the Afghan forces sent to Kunduz with the Green Berets — had arrived in Kunduz Province to track a high-­value target, a militant commander named Abu Huzaifa. After targeting Huzaifa in an airstrike, the commandos believed that he had been wounded and taken to the M.S.F. hospital in Kunduz City. They drove there and forced their way inside, where they physically assaulted the staff members and fired their weapons into the air, according to M.S.F. Huzaifa was nowhere to be found.

“It was a kind of wild intrusion,” Molinie said. After M.S.F. phoned the governor and the police chief, the commandos were called off. Furious that the sanctity of the hospital had been violated, M.S.F. closed it to new admissions for five days, until officials received guarantees from Kabul that it would be respected. Huzaifa would be killed seven weeks later — by an American drone, according to a senior Afghan special forces commander — but bitterness about the hospital raid lingered among the Kunduz security forces. “They hid him,” Gard told me, without offering any evidence. His men had accompanied the police commandos to the hospital. “The people who work there are traitors, all of them.”

apparently lieberman joining the Bibi coalition - word is that Odeh will become head of opposition?

ok apparently odeh was only going to become opposition head if bougie joined the coalition which i guess w/ lieberman now is not gonna happen. too bad - that would've been an interesting change of pace.

Oh, Avigdor Lieberman.

SO Bibi went to the right rather than center-left.

It had appeared for the past several days that a course had been set for Isaac Herzog's center-left Zionist Union party, which has 24 lawmakers, to agree on an alliance with Netanyahu's right-wing Likud.

But in a surprise move, Lieberman, who heads the far-right Yisrael Beitenu party and previously served as foreign minister, convened a news conference on Wednesday to say he was ready to negotiate a pact with Netanyahu.

Lieberman, whose party has six Knesset seats, demanded the defense portfolio as well as new legislation that would impose capital punishment on Palestinians carrying out fatal attacks.

...

Lieberman, who twice served as foreign minister in previous Netanyahu-led governments and has had testy relationship with the prime minister, has drawn headlines by repeatedly questioning the loyalty of Israel's Arab minority.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-government-idUSKCN0Y91S7

Laying out the welcome mat, Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked of Jewish Home, said: "Avigdor Lieberman is part of the nationalist camp, and I think the coalition, together with him, with 67 legislators will hold together until 2019," when Israel's next election is due.

If Netanyahu remains in office until the end of July 2019, he will be Israel's longest serving prime minister.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-netanyahu-politics-idUSKCN0YA1DA

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/05/19/top-general-agreement-to-send-u-s-troops-to-libya-could-be-reached-any-day/?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_checkpoint-libya-820pm-top%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Hopefully training of Libyan troops will go better than such training has gone elsewhere in the region

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/israels-defense-minister-abruptly-resigns-in-protest-of-growing-extremism/2016/05/20/c5a3d99b-bc00-4143-a4e7-15c17c9ae05d_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_israel-935a-top%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

In a press conference Friday, Yaalon, a fellow member of Netanyahu’s Likud party, warned that Israel was drifting dangerously toward extremism.

“I fought with all my might against manifestations of extremism, violence and racism in Israeli society, which are threatening its sturdiness and trickling into the armed forces, hurting it already,” he said.

Yaalon appeared to be referring to widespread support by Israeli leaders for a combat medic who shot to death a wounded Palestinian attacker as he lay on a street in Hebron in the occupied West Bank.

Thousands of Israelis rallied in Tel Aviv and proclaimed the soldier a hero. Israeli human-rights activists called it a cold-blooded execution. The killing was captured on video.

I think this is a disastrous move for Bibi politically and could potentially cost him w/ voters. Replacing a popular pro-IDF general w/ a nut like Lieberman w/ no defense experience will be seen v poorly I think. And it's hard to understand what real benefit Bibi got from this - he increases his seat margin slightly but not dramatically, he still has a few years till next election... I don't know if I believe this is true but I think it's possible that he is planning on upending the status quo in the territories and that he is trying to make the broadest (and most right-wing) government possible as cover for something like ending the occupation (presumably through withdrawal not annexation). It might seem implausible but he is supposedly negotiating with Sisi about the Arab League initiative and Lieberman has expressed more pragmatic pro-negotiation opinions in the past. Again, v hard for me to imagine Bibi doing anything politically brave esp as it regards the territories but despite that it might explain why he'd make such an otherwise incomprehensible move.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/airstrike-on-taliban-leader-escalates-us-involvement-in-afghan-war/2016/05/22/f26ced5a-2014-11e6-aa84-42391ba52c91_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-more-top-stories_no-name%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Back in Pakistan again

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/22/world/europe/how-the-saudis-turned-kosovo-into-fertile-ground-for-isis.html?_r=0

Every Friday, just yards from a statue of Bill Clinton with arm aloft in a cheery wave, hundreds of young bearded men make a show of kneeling to pray on the sidewalk outside an improvised mosque in a former furniture store.

The mosque is one of scores built here with Saudi government money and blamed for spreading Wahhabism — the conservative ideology dominant in Saudi Arabia — in the 17 years since an American-led intervention wrested tiny Kosovo from Serbian oppression.

Since then — much of that time under the watch of American officials — Saudi money and influence have transformed this once-tolerant Muslim society at the hem of Europe into a font of Islamic extremism and a pipeline for jihadists.

Kosovo now finds itself, like the rest of Europe, fending off the threat of radical Islam. Over the last two years, the police have identified 314 Kosovars — including two suicide bombers, 44 women and 28 children — who have gone abroad to join the Islamic State, the highest number per capita in Europe.

with friends like these...

Again, v hard for me to imagine Bibi doing anything politically brave esp as it regards the territories but despite that it might explain why he'd make such an otherwise incomprehensible move.

interesting interpretation, I certainly can't unravel what he's up to

Saudi, Qatari, etc, funding is a problem in Bosnia too. Again, it's a symptom of the failure to build a viable post-intervention economy. Kosovo has a youth unemployment rate of over 60%.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/ground-offensive-in-syria-seeks-to-squeeze-islamic-state-stronghold-raqqa/2016/05/24/68035454-21b0-11e6-b944-52f7b1793dae_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_syria-1050a-top%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Although the operation around Raqqa appears to have relatively limited goals, it will provide an early test of a coalition being built in the desert between local Arab fighters and the Kurdish People’s Protection Units, or YPG.

But the umbrella force remains overwhelmingly dominated by the Kurds, and efforts to recruit Arab fighters have been plagued by disputes and mistrust.

The U.S. military in April dispatched 250 U.S. Special Operations forces to northern Syria, to join the 50 who were already there, with the goal of helping recruit and train more Arab fighters.

The YPG has expressed little interest in fighting for Raqqa, which is a predominantly Arab town, and U.S. officials say a significant Arab force is needed before an assault directly on the city. But the officials would not put a time frame on how long it could take to assemble enough Arab fighters.

still skeptical of my theory above however possibly some more evidence:
http://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-signs-coalition-deal-with-liberman-pledges-to-pursue-peace-deal/

So, Avigdor Lieberman was appointed minister of defense of Israel the other day.

I tried to put a news link underneath that ^^, but couldn't find any (via Google news) simply stating the fact and not "choosing sides". Personally I think nothing good can come from this appointment, but would like to hear your thoughts. Especially as to: Netanyahu, why?

I speculated a bit above

Missed that Mordy, sorry. In full agreement though.

more possible evidence:
In surprise move, Netanyahu says he’s ready to negotiate based on Saudi peace initiative

https://ottomansandzionists.com/2016/06/02/two-state-security/
http://www.twostatesecurity.org/

lot of stuff in the second link to sort through but some interesting ppl are involved in the project including koplow whose introduction is in the first link

Interesting, thanks for sharing.

How influential is the Israel Policy Forum in America? Not heard of the institute before (in EU here).

afaik not particularly but idk these think tanky / lobbying groups sometimes punch above their weight class

the interactive map in particular is pretty cool

Interactive map is crashing my old iPad but will read tomorrow.

what do we think about this? http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36431160

khamenei obv denies it

http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/5E02/production/_89866042_wedonotsaytreated.jpg

Entirely believable if you ask me. Makes sense he sought at least some support from his biggest enemy to be able to grab the power. And I could see Carter agreeing on this. Also means he got all the more screwed over by Iran, with a kick in the boot of them releasing the American hostages the day he left office.

interesting counter-intuitive argument here about israel + long term status quo that i more-or-less agree w/ (w/ caveat that israel's ability to maintain longterm status quo should not make them blasé about the costs of doing so):
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2016-06-08/israel-and-post-american-middle-east

for ultimate counter intuitive:
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2016/06/07/What-a-Hillary-Clinton-nomination-means-for-the-Middle-East-.html

Tired of these faux conclusive 'here's what this means' articles tbh, when it's all speculative anyway. But I doubt Israel has a lot to fear from Clinton.

Also, "Middle East" is the new "Africa is a country". The "Middle East" is a hollow, lazy formulation of a complex array of countries, tribes, coalitions, rebels.. That is something H. Clinton will find out the coming four years iirc.

tbf she was the SOS i'm sure she knows :p

One can but hope ;)

i was curious and looked up which potus were sos first, interesting list, no one from modern era: jefferson, madison, monroe, jq adams, van buren and buchanan

Van Buren! Now I want to google and find out if he even knew about/did something for, say, the Kurds.

More casualties of war:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/10/in-about-two-weeks-the-lions-and-leopards-at-this-zoo-in-yemen-may-be-out-of-food/?hpid=hp_no-name_hp-in-the-news%3Apage%2Fin-the-news

Discussion of the phrase "radical Islam"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/14/obama-lashes-out-on-loose-talk-on-terrorism-islam/?tid=pm_politics_pop_b

“That’s the key, they tell us. We can’t get ISIL unless we call them ‘radical Islamists,’ ” Obama said, referring to the Islamic State militant group after meeting with his National Security Council at the Treasury Department to discuss the administration's counterterrorism strategy. “What exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIL less committed to trying to kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this? The answer is, none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. This is a political distraction.”

The president added: “There’s no magic to the phrase, ‘radical Islam.’ It’s a political talking point; it’s not a strategy.”

by the same token there's no reason not to say it. i don't think moderate muslims are impressed by our refusing to call it radical islam when that is clearly what it is and does not tarnish all muslims everywhere just like fundamentalist christians does not tarnish all christians everywhere. to play the devil's advocate a little bit - i'm not sure entirely how much i believe this but i think there is an argument to be made as well that obama has concentrated primarily on the military/assassination part of fighting worldwide radical islam and not enough on the ideological side. this doesn't necessarily mean making the argument that islam is somehow uniquely or inherently given towards radicalism but that at least in most personifications is not as great as american capitalism (or whatever exceptionalism argument he wants to make but that he makes some argument about why our life + freedoms + etc are better than the governments of saudi arabia, iran, iraq, egypt, increasingly turkey, most islamic run states even ones that are not officially 'radical'). idk maybe he's right that such an argument would indeed have a deleterious impact on moderates and obv you don't want to alienate sisi or erdogan no matter how much you might like to (tho probably ilx consensus is we could hold ksa's feet to the fire better). hillary is a much better advocate for america on exceptionalism/ideological grounds probably bc of their differing backgrounds + identities. obama much better at articulating the nuances + problems in the system but idk when you're a world superpower and so much depends on signaling things it matters if you give off the impression that you think the US is a force for good in the world or one w/ a mixed record. i love obama btw and this is one of the things i love about him and like i said this is all more devil's advocate. i suspect that when neocons take this tact they are stuck in a cold war mindset where communism + capitalism were having an actual war of the ideas. in the ideological fields the war between islam and the west is as asymmetrical as the war between isis and the west.

While I agree with you on the whole Mordy, this

i don't think moderate muslims are impressed by our refusing to call it radical islam when that is clearly what it is and does not tarnish all muslims everywhere just like fundamentalist christians does not tarnish all christians everywhere.

does not ring true. It's certainly not the experience of my Muslim friends. For a lot of people a Muslim equates to being radical, at least in Western Europe. Every incident like what happened in Colorado definitely puts moderate Islam in a bind. Moderates will be called upon to denounce an act done by radicals because they share the same religion, even though they have a very different interpretation of said religion, and radical Islam being very far from moderate (moderate means non-violent, non-batshit, in essence, no?) Islam. Fundamental (and batshit insane) Christians don't tarnish moderate Christian. But fundamental/radical Islam definitely tarnishes all Muslims, at least from a western pov.

"For a lot of people Islam equates to being radical", I meant to say

colorado?

Orlando soz

xxp right but i mean they have legitimate things to worry about (islamophobic backlashes, their kids becoming radicalized) but i don't think obama taking care not to say 'radical islam' sets them at ease in any way. they know who isis is - they're not confused that actually maybe they aren't an islamic organization. not calling it radical islam just seems like playing stupid for no conceivable gain. idk i would be interested in hear a muslim weigh in on this - maybe it is a small comfort, idk.

they're not confused that actually maybe they aren't an islamic organization

They're denounced as un-Islamic by moderate Muslims all the time. How right or wrong that is another matter.

ppl are whatever they say they are, is how I look at it.

Listen, the BBC call them the So-Called Islamic State, that's their policy, that's how they are referred to ALL the time, what would the Trumpingtons make of that? It does get on your nerves admittedly.

calling them un-islamic is a way to try and capture the legitimacy + meaning of the religion and setting terror outside the parameters of mainstream islamic discourse but it's not that they don't know that isis is islamic when they say this. they know they aren't communists, or nationalists, or shock capitalists. they're not fascists - al-baghdadi is barely a charismatic figure - and they aren't white supremacists. this is obv a radical + literalist reading of islam. so who is fooled by not referring to them in any way as islamic?