|
In this mailing:
by Con Coughlin
• July 25, 2016 at 5:00 am
- In recent
months the Kremlin has hinted that keeping Assad in power is not its
primary concern. Rather its main objective in Syria is to keep its
strategically-important bases in the country.
- This has led to
suggestions that, in return for building closer relations with
Turkey, Moscow might be prepared to do a deal whereby Assad is
removed from power and Russia's military interests in the country
are safeguarded.
- If that outcome
could be achieved, then Russia and Turkey would be able to forge a
powerful partnership, one that would pose a serious threat to
Western interests in the Middle East and beyond.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has embarked on
a campaign to reach out to countries such as Russia, which he regards as
a viable alternative to the U.S. in protecting Turkey's interests in the
region. Pictured: Russian President Vladimir Putin with Turkish President
Erdogan (then prime minister), meeting in Istanbul on December 3, 2012.
(Image source: kremlin.ru)
The deepening diplomatic pact between Turkey and Russia represents
yet another damning indictment of the Obama Administration's ability to
maintain relations with Washington's traditional allies in the Middle
East.
Western diplomats regard the decision by Turkish President Recep
Tayyip Erdogan to restore relations with Moscow last month as part of a
carefully-coordinated attempt by Ankara to build a new power base in the
region.
For decades Turkey, a key NATO member, has said that it wants to
forge closer ties with the West, to the extent that Turkish diplomats
insist that Ankara is still serious about joining the European Union.
by Yleem D.S. Poblete
• July 25, 2016 at 4:00 am
- The German
intelligence service recently reported many clandestine Iranian
attempts to obtain dual-use chemical, biological and nuclear
technology.
- In the Iran
nuclear deal, the parties decided to engage "in different areas
of civil nuclear co-operation," including construction and
modernization of Iranian light water reactors, provision of
technical assistance and on-the-job training. Meanwhile, Israel has
been denied a bilateral nuclear cooperation agreement with the US.
- Israel's
reported MOU requests on security assistance, missile defense, and
regional qualitative military advantage are justified.
- The terms of
any U.S.-Israel agreement must withstand comparison to the
concessions offered Iran in the JCPOA and show unequivocally that
Israel, a trusted ally and major strategic partner, fared better in
negotiations than an unconstrained enemy.
Israel is a major strategic partner, as declared in
the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act, enacted on December
19, 2014. The new law laid the foundation for expanded bilateral
cooperation in a wide variety of spheres including defense, intelligence,
and homeland- and cyber-security. Above, Israeli PM Netanyahu meets
President Obama at the White House, May 20, 2011. (Image source: Israel
PM office)
The one-year anniversary of the signing of the Joint Comprehensive
Plan of Action (JCPOA) between Western powers and Iran focused public
attention on the regime's activities and Obama Administration policies
and actions regarding this avowed enemy. Virtually unnoticed, despite the
linkage to Iran-related developments, were reports that Israeli Prime
Minister Netanyahu is being pressured to set aside reservations and accept
the terms the White House is offering for the Memorandum of Understanding
with the U.S.
As recent developments show, such an acquiescence would be mistake.
There is cause for concern.
|
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment