تميزت فترة العطلة الصيفية بحالات الاستقطاب الحاد بين الأطر السياسية في ظل حالة من الركود لنشاطات مراكز الفكر والابحاث الاميركية، والسبب يعود الى الجدل الواسع حول اقرار الميزانية السنوية للعام المقبل التي تشهد عجزا حادا يتطلب مزيدا من الاستقراض، وما اصطلح على تسميته رفع سقف الدين العام.
ويتناول تحليل المرصد الآثار السياسية المترتبة على اللجوء لمزيد من الاستقراض، مع الاشارة الى اجماع الساسة والاقتصاديين بأن الولايات المتحدة لا تزال تعاني من ركود اقتصادي لا يمكنها التغلب عليه الا بمعجزة لانعاشه خلال العام المقبل؛ الأمر الذي سيتصدر برامج كافة المرشحين للانتخابات الرئاسية المقبلة. وتتمحور الاستقطابات السياسية بين الفريقين، الديموقراطي والجمهوري، حول سعي الحزب الديموقراطي التشبث بالسيطرة على البيت الابيض والحفاظ على بعض البرامج الاجتماعية الضرورية لقاعدته الانتخابية؛ بينما يسعى الحزب الجمهوري الى تقويض سيطرة الحزب الديموقراطي والتمسك باشاعة نوايا الديموقراطيين برفع مستوى الضرائب والانفاق الحكومي معا. وعليه، اضحت مسألة رفع سقف الدين العام محورا هاما لتحرك كلا الفريقين امام جمهور الناخبين وخلخلة قواعد الخصم، مع الاشارة الى ان الدافع الاساسي للساسة من الفريقين هو ضمان الفوز الفردي ليس الا.
يتطلب حصرا توصية من مجلس الامن الدولي قبل الشروع باعتراف عضو جديد. اما السابقة الوحيدة من اجل السلام فليس لها شأن بهذا الخصوص وهي كذلك ليس لها الصلاحية لتجاوز ميثاق الامم المتحدة. كما وان دور الامم المتحدة في سياق بسط الاعتراف بدولة ما ليس له حيز في الوجود سوى كونه انعكاس لقرارات الدول الاعضاء ذات السيادة. ان استمر الطرف الفلسطيني في سعيه احادي الجانب للاعتراف ، فمن شانه ان يصعد التوترات مع اسرائيل والولايات المتحدة، وتسديد ضربة لجهود المفاوضات بالتوصل لتسوية سلمية شاملة، وهو المسار الواقعي المتاح امام قيام دولة فلسطينية."
اما معهد ويلسون Wilson Center فقد تناول الانباء التي اشارت الى اطلاق قطعات بحرية بريطانية النار على زوارق حربية ايرانية في مياه الخليج. وقال " (افاد المسؤولون الاميركيون) ان الحادث يسلط الضوء على مخاوفهم من ان منطقة الخليج اضحت منطقة مائية مشتعلة. وان الخليج يمثل سوى احدى الجبهات مع ايران بينما الجبهات الاخرى التي تشهد تصاعدا في النغمة العدوانية الايرانية تشكل مصدر قلق للقادة العسكريين الاميركيين. مع اكتشاف مخابيء اسلحة ايرانية الصنع في افغانستان وما يسميه الخبراء الدعم المادي للقوى الارهابية "التي تنشط لالحاق الاذى" في العراق وافغانستان، فان الولايات المتحدة تنظر لايران بانها تخطو قدما نحو تصعيد الضغط بدل تخفيفه. لكن منطقة الخليج هي المسرح الذي تتشابك فيه القوات الايرانية والاميركية وقوى التحالف الاخرى وجها لوجه بدل المواجهة عبر الوكلاء. ولهذا هناك قلق حقيقي من امكانية اشتعال الازمة هناك والتي لا يرغبها اي من الاطراف المعنية."
الانهماك في معالجة الوضع المتدهور في ليبيا كان من نصيب معهد دراسة الحرب Institute for the Study of War، الذي قال "للحظة، فان بعض النجاحات التي حققها المتمردون في غربي ليبيا خلال شهري حزيران وتموز كانت ثانوية بعض الشيء. وقد استطاع المتمردون السيطرة على قرية القواليش في جبال نفوسة عقب اشتباكات مع قوات الجيش، مما يهدد بقطع خطوط الامداد عن مدينة طرابلس وعزلها عن المناطق المحصنة في منطقة فزان في الجنوب الغربي من البلاد. لكن قوات المتمردين لا تزال تعاني من عدم الانضباط ورداءة التسليح والفوضى. وهناك بعض التقارير التي تشير الى ان قوات المتمردين، بعد سيطرتها على القواليش اقترفت اعمال سلب ونهب لمنازل السكان ومن ثم تراجعت تحت ضغط قصف القوات النظامية لها. وبالمقابل، فان قوات المتمردين في مصراتة حققت تقدما طفيفا في مسيرتها بمحاذاة البحر نحو طرابلس متكبدة خسائر كبيرة من قبل قصف القوات النظامية المتمركزة في ضواحي زليتان."
وتناول مركز الدراسات الاستراتيجية والدولية
وفي الشأن الايراني، تناول معهد المشروع الاميركي AEI، منبر اللوبي الصهيوني، قائد قوات الحرس الثوري الايراني، الجنرال قاسم سليماني، زاعما ان الجنرال المذكور الذي لا يعرف عنه سوى النذر القليل عهد اليه قمع المظاهرات في كل من ايران وسورية. واضاف ان المصادر المتوفرة تشير الى انه يتمتع ببعض الصفات القيادية كما تشير الى بعض نقاط ضعفه، وان مهاراته الفعلية والعسكرية قد رفعت من مقامه بالرغم من اغضاب آخرين داخل قيادة الحرس الثوري كما وداخل القيادة السياسية التي أجلت البت في ترقيته في الوقت الراهن. وفي الفترة الاخيرة، ضاعف من استخدام المصطلحات الايديولوجية في خطاباته الرئيسية مما قد يؤشر على بقاءه كقائد تكتيكي وليس استراتيجي – وهي سمة تقوض من فعاليته كقائد لقوات القدس في الحرس الثوري الايراني.
وكما جرت العادة، اهتم معهد واشنطن
، والتي بدأت تعبر عن قلقها من الضغوط السياسية في ظل ركود اقتصادي ورثته ومن غير المتوقع الخروج من مأزقه في المدى المنظور. كما ان معدلات البطالة وقلق العامة في ارتفاع متزايد. وان صحت توقعات مراكز استطلاعات الرأي، فهي تشير الى انعدام الثقة بالحزب الديموقراطي لحل الأزمة الاقتصادية وترجيح كفة خصمه الجمهوري. وتمثل رغبة اوباما في رفع السقف 2.4 تريليون دولار اضافية مغامرة حقيقية قد تكلفه الانتخابات، لكنه بحاجة ماسة الى المبالغ لابقاء مستويات الصرف الحالية على ما هي عليها وضمان تأييد قاعدته الانتخابية. اما المسألة المركزية في نظر البعض فهي ان اوباما قد اقرّ باجراء تخفيضات في الانفاق الحكومي مقابل زيادة الضرائب على الشريحة الاكثر ثراء في المجتمع، الأمر الذي يعتبره الجمهوريون أمرا مقدسا وهم الذين حرضوا قواعدهم الانتخابية على انه لن تكون هناك زيادات ضرائبية.
ربح الحزب الجمهوري زعامة مجلس النواب بناء على تعهداته الانتخابية بعدم فرض زيادة ضرائبية، وهو الآن امام استحقاق الوفاء بذلك او تعريض الاداء الحكومي وتوجيه اللوم لهم. وعليه، تسعى الزعامات الجمهورية كسب اكبر قدر من التنازلات من الرئيس اوباما لخفض الانفاق الحكومي على البرامج الاجتماعية والتربوية قبل التوقيع على الاتفاقية.
بينما تناول معهد بروكينغز يستمران في اثارة حيرة الساسة الاميركيين والاسرائيليين. ومع توقف الجولة الاخيرة من المفاوضات السلمية بين الحكومة الاسرائيلية والسلطة الفلسطينية، وانتشار رياح التغيير السياسي والاضطرابات في عموم الشرق الاوسط وشمالي افريقيا، اضحى جليا لصناع القرار في كل من القدس وواشنطن بضرورة ادراك العوامل التي تتحكم بالاوضاع في غزة. ويعتبر هذا الادراك ضرورة هامة لصناع القرار من اجل تقييم الخيارات وتحديد الفوائد والعيوب النابعة عن انتهاج سياسات بديلة، والتوصل الى اتخاذ قرارت مدروسة وقوية."
ماذا يعني الجدل الدائر حول رفع سقف الاستقراض؟
مع اقتراب الموعد النهائي للتوصل الى صيغة مرضية للميزانية السنوية، 2 آب / اغسطس، عرض الرئيس باراك اوباما على خصومه الجمهوريين تخفيضات في الانفاق الحكومي تبلغ نحو 4 مليار دولار تمتد على مدى عقد من الزمن، مترافقة مع اعادة هيكلة البرامج الاجتماعية الاساسية التي تعتبر مقدسة بالنسبة للوسط الديموقراطي – الضمان الاجتماعي والرعاية الصحية. الا ان زعيم الاغلبية الجمهوري ورئيس مجلس النواب، جون بينر، فضل التضحية بالتوصل الى اتفاق زاعما ان التخفيضات ستأتي على حساب مصالح كبار الاثرياء وشركات النفط والطاقة. الأمر الذي دفع العالم الاقتصادي الحائز على جائزة نوبل، ستيفن ستيغليتز، بوصف الحزب انه: يشكل 1%، ويمثل 1%، من أجل 1% من السكان. وتجدر الاشارة الى الحقائق الاقتصادية التي تدل على ان نسبة الدخل القومي الاميركي العائد من ايرادات قطاع الشركات يمثل سوى 8.9% من مجمل الدخل لعام 2010، مقارنة مع ما كان يمثله في عقد الخمسينيات من القرن المنصرم والذي بلغ نحو 27.6% من مجمل الايرادات الفدرالية. كما ان مستوى الضرائب الفردية على الشريحة الاكثر ثراء في المجتمع هي الاكثر انخفاضا حاليا لما كانت عليه منذ 75 عاما. كما و لا يجوز اغفال دور المؤسسات الاعلامية المختلفة في تضليل القطاعات الشعبية وتركيز تغطيتها، ومن ثم مسؤولية، على الانفاق الحكومي في مجالات الرعاية الاجتماعية والصحية.
اما مبدأ "رفع سقف الاستقراض الفدرالي" فهو حديث العهد ولا يتعدى عقد من الزمن. ومنذ عام 1917 خوّل الكونغرس وزارة المالية التصرف الحصري بمسألة الاقتراض ادراكا منه آنذاك ان الجهاز التنفيذي بحاجة الى اتخاذ قرارات صرف مالية سريعة لتمويل الجهود الحربية المختلفة؛ لكن الكونغرس حدد سقفا معينا للاقتراض، وهو ما يجري الجدل بشأنه حاليا. وتشير الدلائل الى ان سقف الدين الفدرالي استمر بالاضطراد ارتفاعا منذ حقبة ثلاثينيات القرن الماضي، في عهد هيربرت هوفر، الى ان بلغ مستواه الحالي نحو 14.294 تريليون دولار.
ومن المفارقات التاريخية ان الفريقين، الديموقراطي والجمهوري، تبادلا المواقع حاليا فيما يخص مسألة رفع سقف الاقتراض: اذ عارضه اوباما وحزبه ابان فترة حكم الرئيس جورج بوش الابن، وأيده الحزب الجمهوري دون ضجيج يذكر. ويزداد الأمر تعقيدا مع اقتراب الانتخابات الرئاسية المقبلة، اضافة الى عدة عوامل اخرى تسهم في تعقيد المفاوضات بين الطرفين، منها:
ان التوصل الى صيغة اتفاق ما امر لا محالة بين الطرفين، اذ لا يرغب اي منهما تعريض الميزانية ورفع سقف الدين الى مصاف الجدل السياسي، والذي انكشف امره. ومن المرجح ان يتم التوصل الى رفع السقف بنسبة اقل بعض الشيء مما طالب به الرئيس اوباما، لكنها كافية لمواصلة برامج الانفاق الراهنة؛ ويخشى الحزب الديموقراطي تطور المسألة الى موضوع رائج بين الناخبين على حسابه في ظل اجواء انتخابية حامية الوطيس.
ANALYSIS, PUBLICATIONS, AND ARTICLES
Executive Summary
The US remains in a serious economic recession and unless there is a near miraculous recovery in the next year, it will be the major issue in the 2012 presidential elections. As Obama tries to retain control of the White House and satisfy his voter base with government spending, the Republicans are trying to wrest control of the government from the Democrats by making high taxes and out of control government spending campaign issues. Consequently, the debt ceiling issue is becoming a way for both parties to define their issues and gain ground with voters.
Both Republicans and Democrats are split in their goals as different politicians look to their own political survival.
They conclude, “The Palestinian effort to gain U.N. membership and recognition through a General Assembly vote is based on false assumptions. The General Assembly has no authority to override the U.N. Charter, which specifically requires a Security Council recommendation before admitting a new member state. The Uniting for Peace precedent has no bearing on this matter and is similarly unable to override the U.N. Charter. Moreover, the U.N. role in state recognition is nonexistent beyond being a reflection of the sovereign decisions of the member states. If the Palestinians push forward with their unilateral statehood scheme, they will escalate tensions with Israel and the United States, while hurting the prospects for negotiating a comprehensive peace agreement, the only realistic path to Palestinian statehood.”
The report concludes, “(US officials) said that in any case the incident only highlights their worry that the Gulf is an aquatic tinderbox. And the Gulf is just one front with Iran while on others increasing Iranian aggressiveness worries U.S. military commanders. From caches of Iranian-made weapons found in Afghanistan to what sources say is funding of terrorist groups “doing malign activity” in Iraq and Afghanistan, Washington sees Iran as stepping up the pressure rather than dampening it down. The Gulf, however, is the one place where Iranian and U.S., as well as other coalition forces, operate face-to-face with the Iranian military, rather than encountering each other through proxies. And so there is concern about conflicts flaring which no one wants.”
They note, “So far, many of the rebel victories in western Libya during June and early July have been relatively minor. On Wednesday, rebels captured the village of Qawalish in the Nafusa Mountains after a skirmish with loyalist soldiers, threatening to cut Tripoli’s supply lines from regime strongholds in Fezzan, the southwestern region of Libya. Yet the rebel forces remain disorganized, poorly armed and undisciplined. There are reports that after taking Qawalish, rebels looted homes and then retreated after loyalist artillery shelled the town. Meanwhile, rebels from Misrata have made little progress pushing up the coastline towards Tripoli and have been sustaining heavy casualties from loyalist artillery outside of Zlitan.”
They note, “Egypt cannot be successful without a vibrant economy, and it cannot have a vibrant economy without investment from within and without. Yet, Egyptians seem to distrust most investors, either because they are tied to the ancien regime or because they see them as foreigners intent on capturing the country’s resources. Egypt’s emerging politics are populist pure and simple, but the populism does little to solve the country’s problems. When Egypt’s politics do emerge, they are likely to array themselves along these two axes: their attitude toward the private sector, and their attitude toward foreign ties. The early signs are for a populist hostility to the private sector and a distrust of Western governments and Western capital. It is hard to imagine how such attitudes could yield a successful outcome. Defining an alternative will be vital for Egypt’s future.”
He has been linked to crackdowns in both Iran and Syria, but little is known about him. A survey of open-source materials shows Suleimani's strengths but also reveals his weaknesses. His skills, both rhetorical and military, have brought him fame. But he has also made enemies along the way within the IRGC and among the political leadership, which, at least for a time, delayed his promotion. More recently, his use of ideological platitudes in major speeches may indicate that he remains a tactical leader and not a strategist--a quality that undermines his effectiveness as head of the IRGC Quds Force.
They note that most of the repression is done by Alawite security forces. The reports concludes, “The Syrian government's defiance of much of the country's population, along with the general thrust of developments elsewhere in the region, give a too easy impression that the Asad regime is running against the tide of history. In fact, whether or not it will survive depends on a multitude of factors, including the opposition's endurance and the cohesion and resilience of the regime-protection and regular army units that have borne the brunt of responsibility for dealing with the unrest. For its part, the regime must hold its units together in the face of stress and fatigue generated by continuous operations. That will not be easy given that the unrest is already in its sixth month and shows no signs of abating. The continuing crisis also raises the possibility of foreign humanitarian intervention -- whether by Turkey or others -- which could further increase the challenge to the regime.”
They say, “Although both the United States and Israel devote tremendous attention to the Middle East peace process, the Gaza Strip and its Hamas government have continued to vex American and Israeli policymakers. With the most recent incarnation of peace talks between the Israeli government and Palestinian Authority at a standstill, and turmoil and political change spreading throughout the Middle East and North Africa, it has become even more important for policymakers in Jerusalem and Washington to understand the factors shaping developments in Gaza. This understanding is critical for policymakers to assess options, determine the benefits and drawbacks of the alternative policies, and make strong, informed decisions.”
The National Debt Limit Debate – What Does it Mean?
In a city full of political theater, there is nothing to compare with the regular authorization to raise the national debt ceiling. While the national leadership must pass it to avert a fiscal crisis, it gives the minority party a chance to talk about fiscal responsibility, even if they don’t really mean it. That’s why when Bush was president, Senator Obama spoke about fiscal responsibility and voted against raising the debt ceiling.
Ever since 1917, Congress has allowed the Treasury the discretion to issue new debt (i.e., borrow money from other agencies or individuals). At that time, the thinking was that the executive branch needed the ability to make quick financing decisions to fund the war effort. However, Congress didn't want to completely cede its control of the purse strings, and so it set a cap on how much total debt the Treasury could owe at any given time.
As a result, he and other Democratic leaders have been in negotiations with the Republican House leadership to pass a ceiling increase. In the meantime, the Republican representatives who once voted for such legislation without a murmur are grousing about runaway federal spending.
There are several factions that are complicating the negotiations. They are:
The Administration The administration is beginning to feel the political heat. The economy is mired in the longest recession in history and there is no end in sight. Unemployment is up and consumer confidence is dropping. Polls show that the voters think the Republicans will be better able to handle the economy and Obama is in big trouble in critical swing states like Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania.
The result is that he wants a budget deal the makes some cuts, but includes new taxes. The taxes, in addition to giving his some spending room would allow the Democrats to attack the Republican in 2012 on their “no taxes” pledge last year.
The House Leadership The Republican House leadership came to power on a pledge of no new taxes and they intend to remain faithful to that pledge. However, as the house leadership, they also have a responsibility to keep the government operating smoothly. Therefore, their goal is to milk as much spending cuts from Obama as possible without raising taxes, before signing off on a deficit ceiling agreement.
Democratic Senate Back benchers While Obama wants to raise taxes, many Democratic Senators are concerned about their own political positions next year. More Democratic senators are up for election in 2012 than Republican senators and many of them are from normally Republican states. Consequently, agreeing to raise taxes in the current political climate would ruin their reelection chances next year. As a result, the Senate’s functioning Democratic majority may not be able to pass any Obama tax increases even if they were part of a grand agreement.
Republican House Back Benchers Many new Republican representatives were elected in 2010 on promises of cutting spending and taxes. As a result, they are even less interested in fashioning an agreement with Obama and the Democrats, especially as polls show voters uncertain about raising the debt limit. The majority of the Biden cuts, which were proposed by the Vice President, in the view of many GOP back benchers aren’t scheduled to go into effect for years, would not be enough to justify an increase to the debt limit. They also insist that a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution be passed by the Senate and House as part of the agreement.
The U.S. government will collect roughly $2.2 trillion in tax revenue this fiscal year, which is more than enough to cover the estimated $200-$220 billion in annual interest payments. Thus, Treasury can easily avoid a technical default.
Senate Republican leadership Senate Republicans know that nothing can be done without some Democratic support. That led to the recent plan put forward by Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell which allows for incremental boosts in the debt ceiling. McConnell realizes that no matter what gets passed in the House, unless it has support in a deal made with the White House, it won’t pass the Senate. All that Republicans in the upper chamber can do is block legislation in the Senate, not pass legislation, even if they can somehow force it to the floor. Getting a deal means having to force Obama to agree on terms, and McConnell thinks Obama won’t do that because of the political gains he sees from forcing Republicans to take the blame for economic turmoil if no agreement is reached.
The American voter While Democratic voters remain pleased with Obama, the swing voter, who decides elections is dissatisfied with the Obama Administration and his economic policies. With income down and inflation setting in, they are very opposed to raising taxes. This gives Republicans a base to work with for 2012 and provides serious problems for Obama and the Democrats. That is why Obama is trying to make the deficit ceiling deal look like major budget reform.
But, the House Republican leadership has the advantage as revenue bills must originate in the House and public opinion is siding with them at this time. That means that some sort of agreement will take place at the last hour. Chances are that it will be less than the four trillion that Obama wants and will consist only of spending cuts. This pushes the debate down the road and will make it part of the 2012 presidential election.
America has about $500 billion of debt to roll over in August. That doesn’t mean adding $500 billion to the national debt, but it does mean paying off old bonds and issuing new ones. If borrowing costs rise, which they very well may, that will mean adding modestly to the national debt. But it will take the possibility of a default entirely off the table. Such legislation would act as a practical spending cap until a long-term deal can be worked out. The national debt no doubt will rise, but only by as much as it costs to refinance current obligations.
The Republicans will use it to beat Obama in the presidential election. Obama will use it to scare key blocks of voters to support him. Deciding which strategy will work will have to wait until the first Tuesday in November 2012.
PUBLICATIONS
How the U.S. Should Respond to the U.N. Vote for Palestinian Statehood
By James Phillips and Brett Schaefer
Heritage Foundation
July 6, 2011
Backgrounder
Abstract: In September 2011, the U.N. General Assembly is expected to vote on a resolution recognizing Palestinian statehood. This resolution is linked to Palestinian efforts to obtain U.N. membership as a state and to delegitimize Israel. These efforts will have no legal significance because the General Assembly has no standing to recognize statehood—that is the right of sovereign states—or to grant U.N. membership without the Security Council’s prior recommendation, which the U.S. has indicated it will veto. But they will undermine U.S. interests by escalating tensions and harming efforts to resolve the international peace and security issues in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The U.S. should take steps to oppose the Palestinian effort to gain international recognition at the expense of Israel, rather than through negotiations with it.
Egypt - A Troubling Mix
By Jon Alterman
Center for Strategic and International Studies
July 12, 2011
Five months in, Egypt’s post-Mubarak politics have yet to take shape. With parliamentary elections scheduled to take place in only two months, and with Egyptians still wondering if they will vote for district representatives, national party lists, or some hybrid system, July’s uncertainty has replaced February’s euphoria. It is not surprising that a system that was largely bereft of politics for decades would take a long time to generate genuine politics. What is more surprising is that the emerging issues of Egyptian politics, the economy and nationalism, would run so much at cross-purposes. Egyptians’ ability to reconcile the two will be a vital test of their ability to thrive in the coming era.
The centrality of the economy to Egypt’s political upheaval is well understood. Legions of unemployed young people searched for years to find their first job. Millions of government workers struggled every month to make ends meet. Meanwhile, a small elite seemed to live in a wholly different country, shopping in glitzy malls, driving fast cars, and having an ever-growing array of food and drink delivered to their homes in gated communities.
Iran’s Most Dangerous General
By Ali Alfoneh
American Enterprise Institute
July 2011
On May 18, President Barack Obama imposed sanctions against Major General Qassem Suleimani, chief of the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), who is identified as "the conduit for Iranian material support" to the Syrian General Intelligence Directorate. To counter Suleimani and the Quds Force, US strategists need to understand his history of overconfident behavior and military successes. A survey of the open-source literature pertaining to Suleimani reveals a man who became a successful general without much formal training. Though a shrewd tactical leader, Suleimani is not a strategist.
LIBYA CONFLICT: SITUATION UPDATE
By Anthony Bell
Institute for the Study of War
July 7, 2011
The regime revealed for the first time this week that it was engaging in direct talks with rebel officials in Rome, Cairo and Oslo. Libyan Deputy Foreign Minister Khaled Kaim indicated a solution could be found by early August. At least publically, however, most regime officials have remained adamant that Qaddafi would not step down and his leadership position was not negotiable. Qaddafi appeared to leave the possibility of negotiations open in a message released on Friday, while simultaneously threatening to bring the war to European soil and attack civilian targets.
There are signs of growing discord within the rebel leadership over the best solution to achieve Qaddafi’s exit. The previously unequivocal rebel demand that Qaddafi must leave power and enter into exile appeared to have changed over the weekend. Mustapha Abdul-Jalil, chairman of the National Transitional Council (NTC), said that if Qaddafi stepped down, he could stay in Libya under international supervision, presumably retiring to his hometown of Sirte.
Skirmish in Persian Gulf Caught on Tape
By Michale Adler
Wilson Center
July 6, 2011
Daily Beast
A British warship fired warning shots at a fast-approaching speedboat, possibly Iranian, in an unpublicized incident in April that adds to concerns about continuing tensions in the Persian Gulf, and the chance of an unintended outbreak of hostilities there. The video shows the speedboat powering parallel to the British warship HMS Iron Duke, which was patrolling off of Bahrain, and then turning directly towards it. Foghorns blaring, gunners on the Iron Duke then fired 100 yards to the side of the speedboat, causing its two crew members to duck and stop – they then wave at the British sailors as they speed away. While talk in region remains focused on whether the United States or Israel will attack Iran, another large fear is the possibility of an unscripted, accidental war, spurred by a small clash that spins out of control. In January 7, 2008, five Iranian speedboats darted around three U.S. warships in the Straits of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf. No shots were fired. Then-President Bush said it was a provocative act. The Iranians said there was no confrontation.
Syria's Army Is Key to the Country's Future
By Michael Eisenstadt and Jeffrey White
Washington Institute for Near East Policy
July 8, 2011
The Syrian armed forces have long played a critical role in propping up the Asad regime. In 1970, they helped Hafez al-Asad assume power, and from 1979 to 1982, they suppressed a major bout of anti-regime violence. They will be similarly essential if Damascus hopes to weather the current wave of protests. So far the regime has relied primarily on select, largely Alawite security forces and regime protection units for violent suppression actions. These units have functioned as "fire brigades," rushing from one hot spot to another. Regular army units appear to have played a more limited supporting role -- the army's sectarian makeup more closely reflects that of the general population, so the regime is likely concerned about its willingness to use lethal force against civilians. Given that the security and regime-protection forces have been unable to suppress the demonstrations and mounting civil resistance, the regular army may eventually be called on to play a greater role. This scenario raises a number of questions. Would army units obey orders to use violence against demonstrators, or would they fracture, leading to large-scale defections and/or civil war? Alternatively, would the army disintegrate in the face of a growing, increasingly confident popular opposition movement?
The Challenge of Gaza: Policy Options and Broader Implications
By Daniel Byman
Brookings Institution
July 2011
The most obvious, and the most immediate, factor shaping Israeli policy toward Gaza is the threat of mortars and rockets fired from Gaza into Israel. Hamas has not only launched these rockets, but has conducted cross-border shootings and kidnappings, and has placed improvised explosive devices near the security barrier along the border. Beyond furthering Hamas’s goal of causing pain to Israel, these attacks help Hamas preserve its credentials as the leading Palestinian resistance organization and enable it to retain the loyalty of militant members of its own organization. Rockets are also meant to deter Israel from killing Hamas leaders and pressure Israel into changing its policies to ones Hamas prefers, such as having the border crossings between Israel and the Gaza Strip opened. Hamas draws on many resources to stay in power. Most notably, Hamas has long exploited its infrastructure of mosques, social services, and community organizations to raise money and attract recruits.
الأحد 17 تموز 2011 - 6:38 ص 
9643 
0 
دولية
