John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Could the region location be responsible for the varying opinions about UNESCO?
Middle East Defence & Security
- Thread starter MaenZ
- Start date
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
Post 2 of 3: Clarifications in politics & roles of certain UN bodies
5. Kazakhstan was admitted to the UNHRC this January, i.e only a few days ago. It has brutally repressed protesters and its government has resigned. There are several killed already. Not a single word or action yet. No condemnations, nothing.
6. It may not really be able to do much against countries like North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, Russia, China, etc, but it could have a serious impact on smaller nations that violate human rights like Somalia and Mauritania.
7. Larger violating countries stand to benefit a lot from the UNHRC's structure because their political weight is naturally higher. They can claim to be clean, or that their political opponents exaggerate violations, citing the UN, and point to western countries as supposed perpetrators and accuse them. That is deflection. They lose nothing but gain something. So the UNHRC essentially politically rewards violators. The bigger the violations, the bigger the gain.
8. @Feanor UNESCO, in its concept, is a necessary organization to have. However, it must exist as a professional body. Yet in the last few years it has been overly politicized, and so to actually function and avoid the trend of becoming less actually active and more politically active, it must be reformed under a new structure.
2. It's not about Israel. The very structure of the UNHRC is made to facilitate scapegoating and deflection. It is populated by a majority of serious human rights violators, which almost never get condemned in any way.
- The UNHRC's predecessor, the UNHCR, was actually disbanded for being far too focused on anti-Israeli politics and doing absolutely nothing to curb human rights violations where they exist.
- The UNHRC was created to fix these problems, but instead it became an even worse version of the defunct UNHCR.
- In the remaining 50% the members can speak about any country, and usually choose to speak about Israel. A resolution is also legally required.
- Hence why the UNHRC is officially of the opinion that Israel commits roughly 90% of the world's human rights violations.
5. Kazakhstan was admitted to the UNHRC this January, i.e only a few days ago. It has brutally repressed protesters and its government has resigned. There are several killed already. Not a single word or action yet. No condemnations, nothing.
6. It may not really be able to do much against countries like North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, Russia, China, etc, but it could have a serious impact on smaller nations that violate human rights like Somalia and Mauritania.
7. Larger violating countries stand to benefit a lot from the UNHRC's structure because their political weight is naturally higher. They can claim to be clean, or that their political opponents exaggerate violations, citing the UN, and point to western countries as supposed perpetrators and accuse them. That is deflection. They lose nothing but gain something. So the UNHRC essentially politically rewards violators. The bigger the violations, the bigger the gain.
8. @Feanor UNESCO, in its concept, is a necessary organization to have. However, it must exist as a professional body. Yet in the last few years it has been overly politicized, and so to actually function and avoid the trend of becoming less actually active and more politically active, it must be reformed under a new structure.
Last edited by a moderator:
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
Footage released of a US base's air defenses destroying 2 Iranian suicide drones in Iraq.
www.thedrive.com
Footage in that article, and as always worth the read.
Video Shows Missile, Vulcan Cannon Fire Reportedly Shooting Down Drones In Iraq
There have been two unsuccessful suicide drone attacks in as many days targeting facilities in Iraq that host American troops.
www.thedrive.com
Footage in that article, and as always worth the read.
Nonetheless there have been refugees/displaced persons who have benefited from assistance provided by UNHRC; for them it made a big difference.
In a lot of cases literally the difference between life and death.
Despite its many flaws the UN and all its sub organisations has a vital role to play. If we're going to into the specifics and point out the various flaws; then we must as well question the validity of the UN itself... It's supposed to be based on equality; yet 5 permanent Security Council members - as a direct relic from the Cold War period - has the ability to veto what the rest of the worlds says or do? Is that democratic by the very definition of the word?
Also; if we exclude certain countries from membership in various UN sub organisations on the basis that they're not 'democratic' then it will go against the very spirit on the UN which is about inclusivity and enabling all countries to have a say, a role and to benefit. In certain countries are left on the basis of them being undemocratic; a means of engaging them will be denied.
Last edited:
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
Post 3 of 3: Clarifications in politics & roles of certain UN bodies
9. The UNHRC works as an aggregator for money and activities. Therefore it will always have some activities and some money, the latter donated by all UN members. They all donate willingly of course, each to how much they agree to donate.
- With or without them, aid to refugees would have been provided. In many cases we see countries doing it outside the scope of the UN if matters are urgent/important.
- If today there is no UNHRC, tomorrow another aggregator rises and does it instead. Notice my opinion is not to shut down the UNHRC and leave a vacuum, rather to shut it down and replace it with a council that would instead pursue the improvement of human rights globally.
Last edited by a moderator:
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
Israel wants US to bolster its weapons stockpile in Israel: Sources - Breaking Defense
The stockpile is meant for US use, but weapons can be quickly transferred to Israeli forces in the event of an emergency.
breakingdefense.com
WRSA-I (wartime reserve stock in Israel) is to be expanded if the US accepts a new Israeli request.
The WRSA in Israel has a unique legal trait in that Israel can draw weapons from it during an emergency, if the US permits. Restocking and maintenance is paid by Israel, but physically done by US personnel.
Israel is likely to request weapons relevant to a conflict directly with Iran, as well as air defense assets and guided munitions to use against a potential retaliation from Hezbollah and Hamas.
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
Israel-Lebanon gas pipeline
www.timesofisrael.com
Israel said to ink secret deal to supply natural gas to Lebanon via Jordan.
Article's pretty detailed with not much additional commentary. The deal involves the US and Russia obviously, and the pipe will run through Jordan to Syria and then Lebanon.
Russia may deliver the deterrence against Hezbollah and Iran blowing up the pipe. The US as a mediator.
The end goal is to allow Lebanon to be less dependent on Iran and thus reduce its influence. This interest aligns perfectly with Russia's interests.
If Russia takes patronage of Lebanon and even starts supplying its own gas and oil, then there may be even peace between Israel and Lebanon within the next decade. Extra points if Russia assumes military control over Lebanon to sort some things out.
Quite Ironic, IMO, how the two countries posing the biggest threat to Israel - Lebanon and Iran, are actually those with the biggest potential for friendship with it. Peace in my lifetime, maybe?
Just a reminder that the Israel-Egypt pipeline was constantly sabotaged and IIRC was not operational for years.
Libya's LNA's Haftar visits Israel
m.jpost.com
Haftar has maintained contact with Israel for several years, with talks of normalization. It isn't the UN-supported government, but then we'll take pretty much anyone who'd rather not have war with us, and the UN are hardly competent about it anyway.
It's good to see it wasn't just a one time thing.
I don't see how Israel aided the PNA, but one possibility might be convincing Egypt to act as a safety net against the GNA if the PNA's situation deteriorates.
Unfortunately, for things to actually materialize, someone needs to win the war and become the sole government. What I see is a stalemate so... next decade as well?
Algeria worried over Israel-Morocco ties
m.jpost.com
Although Algeria spends more on defense than Morocco, it does not have access to the technologies Israel may offer to Morocco, such as Morocco's soon to be acquired Barak 8 systems and drone defenses. It also has a lower expenditure than Morocco per soldier, lowering the average quality of equipment.
Algeria has ties to Iran, and so it is obviously against Israel. Its longtime enemy Morocco getting help from Israel is a bit of a nightmare scenario for it. A source in the article claims Morocco may close the gap with Algeria within 3 years at this rate.
I personally think this fearmongering talk is misplaced. A balance will create the deterrence necessary to maintain quiet, if not peace.
Israel said to secretly ink unprecedented deal to supply gas to Lebanon, via Jordan
Unsourced TV report says agreement brokered by US envoy will see natural gas piped through Syria, is partially designed to provide Lebanese with an alternative to Iran
www.timesofisrael.com
Israel said to ink secret deal to supply natural gas to Lebanon via Jordan.
Article's pretty detailed with not much additional commentary. The deal involves the US and Russia obviously, and the pipe will run through Jordan to Syria and then Lebanon.
Russia may deliver the deterrence against Hezbollah and Iran blowing up the pipe. The US as a mediator.
The end goal is to allow Lebanon to be less dependent on Iran and thus reduce its influence. This interest aligns perfectly with Russia's interests.
If Russia takes patronage of Lebanon and even starts supplying its own gas and oil, then there may be even peace between Israel and Lebanon within the next decade. Extra points if Russia assumes military control over Lebanon to sort some things out.
Quite Ironic, IMO, how the two countries posing the biggest threat to Israel - Lebanon and Iran, are actually those with the biggest potential for friendship with it. Peace in my lifetime, maybe?
Just a reminder that the Israel-Egypt pipeline was constantly sabotaged and IIRC was not operational for years.
Libya's LNA's Haftar visits Israel
Libyan warlord's plane lands in Israel
Khalifa Haftar's landed briefly in Cyprus before heading to Israel, where it remained for two hours before returning to Cyprus.
m.jpost.com
Haftar has maintained contact with Israel for several years, with talks of normalization. It isn't the UN-supported government, but then we'll take pretty much anyone who'd rather not have war with us, and the UN are hardly competent about it anyway.
It's good to see it wasn't just a one time thing.
I don't see how Israel aided the PNA, but one possibility might be convincing Egypt to act as a safety net against the GNA if the PNA's situation deteriorates.
Unfortunately, for things to actually materialize, someone needs to win the war and become the sole government. What I see is a stalemate so... next decade as well?
Algeria worried over Israel-Morocco ties
Algeria prepares for war with Morocco, panics due to Israel - report
In November, Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz signed the first-ever defense and security memorandum of understanding with his Moroccan counterpart.
m.jpost.com
Although Algeria spends more on defense than Morocco, it does not have access to the technologies Israel may offer to Morocco, such as Morocco's soon to be acquired Barak 8 systems and drone defenses. It also has a lower expenditure than Morocco per soldier, lowering the average quality of equipment.
Algeria has ties to Iran, and so it is obviously against Israel. Its longtime enemy Morocco getting help from Israel is a bit of a nightmare scenario for it. A source in the article claims Morocco may close the gap with Algeria within 3 years at this rate.
I personally think this fearmongering talk is misplaced. A balance will create the deterrence necessary to maintain quiet, if not peace.
Last edited:
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
Iran attacks its neighbors directly, knowing full well that they are close enough to retaliate strongly. It does so, because of its perception that they are weak and so it has more to gain than lose.
www.thedrive.com
Its talks with UAE are a farce. Iran has no intentions of having peace with it, nor with Saudi Arabia, or anyone else in the region that isn't easy to subdue.
In this region countries understand strength. Not just military strength but political one. A country that isn't consistent in its policy will quickly make enemies.
With its political stumble with Iran, its dealings with China, and faded prospects of an F-35 buy, the UAE appears to be a less reliable ally than its reputation has shown only a year ago.
It vowed to respond harshly against Iran. The severity of its response will be a determining factor of its balance with Iran.
Deterrence is the best peacemaker, and since the UAE has more to lose than Iran, it doesn't have many choices here.
Drones Suspected In Yemeni Rebels' Multi-Target Attack On UAE (Updated)
This is the first official confirmation that the Yemeni rebel group has struck inside the UAE.
www.thedrive.com
Its talks with UAE are a farce. Iran has no intentions of having peace with it, nor with Saudi Arabia, or anyone else in the region that isn't easy to subdue.
In this region countries understand strength. Not just military strength but political one. A country that isn't consistent in its policy will quickly make enemies.
With its political stumble with Iran, its dealings with China, and faded prospects of an F-35 buy, the UAE appears to be a less reliable ally than its reputation has shown only a year ago.
It vowed to respond harshly against Iran. The severity of its response will be a determining factor of its balance with Iran.
Deterrence is the best peacemaker, and since the UAE has more to lose than Iran, it doesn't have many choices here.
I suspect that had the UAE actually pulled out of Yemen and abandoned the Saudi-led coalition, it wouldn't be getting targeted right now, which raises the question; is it Iran that's aggressive? I suspect Iran will both the Saudis and the UAE peace, if they withdrawn from Yemen completely. It has been my impression for some time that this is the endgame for both Iran and the Houthis, a complete victory, and a total expulsion of the Saudi coalition from Yemen.Iran attacks its neighbors directly, knowing full well that they are close enough to retaliate strongly. It does so, because of its perception that they are weak and so it has more to gain than lose.
Drones Suspected In Yemeni Rebels' Multi-Target Attack On UAE (Updated)
This is the first official confirmation that the Yemeni rebel group has struck inside the UAE.
Its talks with UAE are a farce. Iran has no intentions of having peace with it, nor with Saudi Arabia, or anyone else in the region that isn't easy to subdue.
In this region countries understand strength. Not just military strength but political one. A country that isn't consistent in its policy will quickly make enemies.
With its political stumble with Iran, its dealings with China, and faded prospects of an F-35 buy, the UAE appears to be a less reliable ally than its reputation has shown only a year ago.
It vowed to respond harshly against Iran. The severity of its response will be a determining factor of its balance with Iran.
Deterrence is the best peacemaker, and since the UAE has more to lose than Iran, it doesn't have many choices here.
Iran is able to attack its neighbors because the Biden Administration wants to explore a negotiated outcome for peace in Yemen — Robert Malley was appointed by Biden as Special Envoy for Iran on 28 Jan 2021.
Just because 3 people were killed and 6 were injured after a Houthi drone attack on the UAE does not mean the surrender of Saudi or UAE interests in the outcome of war in Yemen — it’s a pin prick attack in the greater scheme of things.
Within hours, the Saudi-led coalition hit back at Yemeni capital of Sana’a, after a deadly attack on Abu Dhabi that sent Gulf tensions soaring. Residents were combing the rubble for survivors after the strikes levelled two houses in Sanaa.
- The Yemeni government urged the US Envoy, Robert Malley, to pressure Iran to cut support for the Houthi rebel group.
- Robert Malley, was then US President Barack Obama’s point man on the Middle East. He is back to implement the same set of failed Obama eta policies, with minor modifications on the assumptions used.
Is that even remotely possible? Houthis are winning some battles but they do not have this capability to conquer all of Yemen (see these maps). The maps of Yemen on the front-lines and religious divide tells me it is impossible for one group to rule alone.
Just because 3 people were killed and 6 were injured after a Houthi drone attack on the UAE does not mean the surrender of Saudi or UAE interests in the outcome of war in Yemen — it’s a pin prick attack in the greater scheme of things.
Within hours, the Saudi-led coalition hit back at Yemeni capital of Sana’a, after a deadly attack on Abu Dhabi that sent Gulf tensions soaring. Residents were combing the rubble for survivors after the strikes levelled two houses in Sanaa.
Last edited:
The Saudi led coalition would like to leave but only if it can achieve a face saving agreement. Unless that happens they can't leave; too much prestige at stake and Yemen is currently the main ''front' in the longstanding Cold War being fought between Iran and the Gulf Arabs; which also involves Lebanon, Iraq and Syria. In Iraq and Syria the Iranians have gained the upper hand; due to a variety of reasons; including flawed and short sighted U.S, policy. The ability of the Houthis to maintain various forms of attacks; whilst not decisive; is taking a huge political toll on the Saudi ''coalition of the willing''. Unlike Nasser who was able to cut his losses and leave; the Saudi ''coalition of the willing'' can't. Iran too would like a cessation of hostilities at it wants to focus on areas closer to home and assistance provided to the Houthis is soaking up a lot of resources.
For me; any peace deal will be the result of Saudi led talks with Iran; both sides making their own decisions and compromises; both sides willing and able to maintain the conflict but both also wanting a cessation of hostilities. U.S. ability to actually pressure Iran is limited as any ''Special Envoy' will not be seen by Iran as an impartial broker. The outcome of the nuke talks with Iran might also have a bearing on what happens in Yemen.
Last edited:
I have a feeling that it might be one of those things that looks impossible, but meanwhile, quietly, builds over the years and becomes an inevitability. The Houthis are winning battles on the ground inside Yemen, and slowly but surely pushing back the Saudis and their proxies. Even with foreign support the Hadis are losing, and that foreign support is getting costlier and costlier. If the Saudis and UAE don't withdraw support, they will continue to bleed, including at home. If they do withdraw support, the Hadis could face total collapse.
There is too much at stake for them to withdraw without a face saving formula. Withdrawing will be politically damaging; an admission that they have failed and will further embolden the Iranians who already have the upper hand in Iraq and Syria. We know that the UAE and Iran are engaged in talks; safe to assume that Yemen will be on the agenda.
Last edited:
There's a point at which they lose too much. Where is that point? How many costs/casualties are they willing to incur? There has already been a distinct shift in the manner of Saudi involvement, and it has much to do with minimizing direct costs. I don't know but I'm fairly confident that point exists. Unless the Saudis are willing to make the Iranians pay similar costs, this won't end well for them.
I could be wrong but there is no way they can leave at this point. Unless they reach a point where they can; they will stay the course as for them there's way too much at stake. Saudi and it's ''coalition of the willing'' are in fierce competition with Iran for influence in the region. Withdrawing from Yemen at this stage will be a major setback for them and will be a major victory for Iran. For Saudi and its allies some agreement is needed with Iran and the recent announcement of talks between Iran and the UAE points in this direction. Iran too badly needs a way out.
Iran/Houthi strategy has been simple and it has been effective; to stay in the fight and continue to cause highly damaging and embarrassing losses on the enemy. This strategy has worked.
Last edited by a moderator:
Kenneth M. Pollack writes that the UAE’s military is unquestionably the most capable among the Arab states, probably by a considerable margin. The best Emirati units are the best in the Arab world, and the overall average appears superior to that of other Arab armies.
To that end, UAE’s acquisition of 80 French-made Rafales and 12 Caracal helicopters to augment their hard power, indicates a shift in geo-political thinking that changes the interaction of states not just in the Middle East but in Europe. I suspect, there are real reasons for the UAE to want to invest in both F-35As and Rafales; to better position the Emirati forces to meet future challenges.
- The UAE’s Presidential Guard (PG), and particularly its Special Operations Command (SOC), are probably the most capable of the Emirati combat arms. They are commanded by an expatriate Australian general. Several dozen key instructors, planners, administrators, and other senior officers are Westerners, particularly Australians. The PG provided many of the forces that fought in Afghanistan and Yemen.
- Close behind the PG, and arguably even more formidable, is the UAE’s Joint Aviation Command (JAC), which controls most of its helicopters. Until recently, the JAC was commanded by a former American military officer. It possesses some of the most advanced American systems, and its pilots are impressive.
- Emirati forces have demonstrated some remarkable logistical capabilities, particularly the UAE air force. Their combat-proven lift and aerial refueling capabilities exceed that of most countries. Abu Dhabi deployed and sustained a brigade-sized force in combat in Yemen for roughly five years and supported armored advances of up to 100 kilometers in that war.
Agreed. It is possible that this point may be reached in the future; and if it does, Iran would have 'won' in this proxy war. But the costs incurred by Iran (up to this point), is also substantial. All parties seem to lack the prospect of an end-game — ultimately, hard power has real consequences in the Middle East.
To that end, UAE’s acquisition of 80 French-made Rafales and 12 Caracal helicopters to augment their hard power, indicates a shift in geo-political thinking that changes the interaction of states not just in the Middle East but in Europe. I suspect, there are real reasons for the UAE to want to invest in both F-35As and Rafales; to better position the Emirati forces to meet future challenges.
- “Combined with the 50 F-35’s currently on order with Lockheed Martin, these 80 Rafale amount to a total replacement of the more than 130 F-16’s and Mirage 2000’s that comprise the current Emirati fighter fleet,” Brandon C. Patrick (a Mid-East defense analyst) said.
- For its part, the UAE is sticking to the line that the Rafale is not a replacement for the F-35. “The signed contract with France is not a substitute for the US F-35 ongoing discussions,” Maj. Gen. Staff Pilot Ibrahim Nasser Al Alawi, UAE Commander of the Air Force and Air Defense said.
- Keeping in mind that UAE operates 390 Leclerc and 46 armoured recovery vehicles (ARVs). The large ARV fleet enable the Emirati grounds forces to operate numerous task groups.
Last edited:
Not to veer off topic but Pollack also writes about logistics being one of the sole areas where the Libyans performed well. Despite being thousands of KM away from Libya; the Libyan expeditionary force in Tanzania was never short of anything.
Pollack's 2 books on the Arabs were great; we now have another one.
Zoltan Barany on the Ineffectiveness of the Gulf Militaries - Democracy Paradox
Zoltan Barany joins the podcast to discuss the reasons why Gulf militaries remain ineffective despite their significant investments.
democracyparadox.com
''But I hasten to add that I’m not saying that Arabs are bad soldiers. That’s not the case at all. They are very good in terms of insurgencies. And, of course, we all remember Lawrence of Arabia talking about the fantastic successes of the Arab insurgents, but also, if you look at the insurgents ISIS, Hezbollah, the Houthis in Yemen. So, it’s not that they are not good soldiers. They are just bad counter-insurgents. Once you superimpose the state over a fighting force, they seem to not do very well''
''I’m talking about oil and gas and I think I cite Lindsey Graham, Senator Lindsey Graham, in the book who said that, ‘If the United States pulled out of Saudi Arabia, if this defense guarantee would not be there, then the Saudis would be speaking Farsi within a few months.’ Well, when he said that he was a little bit upset about the, assassination of Jamal Khashoggi and, obviously, this is an overstatement, but it’s not that far off reality. The nemesis of the Gulf is Iran and the Iranian military is head and shoulders above these other armies and across the Persian Gulf. So, yes. I think it’s fair to say that if the US withdrew its security guarantees, then the threat to the Gulf countries would escalate''.
A detailed and objective work on Yemen is badly needed. Lot of interesting lessons to be learnt and a lot of stuff ranging from operational level combat ops mounted by all sides; the involvement of the West, Iran and others; the employment and limitations of airpower; Houthis innovation/improvisation; the intel war and back channel diplomacy/negotiations, etc, is still largely unknown and unreported.
Last edited:
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
UAE responds by attacking MRBM launchers:
www.thedrive.com
Russian air force now patrols the Syrian skies jointly with the Syrian air force, including in the Golan Heights:
www.thedrive.com
Russia already has a lot of potential for friction with Israel, which both seek to avoid. This here may be a move to reassure Assad and gain his favor, but it vastly increases the friction risk.
UAE F-16s Strike Ballistic Missile Launcher In Yemen In Retaliation To Another Barrage On Abu Dhabi
Air defenses in the Emirates knocked down two ballistic missiles fired from Yemen and the government has banned the use of most drones.
www.thedrive.com
Russian air force now patrols the Syrian skies jointly with the Syrian air force, including in the Golan Heights:
Russian And Syrian Fighters Fly Unprecedented Joint Patrol Along Syria’s Border With Israel
The start of a planned new series of joint air operations between Russia and Syria offers a significant boost to the Syrian Air Force.
www.thedrive.com
Russia already has a lot of potential for friction with Israel, which both seek to avoid. This here may be a move to reassure Assad and gain his favor, but it vastly increases the friction risk.
Doubt it. It is Assad which needs to further ingratiate himself with Russia. He needs Russia. By continuing to provide Assad with diplomatic and other kinds of support; Russia is already providing more than enough assurance. As for the danger of friction; we can safely assume that Israel and Russia will be communicating as they have been doing over the years. The joint patrols are probably directed at the U.S. to show that Russia is a player in the region and also has its own interests to safeguard and it's allies to support.