This site adheres to ashtags #iostoconassad e #iostoconputin
Of Alastair Crooke

Source: Aurora site
The recent series of events leads Israel to retreat; the almeno, to a profound existential reflection, on the seventieth anniversary of the foundation. The depth of this rather anxious introspection became explicit in the discussion hosted by Yediot Ahronoth, the most important Israeli newspaper, among six ex-chiefs of the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service. The most direct eruption into this gloomy mood was the declaration to Knesset(parliament) according to which the population between Jordan and the sea was exactly balanced, 6,5 million on each side, between Israelis and Palestinians. Right, demographic equality would have occurred at some point, everyone knew it. It is therefore not a surprise; but it's a slap in the face of reality, nevertheless. These figures were published by the IDF and are therefore difficult to dispute. This moment of reality thus reduces the ability of certain Israelis to persist in the wishful thinking that the Palestinians are much less. This hugely symbolic twist is here, it has arrived. The question of what kind of state Israel will be is no longer theoretical. One of the six former directors of the Mossad, Pardo, answered the question what is it, according to her, the worst threat to Israeli national security?: “The worst threat, it is the fact that between the sea and the Jordan River there are almost identical numbers of Jews and non-Jews. The central problem from 1967 to date it is Israel, for the entire political leadership, it hasn't decided what country to be. We are the only country in the world that has not defined its borders. All governments have avoided it... If the State of Israel does not decide what it wants, in the end there will be a single state between the sea and the Jordan. This is the end of the Zionist vision“. Two other events defined the dilemma: first, Israel's prime minister was forced to U-turn on an initiative that would have allowed tens of thousands of African immigrants in Israel to be resettled in Europe. The right wing of his coalition government did not want Israel to become a conduit for African economic migration to Europe, forcing him into political retraction. Refugees are now likely to be expelled to Africa. It may seem like a relatively insignificant event (except for migrants), but it focused again, especially among liberal Jews in Israel and the United States, the question of what is now the moral basis of the Israeli state: Israel has swelled with millions of immigrants from the USSR (many of whom are not Jewish). Israel now abandons state mission on “exile and refuge”, widening the schism among American Jews.
The third shocking event was the “march of return” of Gazans to the fence separating Gaza from Israel: Israel responded by shooting and killing 17 Palestinians: “Imagine the result“, an Israeli officer told Ben Caspit, “if they had broken the fence, even in just one point, marching towards Israel. It would have ended in a bloodbath“. The collision between the news that the Palestinians are now 6,5 millions, with the new unprecedented tactic of the Palestinian mass demonstration for civil rights with peaceful protests, gives shivers to Israeli security: what would be the consequence if one hundred thousand Palestinians crowded the fence, breaking in and invading nearby cities and countryside? Panic, and then shootings. But these existential questions arise as the difficult geostrategic constellation of Israel arises. An example, quoted by New Yorker, a former US official who attended Jared Kushner's first briefing at the NSC: ““We took out the map and assessed the situation”, the ex-defense official had said. “Looking at the region, they concluded that the northern belt of the Middle East was lost to Iran. In Lebanon, Hezbollah, Iranian agent, controls the government. In Syria, Iran helped save President Bashar al-Assad from military disaster and now strengthens his political future. In Iraq, the government, nominally phyllo-USA, it is influenced by Tehran. “We have that guy to put aside”, the official told me. “We thought, and now? Our anchors are Israel and Saudi Arabia.". And the result: Kushner, who has no experience of the Middle East, he traveled to Riyadh for several “all night” sessions with his new friend MbS, to discuss the latter's “ideas on how to remake the Middle East… But, Bannon these al New Yorker, the message he and Kushner wanted Trump to convey to regional leaders was that the status quo needed to change, and in several places, it was better that way. “We told him, Trump told him: “We support you, but we want action, action", says Bannon. No one seemed more eager to hear that message than the vice-crown prince. “The judgment was that we needed to find an agent of change”, the ex-defense official told me. “This is where MbS came. We would have welcomed him as an agent of change". What? Bannon and Kushner claimed they wanted to change the status quo in the Middle East, but having just concluded that they have already lost the north and perhaps even Iraq, in favor of Iran, they decided to assign the task to MbS who had told an incredulous Tony Blinken (In the 2015): ““He told me his goal was to eradicate Iranian influence in Yemen”, according to Blinken. I was caught off guard, observed Blinken: driving Iranian sympathizers out of the country would require a bloodbath. “I told him there were many things he could do to minimize or reduce Iranian influence. But to eliminate it…?”” MbS is the one who can “repel the Persians”, as Steve Bannon claimed? This cannot be taken seriously. Someone reminded Kushner of Stalin's words to Pierre Laval in 1935: “He Dad! How many divisions does the Pope of Rome have?“. No wonder the Israeli security leadership is cautious.
Yediot Ahoronot tells: “I asked the former Mossad directors if they, looking at Israel on the 70th anniversary, were satisfied: “I was the first director of the Mossad who was not part of the 1948 generation”, these Shabtai Shavit. “I was born in the state, and I feel very bad about what happens to you. The problems are so big, deep, ampli. There are no red lines, nothing is taboo. As members of the intelligence community, our most important ability is to try to predict the future. I wonder what kind of country I will leave for my grandchildren, and I can't find an answer".” Shavit was referring primarily to the internal divisions and loss of integrity of the Israeli political leadership; but the geopolitical situation is not even favorable to Israel. The USA, one way or another, they withdraw from the Middle East. More significantly, However, it becomes evident that, with the US desire to reduce China and Russia. an unexpected response was triggered. It seems that China and Russia have had enough of Western belligerence. Perhaps it was the jibe of the “revisionist powers” ​​in the statement on the posture of the national defense of the United States; perhaps the escalation of the trade war; or maybe “the last straw that broke the camel's back” was the expulsion of Russian diplomats coordinated with “Skripal” (which appears to have enraged China as much as Russia) to have triggered this reaction. Whatever the cause, the “gloves are off” apparently. China and Russia no longer intend to "suffer". This has important implications for the Middle East: China and Russia very visibly illustrate to the US the depth and strength of the strategic unity that exists between them. Iran is part of it and is also a strategic partner. China will inflict damage on the United States if they persist with the trade war (or other mode of financial warfare). Russia, cooperating with China, will cause harm to the United States, in case she believes their deep state continues to threaten her. Not even Iran or Syria will accept being unjustifiably targeted by Western interests. President Putin made this clear to Prime Minister Netanyahu after the shooting down of the Israeli F16: Russia now has interests in the region, and will not allow Israel to "make a mess". Who will back down from this “game of chicken”? It's not clear. It could instead intensify. Apparently, China has a lot to lose from a trade war, but the United States may be more vulnerable than we think. This administration has inextricably linked the political credibility of the State to the financial markets (especially equity). Stock markets have therefore become the path to US political success. There are signs that China knows that US stock and debt markets are America's Achilles' heel. Steven Englander at Rafiki Capital Management note: “The trade spider is largely played in the financial markets, with reaction on headlines used to determine China's wisdom or US policy. The US tariffs appear to have been chosen to benefit the economy and trade. China's response today is dictated by the desire to inflict the clearest political and financial damage on the market. It is hard to believe that a country with higher tariffs and labor-intensive exports to the US and almost four times the imports from the US, can win a trade war. However, This could happen if US policy is more sensitive to the prices of politically sensitive stocks and products than to China policy, with goods just subjected to duties. A vote of confidence perceived by financial markets can have real-world consequences by strengthening their respective negotiation processes: positive reactions give politicians more leeway in pushing their policies; a market sell-off will increase the pressure to back off or find a quick fix“.
Israel's deterrence will likely suffer, as the US and the China-Russia axis clash. Bannon's beastly mumbling about "our plan to annihilate the physical caliphate of ISIS in Iraq and Syria, non-friction and annihilation, and make the Persians retreat.", it might seem neo-realist, but it would also be empty rhetoric. Iran is a Russian interest, for several reasons, the Israelis have been warned and their ability to act is limited. And the Israeli stock markets, oltre a Wall Street, they could also suffer "collateral damage" with these new financial wars, exacerbating internal tensions. In the end, The chain of events may make some Israelis ponder why they should antagonize Iran, if China and Russia seem ready to emerge as the next axis of Eurasian powers. A strategic shift is underway. E, after all, Israel was pragmatic enough to have relations with the new revolutionary leaders of Iran immediately after 1979. Israel stopped and began demonizing Iran only as a consequence of the change in Israeli domestic politics, and not because of a new threat.

Translation by Alessandro Lattanzio