Iraqi has launched its first drone flight from al-Kut Airbase towards al-Anbar to target sites belonging to the ISIS organization in the province.

The Iraqi TV channel Alsumaria reported that, “the first Iraqi combat drone took off, this morning, from Kut Airbase in Wasit province,” pointing out that, “the plane headed towards Anbar to strike a target for ISIS,” and adding that, “the process of launching the aircraft was conducted in the presence of Defense Minister Khaled al-Obeidi,”

It is noteworthy, Iraqi forces are often assisted by US drones to provide information about ISIS targets and the situation in the provinces controlled by the organization.

Iran‘s defense minister said that the militants of the Islamic State (IS) will be revenged for the death of Iranian prominent commander recently killed in Syria, Mashreq daily reported on Saturday.

“With no doubt, the co-fighters of Hossein Hamadani will continue his path and will take revenge by uprooting the terrorist group of the IS,” the Defense Minister Hossein Dehqan was quoted as saying.

Iran has confirmed that the commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps, Gen. Hossein Hamadani, was killed by the IS in Syria on Thursday. He was recently serving in Syria as both an advisor to the Syrian government and as an overseer for operations of the pro-Syrian army forces.

His martyrdom will be a turning point in the struggle of the resistant front against the terrorist groups supported by the Zionist regime of Israel, Dehqan said.

Iran, the staunchest regional ally of the Syrian government, was said to have been sending military advisors and training Shiite militants to fight alongside the Syrian forces in the face of Jihadi groups in the war-torn country.

Turkey’s prime minister says “strong evidence” indicates two suicide bombers were responsible for twin explosions that killed at least 86 people and wounded 186 more during a peace rally Saturday in the capital of Ankara.

Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu added there would be three days of mourning for the victims. It was believed to be the deadliest attack in Turkey in years.

One of the explosions was captured on video as demonstrators gathered outside a train station in Ankara for the peace rally. Of the injured, 28 people were in critical condition, said Turkish Health Minister Mehmet Muezinoglu.

Turkey’s government said it imposed a temporary news blackout in the wake of the explosions. A government spokesman said the blackout applies to gruesome or bloody images or ones that may “create a feeling of panic.”

Blind-sided by Russia’s sudden escalation in Syria, Western powers must abandon hopes of toppling the regime and instead make do with steering Moscow away from actions that deepen the conflict, analysts say.

The strategy of the United States and its allies looked uncertain long before Russian President Vladimir Putin decided to dramatically increase his military involvement in Syria in recent weeks.

The West’s strategic shortcomings were demonstrated by the disastrous $500-million (440-million-euro) US program to train and arm moderate rebels, which generated only a handful of fighters, many of whom surrendered or were captured almost immediately. The scheme was finally scrapped on Friday (Oct. 9).

The confusion has looked all the greater since the start of Russia’s far more clear-eyed engagement in support of its old ally, President Bashar al-Assad.

“The Russian mission is tight and focused around the aim of preserving Assad while the West has had a muddled approach, trying to remove Assad, prevent the rise of extremists and preserve state institutions at the same time,” said Julien Barnes-Dacey, Middle East fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations.

Russia has flexed its muscles with repeated air strikes and the launching this week of 26 cruise missiles from the Caspian Sea.

“The Russians have shown a naval capacity that was not expected,” said Thomas Gomart, head of the French Institute for Foreign Relations.

“They are in the process of creating a bubble over Syria and challenging the West’s aerial supremacy.”

The message goes beyond the immediate concerns of the Syrian conflict, he said.

Since the Gulf War in 1991, the West has prioritized control of the skies — a fact that Russia is trying to challenge.

Long-shot hopes
Russia’s moves have severely limited the West’s options about what to do next in the war-torn country.

With Russia’s planes in Syrian airspace and its advisors surrounding Assad, any remaining Western hopes of toppling his regime are effectively over for the time being.

“There’s no desire in the West to go to war with Russia over Syria, and there is a legitimate fear that counter-escalation will only lead to more violence, state breakdown, extremism and refugees,” Barnes-Dacey said.

“There is no win to be had from making things more difficult for the Russians, when Europe will pay the cost as well.”

At the same time, many are worried that Russia’s dramatic intervention will boost the strength of the Islamic State group by fuelling jihadist recruitment and decimating other rebel groups that compete with it for dominance.

The West’s primary task, then, could be to steer Moscow towards a more constructive involvement in the conflict.

“The West must convince the Russians of the complexity of the crisis, the risks of their moves,” said Camille Grand, head of the Strategic Research Foundation in Paris.

She counts herself among the analysts who feel Putin has bitten off more than he can chew in Syria, and may soon realise that the best move is to rein in Assad’s excesses and make an accommodation with the West.

De facto partition
“The long-shot hope is that having secured Assad’s position and recognizing that total victory is impossible, Moscow will put pressure on the regime to end its barrel bombing of civilians and open up a governance and humanitarian space in outlying areas that can act as an alternative to the jihadist groups,” said Barnes-Dacey.

Another scenario is that the different powers end up dividing Syria between themselves, with Russia responsible for Assad’s “core Syria”, while Western countries focus on disrupting the Islamic State group in outlying areas.

“Russia has shown no meaningful desire to take on IS and the West will feel compelled to continue its military action against the group, which in many circles is still seen as the main threat to the wider region and world,” said Barnes-Dacey.

“In a sense Moscow’s action may end up clarifying the de facto soft partition of the country that had already been emerging,” he added.

With no obvious solution in sight, the West may have to resort to the international grouping that helped seal the deal over Iran’s nuclear program, said Eugene Rumer, head of the Russia and Eurasia Program at Carnegie.

“The P5+1 — the US, Russia, France, Great Britain, China, all UN Security Council permanent members joined by Germany — is a unique forum where the key parties can come together to seek a way to solve the Syrian crisis.

“For the US, the P5+1 format would bring some advantages as well as a measure of compromise. It would insulate the US from the charge of unilateralism and create a real coalition to deal with the crisis whose legitimacy under the UN umbrella would be unassailable.”

manilatimes.net

Everyone knows that the Saudi Arabia – the center of Sunni Islam – hates Iran because it is the center for the rival Shia Muslim sect.

The Saudis – close U.S. allies – also hate Iran because it is allied with Russia.

But there is a third, little-known reason why the Saudi government hates Iran.

As the Gulf Cooperation Council – the official council for the Arab Gulf States, comprised of the monarchies of Saudi Arabi, Kuwait, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Oman – writes:

More than any other single factor, the Iranian Revolution helped to coalesce the security concerns of Saudi Arabia and the other monarchies in the Gulf region. As the largest Arab monarchy, Saudi Arabia was in a position to lead the others toward cooperative efforts. The impact of the Iranian Revolution on Saudi Arabia was manifold. The revolution destroyed the most powerful monarchy in the Gulf area. It was the second revolution to send shock waves throughout the Gulf region, the first being the revolution in Iraq that destroyed the monarchy in 1958. The Iraqi revolution had been followed by deteriorating relations between Riyadh and Baghdad, when the Baathist regime tried to subvert the Gulf monarchies. The Iranian example, however, appeared more menacing. The balance of forces seemed to have changed further against the monarchical regimes in the region because Iran, like Iraq, replaced the monarchy with a republic. Whatever course the new Iranian republic took, its very existence would threaten Saudi Arabia and other Gulf monarchies.

In other words, the Saudi government hates Iran because it is a republic, while Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states are monarchies.

Indeed, Vijay Prashad – Professor of South Asian History at Trinity College, Connecticut – said that the Saudis want to crush Iran so that it cannot set an example showing that Muslims can live in a republic without a monarchy.

Prashad points out that the “Saudis made claim that a Muslim country has to be a monarchy”, and Iran’s very existence undermines that claim.

Why does the U.S. support Saudi Arabia and not Iran?

As Lawrence Davidson – author of Islamic Fundamentalism, and professor of history at West Chester University – explains:

Saudi Arabia is a monarchy without representative institutions. Iran, though ideologically authoritarian and possessing the dictatorial office of jurisprudent, is a republic with a parliament and an electoral process. Saudi Arabia strictly forbids female participation in the public realm, whereas Iran leaves some space for women in this regard.

Given these comparisons, it would seem that, in terms of institutions and their potential for “democratic evolution,” the Islamic Republic in Iran has much more to recommend it to the West than does Saudi Arabia.  Why then, one might ask, is the United States so much more hostile to Iran than to Saudi Arabia?

For decades, the United States supported the shah’s monarchy in Iran and continued to do so even after it was clear that it was unpopular, corrupt, and oppressive. When the shah was overthrown, the fundamentalists who took power identified the United States with the deposed government. The new Iranian government’s predictable hostility made difficult any reconciliation between the two powers and fueled continued American animosity.

Indeed, the U.S. supports virtually all of the dictatorial monarchies in the Arab Gulf.

And, of course, there is oil and pipelines play a big part.

Postscript: By way of background, the CIA admits that the U.S. overthrew the moderate, suit-and-tie-wearing, Democratically-elected prime minister of Iran in 1953. He was overthrown because he hadnationalized Iran’s oil, which had previously been controlled by BP and other Western oil companies. As part of that action, the CIA admits that it hired Iranians to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its prime minister.

If the U.S. hadn’t overthrown the moderate Iranian government, the fundamentalist Mullahs would have never taken over. (Moreover, the U.S. has had a large hand in strengthening radical Islam in the Middle East by supporting radicals to fight the Soviets and others).