ICJ rules Kosovo's independence legal

Today the International Court of Justice has issued its advisory opinion on the unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo. While the full reading is ongoing the International Court of Justice President Hisashi Owada did say there was no "prohibition on declarations of independence" in international law and as a result Kosovo's declaration "did not violate general international law" making the declaration legal.

While the full implications of the decision are pending the potential precedent being set is already clear. By ruling that international law does not prohibit a declaration of independence and likely by extension recognition of such a declaration countries now have legal cover to recognize other separatist entities around the world. One possible consequence is more recognitions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

Tensions escalate in the South Caucasus and the Middle East

A clash between Armenian and Azeri soldiers in the area of Nagorno-Karabakh that left four Armenian soldiers and one Azeri soldier dead took place on June 18 as the worst in a rising number of incidents along the front. The attack took place after a meeting to discuss the disputed region seemed to lead to Azeri President Ilham Aliyev leaving in apparent frustration over the situation. Hundreds of incidents have apparently occurred since then with another Azeri soldier being killed on June 21st. While both sides have accused the other of initiating the clash it seems the incident is a consequence of Azerbaijan failing to modify the Madrid Principles on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in its favor.

In the recent past Azerbaijan has warned that if it does not see a change in the stalemate, specifically one that would be more accommodating to the Azeri position, that they would resort to the use of force. Since the clash a number of comments from Azerbaijan suggest the escalation on the front is intended to provide a pretext for Azerbaijan to retake Nagorno-Karabakh. Aliyev has reportedly said he is sure Karabakh would be "liberated" soon and Azerbaijan's foreign minister warned the attacks would continue until Baku regain control over the territory.

Other events in the region could signal an international element to this potential conflict. Iran has recently raised fears of war along its border with Azerbaijan in response to an alleged build-up of U.S. and Israeli military power in the country. This is believed by Iran to be preparations for an airstrike against Iran by the U.S. and Israel. However, it is possible the U.S. and Israeli forces are responding to the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh. Both countries have strong ties with Azerbaijan while Armenia is aligned with Russia. The Iranian buildup does present another potential international actor, however, as it has begun massing forces in response to this alleged buildup by the United States. Iran has more established ties with Armenia and has made threats in the past towards Azerbaijan, especially in light of the potentially secessionist Azeri population in Northwestern Iran.

As the situation in the Middle East approaches the point of war, the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan could provide a trigger or even another front in such a war. Such developments in the Middle East would help to distract the world community from the situation in the South Caucasus. Even further should these events coincide Russia and Iran could exchange places with Iran providing support to the Armenians and Russia giving Iran an umbrella of protection from Israeli nuclear attack or any U.S. invasion.

Israel and the United States building up for Iran strike

Only two weeks after a report Israel was arranging for a nuclear-armed Dolphin-class submarine to remain off Iranian shores at all times comes another saying Saudi Arabia has conducted exercises to insure Israeli aircraft attacking Iran will not be intercepted by Saudi fighters. Though there are no indications Saudi Arabia would directly take part in a strike on Iran it would inevitably be drawn into the conflict as a result of its assistance for Israel.

At the same time as these developments concerning Israel are others concerning the U.S. Navy movements in the region. A Carrier Strike Group headed by the U.S.S. Harry Turman is being deployed to the Persian Gulf for six months. Most notably this Strike Group currently includes a German air defense frigate to improve interoperability of the two navies. The Truman Strike Group was also taking part in interopability exercises with the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle and elements of the British air force.

This deployment for the Strike Group is reportedly part of a larger buildup planned in the region with the possibility of four or five carrier groups deployed near Iran by the end of July or beginning of August. The interoperability exercises and Israel's actions raise the prospect of a coalition unlike the one formed for the war with Iraq.

U.S.-French operations were intended to allow for the French and Americans personnel and aircraft to essentially be interchangeable. The fact a carrier group so involved in interoperability exercises with the great military powers of Europe is being deployed to the shores off Iran at this crucial point in time lends credence to the reports of a buildup.

Israel's seizure of a flotilla of ships carrying aid to Gaza has heightened concerns about war erupting in the region with both Turkey and Iran talking about providing military escorts to future aid efforts. In the case of Iran two Iranian Red Crescent ships are preparing to deliver aid to Gaza and plan to have volunteers from Iranian marines on board as a deterrent. Israel has stated it will use greater force in the future against other aid missions. If this effort by Iran goes forward it could provide them a casus belli to pre-empt any efforts by the West towards launching a coordinated strike against its nuclear facilities.

Ukraine's East-West divide risks exploding

Following the election of Viktor Yanukovych as the President of Ukraine and his appointment of a new government coalition led by his Party of Regions fears arose that Ukraine would see a shift back towards Russia. The election and subsequent government appointment saw considerable controversy and a number of accusations were levied by the opposition. It is no surprise then that the realization of Ukraine's geopolitical shift would bring even greater resistance.

As the governing coalition sought to extend the lease for the Russian base at Sevastopol members of the opposition took action, sparking chaos in the parliament. Members of the opposition threw smoke bombs and eggs at Volodymyr Lytvyn, the Speaker of the parliament, and outside a protest raged. The chants of "death to traitors" and use of physical violence show the potential backlash from Ukraine's sway towards Russia.

In the end the ruling coalition was successful in passing the deal with Russia that included a cut in the price of natural gas imported from Russia. However, ultimately the cut only brought gas down from an inflated price to the market level, which had been Russia's intended target all along. Part of this new agreement requires Ukraine to buy more gas than it needs while also allowing Russia to bypass Ukraine's pipelines.

The latter possibility already has plans in motion with the South Stream pipeline project. This proposed pipeline would cross the Black Sea, bypassing Ukraine and NATO member Turkey to provide natural gas directly to customers in Europe. It would also, together with the Nord Stream project, increase Gazprom's hold on European energy by pushing towards Western Europe.

Russia has used the possibility of South Stream as leverage to push for an even bigger plan, a merger of Naftogaz, Ukraine's state-owned natural gas company, with Gazprom. Ukraine's leadership has not been eager to accept such an arrangement, however, this proposal would eliminate the perpetual flirtation with bankruptcy that has been a constant threat to the company and Ukraine. Yet Russia may not have any intention of actually pushing for a full-on merger, but simply be using the idea to put pressure on Ukraine's government and Naftogaz, which have been supportive of a gas consortium including the EU as a partner. Part of a consortium deal could be partial ownership of Naftogaz, possibly a controlling interest or half-and-half deal, in exchange for removing certain provisions of the recent natural gas deal, including those allowing them to bypass Ukraine altogether. Russia could also insure the European Union is locked out of the project. Ironically, despite the resistance to a merger in Ukraine the European Union has expressed openness to the idea, though steps to keep the EU out might change their perspective.

Any deal with Gazprom that essentially gives control of Ukraine's gas monopoly to Russia, whether through a merger or consortium, will inflame already boiling tensions between the government and the opposition. Already opposition leader and former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko is moving for an impeachment of Yanukovych alleging his deals with the Russian government are state treason. She is also seeking to have the parliament dissolved in the hopes of toppling the pro-Russian coalition. Tymoshenko has intensified rhetoric against the current government by accusing it of turning Ukraine into a dictatorship and turning over its territories to Russia. All of this is being done in preparation for a major rally outside parliament on May 11 in order to force a new election.

How the government responds to the proposed gas merger and the planned protests could signal a critical development in Ukraine's future. While most supporters of the opposition hope for a recap of the Orange Revolution in 2004 there has been speculation of a more disastrous scenario: a Yugoslavia-type breakup where Ukraine ceases to be a country. At issue is Yanukovych's alleged disregard for Western Ukraine from appointing governors to ignoring pleas from intellectuals who are against the slide towards Russia. The fight in parliament over extending the Russian base lease gives a preview of the potential for violence. If Yanukovych accepts a gas merger or similar plan with Gazprom or the protests outside parliament turn violent sparking a government crackdown the nation could quickly descend into a civil war between the Eastern and Western parts of Ukraine, a microcosm of the greater geopolitical tug-of-war that risks pulling the country apart.

Subtle buildup to Second Karabakh War?

While the talk of war has been heating up over the past year a number of signs seem to indicate such a development may be near at hand. In Armenia Major General Arkady Ter-Tadevosyan has noted Azerbaijan's buildup of ammunition and threats of war as a sign that war is highly probable, but says he does not believe it would extend to Armenia itself given its membership in the Collective Security Treaty Organization.

The strongest signs of war, however, are coming from Azerbaijan. Referring to a meeting there with President Aliyev a spokesman for the Defense Ministry praised the military's capabilities saying it would easily defeat Armenia in a new war, and displayed a desire for the military option to be used to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute. Aliyev was paraphrased as saying the reason for not resorting to force is the hope internationally-mediated negotiations could resolve the issue peacefully, but the spokesman says the talks have proved fruitless on this matter leaving no other option but the use of force. This could be the military putting increasing pressure on Aliyev for the use of military force or indicate a decision to use military force has already been made. With the former there is still cause to believe a war may be imminent as Aliyev could find himself bowing to pressure from the military.

International pressure, in addition to domestic pressure, may cause Azerbaijan to take action against Nagorno-Karabakh. While the U.S. has largely supported Azerbaijan's stance on Nagorno-Karabakh it has also been pushing for a reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia. This effort at bettering ties has greatly strained Azerbaijan's relationship with the U.S. and Turkey, its two most important allies in the region. Despite the negotiations between Armenia and Turkey being called off it likely still leaves Azerbaijan feeling isolated and without stalwart allies, giving them all the more reason to act on their own.

One more potential sign of trouble in the region is a recent initiative by Nagorno-Karbakh to lobby foreign states for recognition. Done with the active encouragement of Armenia it creates another possible point of conflagration. While recognition is not likely to be forthcoming from many countries, should it succeed in persuading a single country it could be taken by Azerbaijan as a casus belli. This would still give Armenia room to accuse Azerbaijan of unprovoked invasion since it would be a third country responding to a direct request from Nagorno-Karabakh as opposed to recognition from Armenia or at Armenia's request. It also prepares the ground for recognition should Azerbaijan instead strike over dissatisfaction with the stalemate in talks.

Regardless of who sparks off a conflict these correlating events could indicate a war is soon to erupt in the region that will once again draw the attention and concern of the world to the Caucasus and inevitably, Russia.

Hezbollah: Lebanon's second army

Speculation is rife that this summer will see a war with Hezbollah and ultimately a war across the Middle East. Even if this Middle Eastern War starts with an attack on Iran or a pre-emptive strike by Iran it will inevitably come to include Hezbollah and Lebanon. While the Lebanese military has made it clear it intends to get involved in any future conflict with Israel it is ultimately Hezbollah that will spearhead Lebanon's military efforts and achieve the best results. This now rapidly developing role of Hezbollah as Lebanon's elite military force did not come quickly, but was the consequence of nearly three decades of conflict.

Beginning of the Resistance

In 1982 Israel launched an invasion of the country of Lebanon in order to expel the Palestine Liberation Organization. Despite attempts by Syria and its Lebanese allies to stop the attack, Israel succeeded in expelling the PLO and began an occupation of much of the southern half of Lebanon. A multinational force was soon brought into the country to oversee the PLO's withdrawal. At this time Iran stepped into the fray and began training 1,500 Lebanese Shiites who followed the doctrine of Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini.

Iran sought to create in this group a militant force that could replicate Iran's Islamic Revolution in Lebanon. This group constituted what would first be known as the Islamic Resistance and eventually come to be known as Hezbollah. Soon the Islamic Resistance made their first decisive mark on Lebanon's history with the bombing of the U.S. Marine and French paratrooper barracks in Beirut, which claimed 241 U.S. and 58 French soldiers.

Initially, the response of Western military forces was defiance. U.S. and French forces retaliated to the attacks with strikes against Syrian forces and planned further attacks together, which would target Iran's Revolutionary Guard forces in the country. However, while the military forces had an appetite for war the American public and Congress were not willing to risk more deaths like those in the bombing and convinced President Reagan to abandon the country. The withdrawal of Western military forces was the first strategic victory of the militant force that would become the Hezbollah of today.

Uniting the Resistance and Defeating Israel

With the removal of the Multinational Force in Lebanon all that remained was the Israeli military and its proxy forces.While Israel did withdraw from most of South Lebanon in 1985 it retained its position on a strip along the Israeli border. However, the Islamic Resistance that had expelled the West was still disorganized and unable to present a united front against Israeli forces, which had much stronger motivation to continue the war.

As the Resistance attempted to bring together their disparate forces Israel struck out with its "Iron Fist" policy pursuing a strategy of all-out war that saw entire villages destroyed in the hopes of preventing Lebanese Shiite resistance forces from banding together against Israel. However, far from extinguishing this movement, Israel's actions only inflamed the resistance and Hezbollah increasingly emerged as the focal point for the force. It was during this time that Hezbollah began its rocket attacks against Northern Israel.

While Hezbollah's efforts focused on the Israeli occupation, its effort to unite the Shiite resistance soon lead it to take part in the ongoing civil war during the War of the Camps. In this battle Hezbollah confronted Amal, then the main Shiite militia force, and even Amal's ally Syria. The conflict thus was not only for the right to lead Lebanon's Shia community, the largest group in Lebanon, but a battle to determine if Syria or Iran would have primacy over them as well. Even after the conclusions of the War of the Camps this feud over leadership continued until Hezbollah won out. Unlike other militias which by then become incorporated into the Hezbollah force, Amal retained its independence but from then on it would essentially be subordinate to Hezbollah.

Even after the conclusion of Lebanon's civil war Israel continued its occupation of the border region and made countless failed attempts to destroy the rising organization. Yet, despite its best, Israel could not eliminate the force and in 2000 was decided to make a unilateral withdrawal from the region entirely. Around the world and in Lebanon this event was seen as the first major defeat for Israel and Hezbollah received much of the credit. This began to lift up the image of Hezbollah in the Arab world as it was considered the first victory for Arab forces against Israel.

Continuing the Fight


Even with this significant victory the liberation of Lebanon was not considered complete for Hezbollah until the Shebaa farms were reclaimed as well. Thus began another multi-year low-intensity conflict centered on the disputed border territory.

Hezbollah's opening salvo in this conflict was devastating politically: the group launched a raid that led to the capture of three Israeli soldiers. After several years Hezbollah exchanged the bodies of the long-dead soldiers as well as a captured Israeli citizen for hundreds of prisoners and the remains of dozens of Lebanese militants and civilians. Intermittent fighting continued in the region with cross-border attacks and strikes occurring frequently.

Rallying Lebanon to the Resistance

Though Hezbollah had long been involved in the politics of Lebanon, a major political shift occurred that ultimately opened the way for Hezbollah to gain even more power in the country. Rafic Hariri was assassinated on February 14, 2005 by a car bomb and blame was soon laid on Syria and the Lebanese government. The response was a series of mass protests by anti-Syrian officials and activists, which came to be known as the Cedar Revolution. As a result of this mass action the pro-Syrian government resigned and Syria declared its intended compliance with a UN resolution requiring its withdrawal from Lebanon. Not long after this Hezbollah staged a pro-Syrian demonstration that also objected to requirements under the same UN resolution for its militia to disband. This Hezbollah-organized demonstration was several times larger than any of those opposing Syria and proved it was not only a capable militant group, but an effective political one as well.

Just a year later Hezbollah gained another opportunity to display its strength when it launched a cross-border attack on Israeli troops that sparked a month-long military campaign by the Israeli military against the group. The 2006 Lebanon War was on a much greater scale than its past operations against Hezbollah as the organization had built up a considerable defensive network in Southern Lebanon during Israel's six-year absence. Not only did Hezbollah achieve several tactical victories during the campaign and ultimately a strategic victory due to Israel's withdrawal, the political gains were also considerable. More than surviving the group had emboldened its supporters and grew its support base within all the various demographic groups in Lebanon.

They soon showed this broadening of support with protests launched later in the year against the sitting pro-Western government in the country, specifically with regards to forming a national unity government. Hezbollah's mainly Shiite coalition had expanded to include the anti-Syrian Aoun's Free Patriotic Movement as well. A year and a half of protests showed little progress until the Lebanese government made a move to crack down on Hezbollah. The end result was the seizure of parts of Beirut by Hezbollah and its allies with the pro-government parties suffering stinging defeats as the military sat idly by, proving no force in the country could now stand up to the organization. In response to this crisis the demands of Hezbollah and its allies was granted with the group gaining considerable influence with veto power in the government and having Hezbollah's militia given official support from the Lebanese government.

The 2009 elections formally ended this arrangement with Hezbollah's opposition losing the critical seat in government needed for veto power, but the pro-Western parties did not regain their position of authority either as Lebanese President Suleiman, appointed as part of the 2008 compromise, chose several positions in the government. Yet, this can be seen as retaining Hezbollah's strength as the President has frequently iterated his support for the Hezbollah military group.

A Growing Military Power


Now, with war increasingly on the horizon, Hezbollah is more and more solidifying itself as a crucial military force in Lebanon. With its political influence at all time highs, including the apparent full support of the President and military, the group is accelerating its buildup. Already having a substantial arsenal of short and medium-range rockets reports are emerging that Syria has transferred Scud missiles to Hezbollah. Adding these onto its rocket and missile arsenal means the group now has the capacity to strike anywhere in Israel and put them through a far greater hell than in 2006 with Israelis all across the country rushing into bunkers.

This growing arsenal is not limited to surface-to-surface weapons as some Hezbollah cells are receiving extensive training in the use of anti-air weaponry that could be moved into Lebanon at the beginning of a war and immediately serve as a major deterrent to Israeli air power. Others are being trained in the use of anti-ship weaponry that would allow the group to deter Israeli amphibious attacks and attacks from offshore. Hezbollah already proved its capabilities in this area with its attack on the INS Hanit during the 2006 war. With more training and a larger arsenal of anti-ship weapons Hezbollah could prove to be highly capable at keeping the Israeli navy at bay. A large network of anti-tank lines integrated with a communications network and system of highways that can be closed off in the event of war has also been built inside Lebanon.

Hezbollah's offensive abilities have also greatly increased. With Iranian training Hezbollah has built up a force of some 5,000 commandos for use in a future war. These forces would infiltrate into Northern Israel and seize control of several important areas along the border potentially boxing in Israeli forces invading Southern Lebanon. With greatly improved anti-armor capabilities, a larger overall military force, and with tactics even more polished than in 2006 Hezbollah has evolved an offensive capability that could allow it to inflict serious damage in Israel itself and, in Lebanon, bring about massive casualties to Israeli ground forces.

Even excluding guaranteed support from the Lebanese military and likely support from Syria, Hezbollah has positioned itself to be far greater threat to Israel than any group before. Combined with its domestic Lebanese and its broader international support Israel is sure to find itself confronting the greatest threat to its existence in its history.

Middle East forces preparing for battle

For the past few weeks reports have emerged that Israel is preparing an attack on Iran. Reportedly it involved cooperation between Israel's navy and the Fifth Fleet of the U.S. Navy in charting waters for an Israeli naval attack and use of special operations forces. Additional preparations were made to mark out an Israeli air route for a strike against Iran. This coincides with a U.S. buildup in the Persian Gulf including the deployment of anti-missile defenses in various Gulf nations and on U.S. naval ships. Another part of the U.S. buildup is the formation of a 30,000 strong force to defend oil platforms and other crucial infrastructure.

Due to these preparations there has been an escalation of rhetoric between Syria and Israel. Syria's Foreign Minister warned that an Israeli attack on Lebanon or Syria would result in an all-out war that would bring the conflict to Israel's cities. Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman warned any war with Syria would mean the end of President Bashar Assad's regime. In the midst of this public sabre-rattling Iran is reported to have shipped some 100 medium-range surface-to-surface missiles to Syria in January.

Hezbollah has raised the alert level of its forces in Lebanon. Members of the group were told to prepare for a possible Israeli strike. Hezbollah has made some of the most extensive preparations reportedly forming up five brigades totaling 5,000 troops trained in urban combat and special operation to launch an invasion of Northern Israel. These troops are said to reach the same level of training as U.S. and Israeli forces. The plan would also include instigating revolts by Israeli Arabs. Syria would reportedly support them using air and artillery strikes and could open another front from the Golan Heights.

Naturally such a conflict will come to include Hamas attacking from the south. Their preparations for war have accelerated since Operation Cast Lead in  December 2008 and January 2009. Part of this preparation has been the gathering of some 5,000 rockets including missiles capable of striking Tel Aviv. One Lebanese analyst has said Hamas has become as capable as Hezbollah in 2006. Among the capabilities they have gained is the the use of multiple explosive devices capable of destroying a Merkava tank as Hezbollah did in the 2006 war. Other anti-tank weapons used by Hezbollah to destroy Israeli tanks have been acquired by Hamas as well. They have also acquired the ability to attack Israeli helicopters, which was not a capability of Hezbollah during the war.

A few capabilities such as upgraded SA-2s for Hezbollah and S-300s for Iran have yet to be put in play, but if they are it will greatly enhance the abilities of the Iranian-aligned forces in the Middle East. Despite bragging by Western and Gulf nations about their superiority to Iran its ability to create problems for the region only increases as time passes. Israel should be worried most of all as the combined strength of Hezbollah, Syria, and Hamas together with some assistance from Iran will likely prove difficult for them to defeat by conventional means.