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.

Maoists in Nepal threaten to retake government from the streets

Since leaving power in protest against the President of Nepal's actions the Maoists have been agitating for their return. The latest effort was a three-day general strikethe declaration of autonomous states which crippled the nation's economy by blocking off transportation. This followed a series of actions by the Maoists including the declaration of numerous autonomous states encompassing the whole of Nepal. Following the conclusion of the strike Maoist leader Prachanda issued an ultimatum threatening an indefinite strike across the country if the government do not form a national unity government with the Maoists by January 24.

Before this Baburam Bhattarai, a key party official, said if a constitution is not implemented by May 14 next year then both the interim constitution and presidency will "cease to exist" and the Maoists will then "declare constitution from the streets and capture power" though how this will be achieved is not made clear. However, another Maoist official has warned Nepal risks sinking back into civil war and blames Indian interference.

Nepal is also the center of a geopolitical struggle between India and China. As India seeks a strengthening of defense ties with Nepal China is also moving towards expanding its ties with the nation. The Maoists being far more hostile to India than the other major powers could prove a critical factor in Nepal's place in the region. Any future scenario with the Maoists in full power and reshuffling the government according to their wishes will sway them towards China. In particular Maoists hostility towards the Ghurka recruitment risks heightening tensions with, not only India, but the United Kingdom as well.

If the Maoists are not returned to power with the agreement of the other parties then there runs a risk of them launching a revolution that could entangle both India and China, potentially even the UK, in a devastating civil war.

North Korea declares "firing zone" in West Sea

Declaring the move to be a reaction to "reckless military provocative maneuvers by the warmongers in the South Korean military" North Korea has designated the disputed Northern Limit Line of the West Sea a peacetime naval firing zone and warned ships to avoid entering the area. If South Korean ships civilian or military enter the area North Korea has threatened to use artillery from coastal and island bases against them.

Earlier in the year President Lee Myung-Bak of South Korea authorized South Korean military forces to retaliate to any attack coming from such land-based weaponry. Then in November a brief naval skirmish broke out between a North Korean ship and South Korean naval forces. Though this battle heightened the risk it did not lead to a renewal of the Korean War. Two other skirmishes occurred years before but also did not result in a new war. However, the declaration that ships will be fired on by coastal or island-based weapons introduces a new complication.

Despite a series of battles breaking out between North Korea and South Korea, the worse situation being in 1968 when an assassination attempt was launched by North Korean commandos, with the commandos fighting with police and troops, and a U.S. ship came under attack. Another serious incident occurred in 1976 called Operation Paul Bunyan where an attempt to clear tree limbs obstructing the view of border guards saw large-scale military support. However, in every single major post-war incident there was not a direct act on North Korean territory by South Korean military forces. With the two orders issued by North Korea and South Korea such a scenario has become plausible. If North Korea keeps its promise and fires on South Korean ships they will then be free to retaliate. As this situation has not arisen before there is no definite way of knowing what will occur.

The most recent threat comes as President Barack Obama pursues diplomacy to try and bring North Korea back into the six-party talks on its nuclear weapons capability. South Korea's foreign minister has warned that failure to restart the talks by March could mean them ending entirely.

Complicating the situation even more is the reported worsening health of Kim Jong-Il. Having already suffered a stroke and kidney disease the North Korean leader is now said to be suffering laryngitis with forcing him to work every other day. Uncertainty over the leadership at the same time as a skirmish increases the chances of a more dire reaction by North Korea's military. The fact Kim Jong-Il has suffered from a stroke already makes this new sickness all the greater risk to his life. Kim Jong-Il's death would greatly upset the already dire geopolitical situation in the Korean peninsula.

Iranian forces seize Iraqi oil field

Today the Iraqi government accused Iran of seizing an oil field in Iraqi territory. Though sporadic clashes have occurred before in this incident Iraq is saying that Iranians forces sent tank into the territory, erected their flag, and began digging trenches. Iraq has demanded that they leave though whether this could escalate into an armed confrontation depends on the support of the U.S. Any battle could result in escalations and lead to an all-out war. However, even if the situation is defused it provides a potential look into Iran's strategy should war erupt in the Middle East. While Iran's threats to block the Straits of Hormuz have been well-publicized the potential for Iran to seize Iraqi oil fields has not.

Other potential actions which could lead to a renewed war have arisen recently. The most obvious risk is an attack over Iran's nuclear program which came back into question as Obama was said to inform the Chinese that the U.S. could not hold back an Israeli attack indefinitely. Given numerous examples of Iran's program advancing in both enrichment and weaponization the more times passes the more inevitable an attack becomes.

Another risk emerged with the Abbas government in the West Bank threatening a unilateral declaration of independence. The Israeli government's response was that it would then annex Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Though they have backed away from this preferring to push for a Security Council vote, the potential for such a declaration could arise should the vote fail and discussions remain deadlocked. Indonesia expressly supported recognition of a unilateral declaration and it is likely other countries would as well. This possibility arose due to the unilateral declaration of Kosovo and later recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia by Russia. Though a declaration by itself may not cause such an event Israeli retaliation by annexing parts of the West Bank could invite other actors eventually including Iran.

Hamas has also stated what has long been expected in the event of a war with Iran. They declared that they will aid Iran if a war erupts. In this area Hamas has been improving their capabilities to prepare for such a war. Having learned from the war earlier this year Hamas is building up its weapons stockpile and improving its defensive infrastructure. Though far from being as capable as Hezbollah they are also acquiring missiles capable of hitting Tel Aviv. Combined with Hezbollah's capabilities, a future war will see Tel Aviv hit from all directions.

The consequences as indicated by the developments in Iraq would be massive disruption of world oil supply.

Aliyev once more threatening war over Nagorno-Karabakh

While this is not the first time Aliyev, President of Azerbaijan, has threatened to reclaimed the separatist state of Nagorno-Karabakh with force the rhetoric is more resolute. A few months ago he said talks were proving fruitless and that they plan for war, but there was a caveat:

The president added that it was Azerbaijan’s "sovereign right" to resort to force, if Armenia did not show more negotiating flexibility, Russia’s Regnum news agency reported.

This seems to talk only about negotiations needing to make some movement, but this is what he is saying now:

Aliyev said, “We are attending to this meeting as a part of our program. This meeting will decisive for the negotiations. We held several meetings this year but we could not achieve any results. If we cannot again achieve any results we will run out of hope.” Stressing that they may use the military option if they lose their hope about peaceful resolution of the conflict, Aliyev said that Azerbaijan should be ready for that option.

This seems far more definitive in that he is saying without an agreement on resolving the matter there will be a war. Some will say this is just to play into domestic consumption, but there is serious reason for doubt. The same thing was said of Putin's comments on Abkhazia and South Ossetia. When he didn't immediately react to Kosovo's independence with recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia there were people claiming Putin was a paper tiger unwilling to back up his threats.

Azerbaijan is not likely to accept that anymore than Russia did. Even if they do not immediately react it is likely the foundations will be laid for a war sometime next year. Armenia is likely to react to any war with immediate recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh's independence inflaming a war even further. Such a war could prove more explosive than the one in Georgia a year ago.

Key to its explosive potential is the reaction of Turkey. If Azerbaijan is the aggressor Turkey's reaction could be measured. Though the government would say Azerbaijan has the right to assert its territorial integrity it may also add that it is best to achieve this peacably. Fear of becoming entangled in a war with Russia is another major reason for them to not intervene.

Another key element is the reaction of the United States. In the previous year's war in Georgia the U.S. sat by as Russia sent troops perilously close to Tblisi. Indeed, Russia could have removed the government without challenge from the U.S. With President Obama's popularity flagging he may see this as an opportunity to distract the American public from domestic troubles. Moving soldiers quickly into Azerbaijan could be done under the pretext of preventing Russian intervention and expansion of the conflict. A scenario several years ago envisioned just such an event.

At any rate, a conflict will leave Russia as a threat in many minds.

Israeli soldier possibly kidnapped

An unknown Palestinian group called the "Al-Quds Army" has claimed to have captured an Israeli soldier outside Ben Gurion airport. Eyewitness reports indicate the story may be accurate. If verified the report could create the basis for a new war in the Middle East. This is because a Palestinian security official has stated the group has links to Hezbollah.

In the past few days tensions between Israel and Hezbollah have escalated. Israel's Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon warned that Hezbollah would be blamed for any harm which came to Israelis abroad. This was carried with the warning of consequences which will be suffered by Hezbollah and Lebanon.

Should the report of the soldier's capture be verified and Hezbollah blamed potential military retaliation could follow.

Tensions build in the Former Soviet Union

As the one-year anniversary of the Russian-Georgian War approaches hostilities are rising across the region. Naturally the main areas of concerns are the members of the anti-Russian post-Soviet group GUAM which consists of Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, and Moldova. The most obvious source of tensions is Georgia where both sides are claiming ongoing strikes into the other's territory. Russia has responded to this escalation by putting its forces on high alert. At the same time Georgia is claiming that Russian forces are attempting to move South Ossetia's border to grab Georgian territory.

While 2008's war was about securing independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which will both likely be absorbed into Russia, a new war would have different motivations. Of primary interest would be removing Mikhail Saakashvili from power with one possible motivation being to establish a land link between Russia and Armenia. This would be of crucial importance in the event of a war over Nagorno-Karabakh with Azerbaijan. Merely perceiving this outcome as likely from a war with Georgia could push Azerbaijan into taking action before it is completed.

Developments in Nagorno-Karabakh also depend on ongoing negotiations between Armenia and Azerbaijan. In September or October the OSCE Minsk Group is set to release its updated Madrid Principles on a resolution of the conflict. However, previous negotiations have failed to resolve the key issue of Nagorno-Karabakh's status which will likely remain a stumbling block. A conflict could erupt if the talks are frozen, as some suggest, due to a failure to budge by either side on the crucial matter of status. Conflict would be especially likely if the updated principles are seen as moving towards some process to establish an independent Nagorno-Karabakh. In either case Azerbaijan is the likely aggressor given their more bellicose rhetoric.

Another matter of potential interest arises in this matter with regards to Georgia. While both the UN and OSCE observor mission in Georgia have had their mandates ended, the EU's monitoring mission in the region is continuing. As a result of the UN and OSCE missions ending there is talk of inviting the U.S. and other non-EU countries to participate in the EUMM with a decision likely by October. Any deployment of U.S. forces to Georgia would heighten hostilities and also set the foundation for possible direct U.S. intervention in the Caucasus. While it is unlikely they would entangle themselves in Georgia's conflict they could pull a maneuver like Russia's during the Kosovo War and move military forces from Georgia into Azerbaijan to prevent a Russian invasion of the country.

Ukraine is one more potential hotspot given the basing of Russia's Black Sea Fleet in the region of Crimea, which has a large Russian-speaking population with aspirations of independence. Tensions have increased as a result of missile shipments through parts of Sevastopol which were in violation of agreements. Tit-for-tat expulsions of envoys is also increaing the diplomatic rift between Ukraine and Russia. In the immediate future the biggest potential pitfall are regular payments Ukrainian state-owned company Naftogaz is required to make to Gazprom. Failure to pay could trigger a major economic crisis in Ukraine already in a fragile state due to the steep downturn the country is experiencing. This would increase the chances of domestic unrest, particularly in Russian-speaking regions of Ukraine. A civil war would be to Russia's greater strategic interest as it could be used to justify separation of pro-Russian regions and establish a land link between Russia and Moldova. The former would undoubtedly include Crimea and if it extends all the way to Odessa the latter would be plausible.

Moldova's situation has become much more important given recent events. While earlier in 2009 the election victory of the ruling Communist party led to domestic unrest a revote has led to a group of opposition parties winning. However, whether those parties can reach a consensus given some major diverging views is another matter. At the same time forming a government would require some support from the Communists despite the opposition having a majority. Though a coalition with the Communists in some form can't be ruled out it would likely be a temporary measure and unstable. Should it be impossible for any group capable of forming a government to emerge then another election is expected in a year.

The outcome of such an election would be crucial to Moldova's future relations with Russia. Western media reports about the Communists being aligned with Russia are inaccurate, but certain elements of the opposition are strongly against Russia favoring NATO membership and even the serious measure of leaving the CIS. Should they win a future election or possibly seize power in the same manner as in Georgia it would create a situation likely to result in war. Transnistria would be the likeliest source of conflict. Given that Moldova is a land-locked country a land link would be necessary as it is very unlikely Romania or Ukraine will allow Russia to send military forces to use against Moldova through their territory. As such any war with Ukraine would have to happen before a move by Moldova to take Transnistria.

Last year saw the beginning of major hostilities between Russia and its U.S.-backed neighbors and it is no longer a matter of if, but when it happens again.