Well Beyond the Red Line Crossed: Refugees, Reconstruction and Realpolitik in Syria Under Bashar al-Assad

 

 



This spring saw the beginning of the end of the Syrian Civil War that finds President Bashar al-Assad having prevailed both politically and militarily.  While the country remains a violent place, developments and numbers are noteworthy and critical in the consideration of U.S. security policy in its humanitarian, economic, military and diplomatic dimensions going forward in the region.  Among them, eleven million Syrians are displaced - both in and outside of their homeland whose infrastructure is demolished.  In control of more than sixty per cent of the country, President Assad has begun reconstruction and there are reports are that businesses are starting to open and contracts being negotiated by individuals, governments and companies.  Estimates of the cost of rebuilding Syria range from $200 billion to $1 trillion with most analysts and Bashar al-Assad himself agreeing on $400 billion price tag.  ISIS has been quashed.  Russian protection is cemented.  Iran has been told by Russia to withdraw its militias beginning with those near the border with Israel.

These circumstances prompted me to reach out to Ambassador Frederic C. Hof, appointed in 2012 as former Special Advisor for transition in Syria to Secretary of State Hilary Clinton after a year spent working to ease tensions between Syria and its neighbors in early 2011.  Ambassador Hof served in that position until September 2012 when he resigned in recognition that "the White House had little appetite for protecting [Syrian] civilians (beyond writing checks for refugee relief) and little interest in even devising a strategy to implement President Barak Obama's stated desire that Syrian President Bashar Assad step aside."  Ambassador Hof went outside the U.S. government and into the private sector as Senior Fellow at The Atlantic Council's Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East, a program he would later direct for six years, in order to promote a more effective U.S. policy towards the Syria he described as "plunging into an uncharted abyss - a humanitarian abomination of the first order."  I met with Fred Hof in New York City on Tuesday, June 12th at the Bard College Globalization and International Affairs Program where he is teaching a seminar, Ten Principles for Effective Diplomacy.  With a view towards the stabilization of Syria and the strategic interests of the United States, I asked him what he thought the U.S. can and ought to be doing at this critical juncture.  His response:





My follow up question concerned the hurdles, obstacles and practical considerations of investing in the reconstruction of Syria and the possibility that China is in a better position than Russia, Lebanon, Jordan and other state contenders for long term investment.  Ambassador Hof replied:

 

Ambassador Fred Hof's professional life has focused largely on the Middle East with a long history of service and study in Jordan, Israel, Lebanon and Syria.  He is known internationally for his expertise in Arab affairs and for his integrity, bravery and intellectual honesty in diplomacy, negotiations and reporting.  I am grateful for his time and insights and shall be posting more of our interview, The New Middle East, in upcoming weeks.  

 

Lisa Bernard is the President of SecuritySpeak, LLC, a consulting firm and speakers bureau devoted to matters of national, cyber and international security.  Experts in these areas offer reports, briefings, talks and distinguished lectures to audiences of all types working to bring understanding of security matters to people in all walks of life.  To host Ambassador Hof for a speech, call (203) 293-4741 or email LisaBernard@SecuritySpeak.net.  See more of their work at  www.SecuritySpeak.net and at  www.Facebook.com/PodiumTime.   



The Trump-Kim Summit: Possibilities & Parameters Given the Personalities in Play



When word of a possible summit between U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un was announced, I took a momentary step back from the daunting issues associated with the North Korean nuclear build-up to look at the two individuals creating this historic event.  A few facts about them put them in an exclusive club.  Both men are sons of fathers who cast long shadows across the family enterprises.  Each man is married to a younger, empirically beautiful and stylish woman.  They each have young children.  Both live in palatial homes and enjoy the trappings of great wealth.  Both are viewed cautiously by the world at large and their bombast and inflammatory rhetoric have left many aghast and some even scared given the military arsenals they command.  Add to that the nearly forty-year age difference and it begs the question, "Is it possible that a 'paternal' or even 'grand-paternal' dynamic between the elder President Trump, age 71, and his junior partner Supreme Leader Kim, age 34, could frame or influence their interpersonal dynamic and help them move us out of the nuclear danger zone?" 

Of course it is possible that President Trump and Supreme Leader Kim will enter the same room and engage in that uniquely human activity of recognizing that the time has come to do what is both practical and radical and right all at the same time - that all the military preparation, economic imperatives, political dynamics - and the fatigue and fears factors that accompany them - will synthesize into a fresh and clear shared vision.  We can certainly hope so.  But personal chemistry is one of those non-quantifiable factors that can be assessed by historians and analysts only after the fact.  In the hours before these men meet, we must return to the realities that brought us to this point in the first place.  This reminds me of the question I posed in April to Gordon G. Chang, author of NUCLEAR SHOWDOWN: North Korea Takes on the World, as plans for a summit were being explored.  His response:

 

That said, he went on to share:

 







Time will tell, as the adage goes.  And so we wait - with all eyes on Singapore for history of some kind to be made.

 



Lisa Bernard is the President of SecuritySpeak, LLC, a consulting firm and speakers bureau devoted to matters of national, cyber and international security.  Experts in these areas offer reports, briefings, talks and distinguished lectures to audiences of all types working to bring understanding of security matters to people in all walks of life.  To host a speaker or arrange for a consultation call (203) 293-4741 or email LisaBernard@SecuritySpeak.net.  See more of their work at  www.SecuritySpeak.net and at  www.Facebook.com/PodiumTime.



DEMOCRACY: Stories from the Long Road to Freedom by Condoleezza Rice, Earns its Place on the Permanent Bookshelf



DEMOCRACY: Stories from the Long Road to Freedom by Condoleezza Rice, 482 pp. published by Twelve, an imprint of Grand Central Publishing, May 2017. Hardcover ISBN: 978-1-4555-4018-1. Ebook ISBN: 978-1-4555-4019-8. Signed edition ISBN: 987-1-5387-5997-4. $35.00 U.S. Available on Amazon. 

Hands down, this is my choice for the 2017 contribution to our understanding and pursuit of security. Citizen, scholar, CEO or policymaker, this long lens survey of emergent, maturing and failed democracy in nine countries and regions across the world provides both food for thought and frames of reference for the numerous news alerts, political hiccups and trickles of information that come at us constantly.  If you want a handle on the conundrum of Russian democracy, it is yours in a chapter that is as compelling a read about personalities and proclivities as it is analytical and instructive.  If you are baffled by the paucity of official support for the ninety two percent of Kurds who voted for independence from Iraq in September 2017, Dr. Rice's chapter on the Middle East will provide you an appreciation for their catch-22 of competence, resources and geography.  And if you feel swept up in, or swept aside by, the divisiveness in American politics, the very first chapter makes the case that the perfection of democracy in the U.S. has consistently been inconsistent, imperfect, sometimes violent, rarely smooth and yet, remarkably stable for the institutions the Founders built.  In a word, there's something here for everyone and the organization of this comprehensive work makes for easy access to one's interests.



Within these 450+ pages is an appraisal of a concept articulated in four of Condoleezza Rice's compelling voices - as an authoritative analyst, advocate, raconteur and enthusiast.  Through her  scholarship at Stanford University and her empirical observations as U.S. National Security Advisor and U.S. Secretary of State, we see that there are elastic expressions of democracy beyond the American experience.  Democracy has taken hold across cultures and countries whose histories contain no hint of democratic philosophy or behavior.  We see the areas of the world where varying degrees, experiments, emulations and aspects of democracy as we know it are in progress; witness the 2010 elections in Iraq and the 2010 promulgation of a constitution in Kenya.  And we see how regional stability and security are enhanced for the presence of democratic nations.  On page 432, Dr. Rice declares

There is both a moral and practical case for democracy promotion.  In the long arc of history, we know that democracies don't fight each other.  The "democratic peace" is observable.  No one today is sorry that the United States helped build a democratic Germany and Japan after World War II.  Both had been aggressors against their neighbors and there was no guarantee that they would not be again.  Neither country had sustained experience with democracy and it took time  for institutions to take root.  But we stood alongside them, and now they help to form the foundation for international peace and prosperity.

There is a vitality about this work that grips us spiritually and emotionally as well as intellectually.  Portions read like a memoir as Condoleezza Rice's own journey is, in and of itself, a testament to the dynamics of American democracy - from her childhood in segregated Alabama, to her studies in the former Soviet Union, to her professorship at Stanford, to her service as the first black woman in the posts of U.S. National Security Advisor and U.S. Secretary of State.  And her personal passages inform her investigation.  Her keen assessments and the reality checks they suggest are present from the start.  On page ten she debunks what she refers to as "the myth of democratic culture" and asserts

No nationality or ethnic group lacks the DNA to come to terms with this paradox. Over the years, many people have tried to invoke "cultural explanations" to assert that some societies lack what it takes to establish or sustain democracy. But this a myth that has fallen to the reality of democracy's universal appeal ... It was once thought that Latin Americans were more suited for caudillos than presidents; that Africans were just too tribal; that Confucian values conflicted with the tenets of self-rule. Years before that Germans were thought to be too martial or too subservient, and - of course - the descendants of slaves were too "childlike" to care about the right to vote ... Those racist views are refuted by stable democracies in places as diverse as Chile, Ghana, South Korea and across Europe ....



Flowing through the brain food in this keeper are personal anecdotes that burrow deep into our hearts.  They remind us that there are real people behind the democratic institutions and the procedural outcomes that make news - human beings and their stories that tell the big picture of the progress for humanity that democracy alone nurtures and protects.  These anecdotes offer us reasons for patience and perspective on the timetable of democracy's progress.  From the Epilogue:

Years later, sitting in our first meeting with Prime Minister Tony Blair, I was heartened by something he said: "I look at the two of you and I ask whether this could happen in Great Britain. And I say, not just yet." He was referring to the African American secretary of state, Colin Powell, and the African American national security advisor, Condi Rice, sitting on either side of the president of the United States ... Blair was not the only one to notice. President Lula daSilva of Brazil talked to me about America's journey. "I wanted to be sure to have Afro-Brazilians in my cabinet," he said. Upon taking office, he named four to his cabinet, as well as the first to the Supreme Court ... These were times when America's own democratic journey sent a positive message ... And then there was Ben Franklin looking down on us from the magnificent portrait painted by David Martin in 1767. What would old Ben think of this? I thought silently as President Bush made remarks. Then, Ruth Bader Ginsburg - a Jewish woman and Supreme Court Justice - asked me to raise my hand. "I do solemnly swear to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States ....

In the United States, the 2016 elections were catalytic to fierce debates, demonstrations and revelations concerning the endurance, integrity and dependability of our American institutions of democracy.  In a post scriptum entitled "2016," Dr. Rice succinctly separates out the issues, concerns and trends in not only the U.S. but in other mature democracies.  In her characteristic humility and clarity she offers a compass for moving forward smartly and sensitively.  Whether you read this book in your professional stead or for your personal enrichment, "2016" is a solid place to start.

Lisa Bernard is the President of SecuritySpeak, LLC, a consulting firm devoted to matters of national, cyber and global security and crisis management. Experts in these areas offer briefings, talks and distinguished lectures to audiences of all types working to bring unbiased analyses and understanding of security matters to people in all walks of life. (203) 293-4741. www.SecuritySpeak.net. 

The Russians Are Coming? The Russians Are Coming!

 

To be sure, the reaction from people in and beyond Groton and New London, Connecticut to the sighting of a Russian spy vessel sitting thirty miles off their coast and the U.S. Naval Submarine Base last month spanned as wide as those in the Norman Jewison comedy film, The Russians are Coming!  The Russians are Coming! Locals voiced their concerns and opinions at a town meeting.  On Facebook, folks wondered if they should keep their children home from school.  Retired navy commanders, American submariners, CT lawmakers and elected officials calmed nerves and offered threat assessments and possibilities spanning the gamut from “this is nothing new” to “Putin is testing the resolve of the new American President” to “yet another Russian aggression.”  A resident of coastal Connecticut myself, I certainly noted the sighting and couldn’t shrug it off.  After musing about it with a colleague, I went to my local library for the DVD, The Russians are Coming! The Russians are Coming!  Curiously enough, there was quite a wait list for the 1966 farce that parodies Cold War concerns.   

Days ago, just as my turn to rent the DVD came up, that same ship, the Viktor Leonov, was spotted twenty miles south of the U.S. Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay in Georgia.   That’s when I reached out to Dr. Stephen J. Blank, internationally renowned authority on Russian military and foreign policies, for a better sense of Russia’s motives in sending this 300 foot-long ship with surveillance equipment that can intercept radar, radio and other electronic signals.  Unlike the guileless submarine crew in the comedy, The Russians are Coming! the Russians aboard the Viktor Leonov are not sneaking an irresistible and innocent “peek” at America with wide-eyed curiosity.  And “spying” seems too vague a term to be useful to describe what it really happening as this ship traverses our coast, albeit in international waters.  As ever, Dr. Blank’s informed analysis put it all in perspective and I share it with you here:

The appearance of the Russian vessel off the US submarine base at Kings Bay, Georgia is not merely another example of Russian surveillance of our submarine capability or another attempt to send a psychological message that its subs can get within striking range of the continental United States.  Rather it is also part of an evolving strategy that appears to be intelligence and combat preparation for a possible contingency of a protracted war with the U.S. when Russian subs will have a mission of interdicting U.S. naval vessels and submarines en route to Europe and/or cutting communication cables with Europe.  If seen in tandem with recent military moves, these submarine sightings, aerial, and naval probes of the U.S. and our allies, suggests a mounting concern in Russia that it will have to fight a protracted war with NATO.  Indeed, the scope of Russia's comprehensive information warfare against the U.S. and Europe already indicates that Moscow deems itself to be in a "Cold War" type scenario with NATO.

Dr. Stephen J. Blank is available for talks, lectures and briefings through Lisa Bernard's SecuritySpeak, LLC.  (203) 293-4741.  LisaBernard@SecuritySpeak.net. 

 

 



2016 Election Night Calm ... Four Experts Kept Us Focused on Key Security Matters Facing the 45th American President

 

Four experts in different aspects of national and international security did not know, and could not know, who would be elected as the next American President as they spoke to an audience comprised of law enforcement, IT and HR professionals, business-owners and CEOs, U.S. Army veterans, educators, social workers and scholars, all assembled to hear macro-analyses of the dynamics and challenges presented by the global economy, Islamic State, nuclear proliferation and Russian foreign policy.  They convened in Westport, Connecticut, on Tuesday, November 8^th for an Election Night 2016 Security Summit, 80 Minutes Around the World: Security Briefings for the 45^th POTUS.   Focused on the issues and avoiding politics, each offered a ten-minute briefing to POTUS-Elect 45 and conducted a 5-minute Q&A.

Economist Constance Hunter was the first to the podium flagging trade policy, industrial policy and taxation as three key components of economic security.  Asia-watcher Gordon Chang then took the floor to map out the intricate relationship between China, Iran and North Korea in his talk called, The New Nuclear Nexus. 



Dr. Austin Long, an authority on insurgency and irregular warfare, rose to present The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria: Crucible for the Next American President. Dr. Stephen J. Blank capped off the program with an eye-opening and sobering synopsis of Russia’s War on America.  

During this program there was no election coverage and we operated under The Chatham House Rule.  Both worked to facilitate a candid and synergistic exchange of views and perspectives between the experts themselves and between the experts and the audience.  To organize a similar program, or for ideas on speakers and other formats more suitable for your department, meeting or campus, contact Lisa Bernard via email or telephone (203) 293-4741 or at www.Facebook.com/PodiumTime. #ElectionNightSecuritySummit    #ElectionNightSecurityBriefings  SecuritySpeak@PodiumTime

 

 

Russian Foreign Policy Turns on a DIME (Diplomacy, Information, Military, Economics): An Interview with Dr. Stephen J. Blank

 

The weather was just the first treat on July 19^th when I arrived in Washington, D.C., at the Capitol Hill Club on that cool, dry and sunny morning to hear Dr. Stephen J. Blank deliver an address, Russia’s Global Probes. Like a luxury cruise ship, Dr. Blank navigated his remarks with expert engineering, using sophisticated instruments that work below deck to produce a smooth sail and memorable journey. His talk docked in three parts of the globe – Latin America, the Middle East and Europe. In each port of Russian activity, he delivered his audience reality-checks on Russian history in the region, Vladimir Putin’s objectives, Russia’s intrinsic nature, and the problems for U.S. national security with projecting American values into the interpretation of Russia’s undertakings. With the temporal breadth of a skilled historian of Russian, Soviet and post-Soviet affairs, Dr. Blank portrayed a crisp yet comprehensive snapshot of the world today through the Russian lens. He deftly decoded Russian behavior and Vladimir Putin’s positions, leaving his listeners sobered and empowered with a ready frame of reference for understanding and interpreting Russian diplomatic, information, military and economic operations. 

 

Dr. Blank and I then returned to his office at the American Foreign Policy Council for an interview. His generosity continued. A former professor of Russian National Security Studies and U.S. National Security Affairs at the Strategic Studies Institute of the US Army War College, he rolled up his sleeves and got to work informally as if my viewers were students there with him in his private office hours. Here are excerpts.

 

BERNARD:  I heard U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry assert that "nowhere is there a greater hotbed or incubator for these terrorists than in Syria," as he wrapped up meetings in Moscow with Russian President Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov exploring U.S.-Russian cooperation to end the five-year civil war there. Reports are conflicting about the outcome of their talks and the possibility at all for military cooperation and intelligence-sharing. As an old Cold Warrior, it's not my first instinct to imagine us "sharing" intelligence with the Russians or "cooperating" militarily. Yet, the Syrian situation is compelling.  What's your take on all this? 

 

 

BERNARD: My clients at SecuritySpeak include global investors, businesspeople and entrepreneurs.  Some are exploring markets and opportunities in the energy and other resource-rich regions of the former USSR.   How stable is Central Asia today?



 

BERNARD: My clients at SecuritySpeak are concerned about threats like North Korean missile strikes and cyber-attacks.  What do you see as the Russian role in these scenarios?

BERNARD: In four months, we Americans will elect ourselves a new President and Commander-in-Chief.  What frame of reference can you offer him or her for advancing American and global security interests?



 

BERNARD:  Thank you, Steve, for your insights, time and energy.  I know you have an interview with Romanian TV journalists at noon and you're only just back from delivering a master class in Brussels last week.  It was a pleasure attending your address this morning at the Capitol Hill Club and speaking with you here now.

 

To arrange a presentation by Dr. Blank for your firm, association or university, contact Lisa Bernard's SecuritySpeak, LLC at 203.293.4741 or LisaBernard@SecuritySpeak.net. 

 

 

 





As Washington Hosts World Leaders at the Nuclear Security Summit ...



I asked Dr. Paul Bracken, author of the tour de force book, The Second Nuclear Age: Strategy, Danger and New Power Politics, for a comment. He replied:

 

 

The pace of military technology has reached a level not seen since the cold war in the 1950s.  Drones, cyber-war, targeted killings, anti-satellites weapons, hypersonic missiles are coming into the forces not just of the United States but of many countries.  Add to this atomic weapons, and soon, hydrogen bombs for India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea.  We are entering a new world of technology, yet the old political order of nation states remains essentially unchanged.  The 2016 Nuclear Security Summit shows the growing tension of a political order that is out of phase with technology advances.  Something has to give, and I don't think it's going to come from a slowdown in technology.

 

 

Scroll down for video of Dr. Bracken speaking to the North Korean missile program, STEM, emerging technologies and other key topics in security.

ISIS: Crisis or Crucible?

Last week’s shift in White House policy regarding ISIS in Afghanistan occasioned me to interview Dr. Austin G. Long, a specialist in counterinsurgency and irregular warfare.  We met up at the Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies.  Dr. Long was an analyst and adviser to the U.S. military in Iraq from 2007 to 2008 and to the Combined Forces Special Operations Component Command in Kabul, Afghanistan in 2011 and to NATO Special Operations Component Command/Special Operations Joint Task Force in 2013.   I had four questions for him.

BERNARD:  Austin, American and British news agencies report that thanks to international air strikes ISIS has lost as much as forty per cent of the territory it held in Iraq and twenty per cent of the ground it commandeered in Syria.  How meaningful are these numbers and how do they translate into actual degradation of ISIS?

 

BERNARD:  As I mentioned in my set-up, just this week The White House gave the Pentagon a green light to target ISIS in Afghanistan, suggesting – based on the President’s State of the Union message—that there is a threat coming from ISIS in Afghanistan – a threat to us here in the homeland.  What kind of threat does “ISIL–K” pose to the United States? 

 

BERNARD:  Syria, Libya, Afghanistan … failed states where ISIS has exploited the situation.  Where next do you see a “failed state” ISIS might seize? 

 

BERNARD:  There’s a spectrum of thinking here in the U.S. – all sincere, it seems to me – on how to rid the world of ISIS:  destroy it militarily, counter it ideologically, starve it financially.  Given what you know about how ISIS’s motivation and nature, what’s your sense of what would get the job done?

 

BERNARD:  Austin, I thank you for your time and sharing of your insights in such a concise manner.  I’ve been in the audience when you’ve made full-length presentations and moderated panels and this format, I see, is yet another forum in which we can learn so much from you.  It is a pleasure to represent you at Lisa Bernard’s SecuritySpeak and I note that those who wish to host you for talks and briefings can contact me directly by calling (203) 293-4741 or emailing  LisaBernard@SecuritySpeak.net and view your full profile at www.SecuritySpeak.net.

 



Putin in Play?

Stephen Blank, Ph.D.

I had the pleasure of interviewing internationally known Russia specialist, Dr. Stephen Blank, now a Senior Fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council in Washington, D.C., and previously a Professor of National Security Studies at the U.S. Army War College.  I’ve known Steve for many years and worked with him at Foreign Affairs Speakers Bureau.  I welcome him today to my interview chair.

BERNARD:  Steve, help me understand  … When we see Russian President Putin playing a leadership role with the destruction of chemical weapons in Syria, the bombing campaign against ISIS, the incursion into Ukraine and his deepening relationship with Iran, the old Cold Warrior in me senses an imperialist mission.    On the other hand, knowing how ailing the Russian economy and the Russian defense industry are, I see a clever and greedy tactician whose weapons systems sales make money for him and his cronies.   Which is it – Putin as a Peter the Great-type strategist expanding the Russian empire or Putin the opportunistic capitalist seizing markets for his military wares?

BLANK:  To answer this question it is essential to grasp that there is no necessary contradiction between strategy and tactics.  Only in the U.S. media and political class, neither of whom grasp the difference between the two and use the terms promiscuously, does it seem that Putin is just a tactician and not necessarily a good one.  To be sure, Russia has incurred serious and unexpected costs that will be long lasting.  But from Putin’s perspective, which is the only that counts for him, he has won.  Crimea is his, Eastern Ukraine is under his control and the Ukrainian state is severely crippled and enduringly vulnerable to myriad Russian pressures –both military and non-military.  In Syria the supposed isolation of Russia has been shown to be a myth.  The Obama Administration acknowledges that Russia must be part of an overall Middle East solution and has caved in on letting Assad stay in power because it has no strategy to counter Russia.  Meanwhile, despite rising financial costs of the operation, Putin has a working coalition with Iran while U.S. alliances are collapsing. Putin, in my view (to be fair many would disagree), is a strategist, the quality of the strategy is another issue) but his strategic goals do not exclude a superb sense of opportunistic timing.

BERNARD:  Steve, reports are consistent that Putin is not bombing ISIS targets in Syria but instead the opponents of Bashar al-Assad.   What’s your take on what is really happening between Putin and ISIS and Putin and Assad?   And what does this suggest for the United States?

BLANK:  What this suggests for the U.S. is that the Administration still fails to grasp what Putin is up to or to support the development of the analytical capabilities we need to understand Russia.  It points to serious defects in intelligence and policymaking and to the continuing absence in this administration of any real understanding of strategy or how limited military forces may be used to advance concrete political interests and objectives.  If we are to deal with the multiple challenges facing us – not just Putin’s Russia – these problems must be rectified sooner rather than later.

Although Putin now calls for improved ties with Washington he has indeed attacked other factions much more seriously and often than ISIS because Putin’s goals have nothing to do with ISIS other than keeping it in Syria where its members cannot threaten Russia, as would be the case in the North Caucasus and potentially Central Asia.  Putin stands foursquare behind Assad and the U.S. still has no clear idea what it wants.  Moreover, despite years of experience to the contrary, Washington still seems entranced by the idea that a “third force,” neither Assad nor ISIS, can come to power in Syria, establish itself as the legitimate rule through some semblance of democratic rule and be pro-Western.  This, to be frank, is delusional and explains much of the failure to date.

BERNARD:   It’s curious how Vladimir Putin seems to have a solid working relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the same time he deepens his relationship with the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran – having just sold him S-300 surface-to-air missiles – a sophisticated missile defense system.   On the heels of the Iranian nuclear agreement, how are the U.S. and Israel to understand this?  

BLANK:  Russia has several reasons for close ties with Israel.  It does not want a new Arab-Israel war even if everyone else was at peace for the Arabs would lose and Washington would dominate the political aftermath.  Second, it trades substantially with Israel and is now very interested in getting into Israel’s energy policies to gain another source of leverage in the Middle East.  At the same time it supports a unified Palestinian camp and will not recognize Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorists.  Indeed, acting through Iran and Damascus, Moscow is one of their principal suppliers of weapons though it claims those groups are not terrorists!  More recently it clearly sees an opportunity to score points at Washington’s expense given the incompetence on both sides that has led to serious Israel-American tensions.  Putin and Netanyahu appear to understand each other.  Putin respects Israel’s willingness to use force and is personally not an anti-Semite (though perfectly willing to play that card at home if necessary).  These factors explain the improved ties with Russia.

BERNARD:  Thank you, Steve, for your time, expertise and candor.  To see Steve Blank's extensive professional profile, visit www.LisaBernardsSecuritySpeak.com and to host him, contact me directly at Lisa@LisaBernardsSecuritySpeak.com.