USA visit to Eritrea, Djibouti and Ethiopia

[Duufaan]

17 hours ago, Old_Observer said:

My friend. You have total Resignation forced resignation under threat of arms of the speaker does not bode well for everybody. Worst precedence set.

 

OO

How you get that conclusion?

Things do not work that way in Somalia, At least these day.unlike Ethiopia where the political fear and opessment of currentf leader of the time s the norm. If you mention Money, many people would agree with you. 

Somalia has it is own destination. It is up its people to move forward with or without help from anyone

[Old_Observer]

17 hours ago, Duufaan said:

Gele is safe. Djibouti  is the most strategic peace of land in the horn, more than Ereteria because of it closeness of Somali. It has been safe for ethiopia  to trade for many years and without change. The road to ethiopia goes through Issa tribes in the other side of the border. Jabuuti are buying electricity and water from ethiopia, so it is more balance trade. Jabuuti does not have internal political problem and Gele is in control. China is there to support economically. He is probably open for negotiation but he has upper hand. There are no leverage to threat Jabuuti from anybody except being small country with some insecurity

No body is safe. It is very easy, even though costly for Americans to create, manufacture trouble for Ghelleh, once they decide he has to go.

Everywhere you have poor and backward countries like Ethiopia or Djibouti, you can find few thousand people who will shout and burn things for "democaracy" "anti-corruption" and anything else under the sun.

All it takes is flood facebook, all media and steer some trouble in the city and you are done. Ghelleh needs to secure Ethiopia and keep an eye on Somaliland. Eritrea is not big problem for Ghelleh since the Afar would hang Isayas before they even look at Ghelleh, therefore what ever Eritrea can do is military at the border, or through Ethiopia and through Somalia.

[Duufaan]

38 minutes ago, Oodweyne said:

oodweyne

Don't mind our hapless ninny by the name of Mr Duufaan, he is basically has no idea half of the stuff he come up with it. After all, he actually thing that the recent political clash between the UAE and Villa Somalia, the UAE came out the worse of it. Even if the whole world saw Somalia being humiliated publicly when the DP World (and UAE who were standing behind them) told the world that the Berberra deal will continue regardless of what Villa Somalia may say about it. And to boot, even a military base owned by the UAE, on top of that DP World investment into Berberra, will in turn get to be establish in Berberra.

And of course Somalia could scream to high heaven about it but there is nothing they could do about it. And what is also worse for Somalia is that, the United Nation Security Council (UNSC) (which is the nearest the world have to a "international diplomatic court") have also agreed with the UAE in here.

And yet despite all of those "litanies of political embarrassments" in which Somalia have suffered recently, our hapless Duufaan, is actually of the opinion that is Somalia that did come out ahead from its recent clash with the UAE and its DP World company.

Hence, less one takes seriously his never-ending gibberish arguments that are in here, the better one will be on the long haul, I believe. 

As to the the situation in the Horn, I agree, that Sudan will be getting "in-the-neck" soon from Uncle Sam (US) due to various folks in the Tramp's administration, who are Neo-Con ilk, who have a "long beef" with Mr Bashir of Sudan. Also the likes of Mr Sisi of Egypt will be minded to use the Tramp's government to cut Mr Bashir of Sudan to size, since there is no love lost between Egypt and Sudan due to host of issues.

Furthermore, the likes of Djibouti will  be in for bit of trouble (at least Geo-Strategically speaking). And it will large depend how Mr John Bolton (at the US's national Security Council) who is a bit of a hawkish fellow view the prospects of Mr Ghuelleh being determined to keep the Chinese and the Yanks on the same tiny real-estate of a land that is Djibouti. And whether the likes of Mr Mike Pompeo (who is also another hawkish fellow) at the Foggy-Bottom, namely the State Department, agrees with with Mr Bolton.

And in particular whether to "squeeze" politically the likes of Mr Ghuelleh for his "chutzpah" of thinking that he can have his cake and eat it at the same time, in the sense of keeping the Chinese sweet and happy while at the same time "smiling" for the Yanks. And do it all of it at the same time inside of his tiny Djibouti. 

And for Ethiopia (particularly under Mr Abbiy Ahmed, the current Prime-Minister), it seems Ethiopia has as of now a "benefit-of-the-doubt" with the Yanks, at least strategically speaking, and at least in-terms of the Yanks given a "political kudos" to Ethiopia on its democracy and change-of-leadership in a peaceful manner. And that will be the case so long as Mr Ahmed take could care not to "lean" too far off into the Chinese side of the super-powers competition in the Red-Sea.

And if he plays his card, rather astutely, by making sure to make "diplomatic noises" about him wishing to bring about a "good relationship" with Eritrea, so that he will not get the Israelis on the wrong side of him, and therefore he will not have Mr Netanyahu's government talking to the ears of Mr Tramps's administration about how Mr Ahmed of Ethiopia is not a "good friend" of Uncle Sam (US) then he can have that "benefit-of-the-doubt" (at least strategically speaking) from the US to continue a bit while longer.

And he (Mr Ahmed) can even put a "good word" for Mr Ghuelleh to the ears of Uncle Sam (US) given that by all account the relationship between Djibouti on one hand and Uncle Sam (US) on the other hand (particularly under the direction of Mr Bolton and Mr Pompeo) is likely to be heading for the rocks, due to Mr Ghuelleh desire to keep very close to the Chinese's side of the super-power's competitions across the Red-Sea.         

You always talk  about a lot fiction and unseen powers. First Uncle Sam has a lot of more other thing to worry about than meddling the horn African. Any involvement in countries like Somalia and Jabuuti will be very minimum, my freind.They were even discussing leaving middle east for long time.   American are very pragmatic and you can not understand they do not mind having a base next to Chinnese. Some  part of your brain, may freezed already as old person and only one section working. The is why, you keep repeating yourself al the time. 

[Old_Observer]

10 minutes ago, Duufaan said:

First Uncle Sam has a lot of more other thing to worry about than meddling the horn African. Any involvement in countries like Somalia and Jabuuti will be very minimum, my freind.They were even discussing leaving middle east for long time.

Wow US leaving middle east?

[Old_Observer]

Eritrea has made big shift as heard and observed in their official and instructions to their cadre.

Previously the mantra and image was that "Only president Isayas can tell America to go to hell" "Africans and Arabs have no independence, their leaders are water boys for America" etc

Now:

Uncle Sam respects Eritrea more than Ethiopia or Djibouti, proof for that is  the under-secretary negotiating in Eritrea for 3 long long  days but staying in Djibouti and Ethiopia long enough just to tell them the instructions.

And there are Ertreans who buy this.

Its Mr. Isayas having changed 180 degree on his real functioning, but remaining the tough guy. No explanation is given in Eritrea. Just statement down to the level of knowledge of the ordinary man/woman and you are done.

[Duufaan]

1 minute ago, Old_Observer said:

Wow US leaving middle east?

I said they are discussing leaving middle east and it is true. Even Obama had plannes to concentrate South Assia

Trump is often  talking about how much their middle east present cost for American tax payers. Trump came power to build a wall between mexico and U.S.A.  You may said public opinion does not matter but most of American want less involvement in the world, not more.

 

[Old_Observer]

2 minutes ago, Duufaan said:

I said they are discussing leaving middle east and it is true. Even Obama had plannes to concentrate South Assia

Obama only wanted to do more in Asia than what was being done prior, has nothing to do with Middle East.

How do America get to India other than the middle east? No empire in the world has become without attempting middle east unless is small empire and do not have capacity.

 

[Duufaan]

14 minutes ago, Oodweyne said:

That is why I said he does not know much. After all, there is talk of Israel going all out in using Trump's presidency to cut Iran to size, militarily. And to boot, Uncle Sam (US) closing the straits of Hormuz to any Iranian's ships, just to "squeeze" the Iranians economically. While at the same time, the Israelis are given the "go-ahead" by the same Trump's administration to use their superior air-force to go and attack at any alleged Iranian's nuclear facility they fancy to destroy it inside Iran.

And he thinks the US is going to be leaving the Middle-East any time soon, particularly in the current situation of having the likes of Mr Trump in the White-House with his Neo-Cons advisers (such Mr Bolton and Mr Pompeo) around him, who are in turn the very folks who are "salivating" for the prospects of "punishing" the likes of Iran (militarily) and the likes of Turkey (diplomatically and politically).   

Trump is unpredictable  and even if Nentanyahu want to use him, top military  officers will not allow things to go out of hand, this is part you do not understand. It is everybody interest to maintain some calm.

[Duufaan]

3 minutes ago, Old_Observer said:

Obama only wanted to do more in Asia than what was being done prior, has nothing to do with Middle East.

How do America get to India other than the middle east? No empire in the world has become without attempting middle east unless is small empire and do not have capacity.

 

It become costly for America with no peace deal  in sight with Palestinan  and Isreal. Also America becoming a top oil producer makes less dependent on middle east. It is about domestic politics and maintaining to have 50 bases.

[Old_Observer]

5 minutes ago, Duufaan said:

Trump is unpredictable  and even if Nentanyahu want to use him, top military  officers will not allow things to go out of hand, this is part you do not understand. It is everybody interest to maintain some calm.

Calm is never good for Empires. Empires get terrified when things are calm since they call it the calm before the storm.

As to crisis Americans follow as articulated by Rahim Emanuel:

"never let a good crisis go to waste."

[Old_Observer]

3 minutes ago, Duufaan said:

It become costly for America with no peace deal  in sight with Palestinan  and Isreal. Also America becoming a top oil producer makes less dependent on middle east. It is about domestic politics and maintaining to have 50 bases.

It was never the oil its always the oil sold and transacted by US$.

The oil per se is no big deal Americans knew they had oil before Saudi oil was found.

[Duufaan]

18 minutes ago, Oodweyne said:

And since when the opinion of the Average "Joe-Six-Pack" in America ever mattered for the business of "maintaining the American's empire" by the likes of US's foreign policy establishment?   

It does with demographic changes and economics like any other empire in the past

[galbeedi]

42 minutes ago, Oodweyne said:

And may even give the go-ahead to Israel to do its worse to Iranian's nuclear facilities afterwards

Israel, despite the tough talk , doesn't have the capability to attack Iran. Throughout the years, even during the Obama administration, the idea was to draw American to war against Iran. 

Israel might attack  Iran's nuclear facilities , but it could only damage them which would give Iran the green light to leave and al together abandon the nuclear inspection regime and pursue it's program. Almost every analyst said that fighter jets that need refueling to attack Iran are useless to make a severe damage. Israel does not have sea based ships to send Tomahawk cruises.

The idea of America scaling down it's middle east has been in the works for long time. Neither Obama nor Trump is willing to attack Iran or wage another war in the region.

America has been chasing the middle east wars since 1990 . For the last Thirty  years America has paid both human life and treasures for wars that make things worse for the American interest and the people in the region.

In 1979, China was a communist back water seeking to modernize and open their economy while maintaining their communist order.

While America was chasing monstres in the middle east, China has grown like a giants and by 2020 will be the largest economy in the world. They never voted at the security counsel to oppose the American adventures by abstaining and giving America a green light. From 2001, after the 911 attack to the collapse and recovery of the economy in 2011, American deficit hit a trillion dollar a year, and China was happy to keep it's surplus dollars in America to finance the deficit and buy treasury bonds and keep dumping goods to America.

It was the second world war that destroyed the British empire, and another war in the middle east will definitely eliminate America as world power. After that war, America would be chasing Mexico and Canada for trade and other issues.

For the first time since the invasion of Iraq, the relationship between America  and it's western allies was never been strained  like now. Both Macron of France and Chancellor Merkel of Germany left Washington without getting any concessions  on the Iran deal. Yesterday, Netanyahu has released a video targeting to only one single audience , Trump in order to convince him to cancel the Iran deal. Cancelation of the deal will isolate America since other powers had refused to follow.

The policy of the American government to leave the middle east might have been a well thought policy, yet after the trillion dollar bonanza of the fat gulf boys throwing to the American weapons industry, Uncle Sam has no choice but to suck the dollars from the gulf. Why not ride the gulf mule as long as it lasts.

The major obstacle for Iran war is the American military. They have the capability to destroy Iran, but they are not willing to jump the unknown factors that will arise from  a pre-emptive  war waged to country that did not attack America or it's allies. They know that the American bases in the gulf could be a siting ducks in the Persian gulf, and the war mongering outlets like Dubai will be te first causality of that war.

America is led by a gangster and a fool, but the nation's top military and intelligence leaders  would not allow another adventure. Further more, the monster called Iran is a cash cow that must be maintained. If Iran disappears from the theater who is going to to spend billions for weapons. If I were America, I would keep talking the Iran monsters until I take all the monies from the fat gulf boys.

 

[Old_Observer]

27 minutes ago, galbeedi said:

Israel might attack  Iran's nuclear facilities , but it could only damage them which would give Iran the green light to leave and al together abandon the nuclear inspection regime and pursue it's program. Almost every analyst said that fighter jets that need refueling to attack Iran are useless to make a severe damage. Israel does not have sea based ships to send Tomahawk cruises.

Great post. Just to confirm from the horses mouth.

“What we could do with Syria, we cannot do with Iran,” Olmert said. “With Syria, we destroyed it and knew it would take them time to rebuild it. With Iran, the distance is farther, and it is spread in different sites, mostly underground. The ability of Israel to destroy the nuclear capabilities is much smaller, and it requires different capabilities [that we don’t have].”

Former Israeli PM Olmert just yeaterday in an interview in New York.

 

[Old_Observer]

37 minutes ago, Oodweyne said:

Galbeedi,

I think you are wrong about Israeli ability to destroy Iranian's nuclear bunkers with heavy load bombs, which they have. It's the sustained attack they can't maintain, which is why US's support (air-fueling, and replenishment of ordinance from US's side) is what the likes of Mr Netanyahu is seeking from America.

Moreover, all that you said about China is correct. But the "America's exorbitant privilege", which is the "Dollar currency" as the "world reserve currency" is what is sustaining the US's empire. And this is unlike the days of the British empire, which in turn didn't had "locked-in-dominance" of its "sterling currency" at any time during its long hegemony over the rest of the world.

So that is the difference. A deep and telling one, which in turn will make the sustaining of the American's empire a lot longer affair than the British one could ever possibly have hoped for. After all, the British empire was always heading for the knackers-yard, once they lost their dominance on the sea with the emergence of a truly global naval power, like the Yanks at the beginning of the 20th century.

And their fate was completely "sealed", once, the military predominance on the land by the British army and its dominion forces, was effectively challenged on the European's continent's landscape by German's Wehrmacht on the second world war (WWII) on one hand. And the Soviet Union's Red army, on the other hand, became a force to be reckon with, given the Red army were so numerous in their millions, that the no one could hope to go "toe-to-toe" against them as the Germans found out the hard way in Stalingrad back in 1942 and still be alive tomorrow to tell the tale about it.

Furthermore, once the British empire's various and disparate regions across the globe start agitating for independence (India being the first "trend-setter") then the Brits realized they have no money and no larger "leverage" (or incentive) to keep these agitating natives in line. Which was why the British empire's collapsed was so ignominiously is so short of an order right after 1945 when the victory of the second world war (WWII) was achieved. 

Of course, the US's pentagon's generals do actually agree with you that they want no fight in the Persian peninsula. But it's civilians leadership who will decide if and when Mr Trump's cancels the Iranian nuclear deal. And whether Mr Netanyahu should be given the go-ahead to attack what he can attack in Iran. And then wait if Iran retaliates against America in "assisting" the Israelis attack in the first place.

And if Iran attack the American's assets (of the military kind) in the Persian gulf, then that is the minimum aggression in which the likes of Mr Trump will need to use his superior fire-power to rain down bombs on Iran till the place is glowing in the dark like the manner Baghdad's night-sky was during the first night of Mr Bush's adventure against Iraq back in March of 2003.

So, we shall see how Mr Trump will proceed with this issue. And whether he will cancel the deal as he had been "hinting" at so openly ever since he became a president. And it's this month of May (I think it's on 12th) which is when he will have to decide whether to "certify" the deal and tell Congress that the administration is happy with Iranian's compliance of this deal. Or to completely back out of it. And therefore give the likes of Mr Netanyahu, and to lesser extend, the likes of the Saudis, the pretext they need to go on a "confrontation posture" against Iran. 

Have a quick brush up on a man named MacKinder. America will saround Iran first before attacking her, attack they will since Israel needs it.

Armenia is latest hot spot with Khazakistan to follow. Color revolution is going on right now there.

Iran will be attacked, the question is if America gets so slow in the set up and in the meantime Iran puls off a game changer. The British are in limbo and the French are hoping America stumbles and they can come in as water boy and get some benefits.