"Palestinian Exhaustion" – Thoughts on Hamas and the Trump Plan

In a whirlwind of activity in the Middle East that has resulted in the success of the Trump plan for what appears to be a permanent ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza, one has to wonder about the thought process on the Hamas side that led to the agreement.

The question most of those of us who specialize in the Middle East are asking is, “Why would Hamas agree to give up what is their ace-in-the-hole during the entire two year confrontation, the Israeli hostages*?”

 The hostages were all that was preventing the Israelis from going what we Christians would call “Old Testament” on Hamas. If they had not had these “detainees,” I believe that the Israel Defense Forces would have laid waste to the entire Gaza Strip.

For those not familiar with the geography, the Gaza Strip is about 25 miles long and seven miles wide, home to about 2.3 million people. We do not have good number on how many of them support Hamas, but at one point, 70 percent of Gazans supported the attacks of October 7, 2023.

That has since declined as the IDF has turned the area into the rubble that resembles Dresden in 1945, but the remaining level of support for the group that is responsible for creating one the greatest humanitarian crises in modern times is astounding.

Let’s go back to the agreement between Hamas and Israel. I understand the pressure applied on Israel by President Donald Trump and other world leaders. What I remain curious about is the pressure applied on Hamas – and it was there – from Qatar, Egypt, and Turkey. I believe that it was the pressure from Turkey that may have carried the day.

It is no secret that Turkish President is an avowed Islamist, a behind-the-scenes supporter of both Hamas and the Islamic State – after all, how did all those ISIS fighters get into Syria and Iraq? I have spent a lot of time on both sides of the border between Turkey and Syria. It is a serious border, especially on the Turkish side, complete with fencing, lighting, guard towers, and minefields. ISIS fighters crossing from Turkey into Syria had to have assistance – either bribery, government collusion, or both.

As is the case with many countries in the Arab and Muslim worlds, Turkey has been a political and diplomatic supporter of Hamas. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has defined Hamas as liberation movement.  Even after the October 7, 2023 massacre, he was quoted as saying, “Hamas is not a terrorist organization, it is a group of mujahidin (holy warriors) defending their lands.”

Why was Turkey at the talks?

My take on this is that most of the Arab and Muslim world, and now likely including Turkey, is suffering from “Palestinian Exhaustion.” In other words, they are tired of the Palestinians in general, and Hamas in particular. Even countries that had previously supported the Palestinians — some even condoning the violence of October 7 — have watched for two years as Israel destroyed virtually the entire infrastructure of the Gaza Strip, with no indication that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu intended to stop before Hamas was completely eradicated.

I suspect that the leadership of Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey informed what is left of the leadership of Hamas that it was time to stop the fighting. At last count, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health, the death toll in Gaza is over 67,000 with almost 170,000 injured, and as many as 11,000 missing (believed to be under the rubble). Hamas has lost most of its senior leadership inside and outside of the Gaza Strip, civilian casualties continue to mount, and there was no possible path to any sort of meaningful victory.

The Trump plan, among other things, calls for the immediate return of the 48 hostages (only 20 of whom are thought to be alive), phased withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Strip, and the disarming of Hamas. Hamas is still refusing to disarm.

I am surprised that Hamas has agreed to release the remaining hostages in the first phase. While the Israelis have begun the initial phase of their withdrawal, they are still in Gaza with overwhelming military force. Once the hostages are released, Hamas’s leverage is gone. It was their sole bargaining chip. Hamas will now have to rely on whatever security guarantees were made by the negotiating parties in Sharm al-Shaykh.

Hamas realistically had no choice. Support for Hamas in the Arab and Muslim world was declining, the Israelis were relentlessly pursuing Hamas members in the last bastion of Gaza City, and even the hard-core could see that it was only a matter of time before they would be all killed or captured.

___________

* When the international press referred to the Israelis taken on October 7 as “hostages” – the Arabic word is (رهائن – raha’in), most of the Arabic media was offended. They refer to those taken as “detainees” (محتجزين – muhtajazin), which must be some lesser category. When I was the interpreter for the U.S.-Iraqi talks at the end of Desert Storm, this was the agreed-upon word for Kuwaiti prisoners. The Iraqis had referred to them as “guests”( ضيوف – dhiyuf) until I officially objected.

Syrian President Abolishes October 6 Holiday

Memorial on east bank of Suez Canal where Egyptian troops crossed on October 6, 1973

In a rather surpring move, Syrian President Ahmad al-Shara' announced the abolishment of the October 6 holiday. Officially, it was called “Tishrin Liberation Day” (Arabic: عيد حرب تشرين التحريرية), which commemorated an initially successful Syrian military operation aimed a retaking the Golan Heights from the Israelis. Israel had captured the Heights in the Six-Day War of 1967, and has not only occupied the area, but has formally annexed it to the State of Israel.*

The October 6, 1973 operation was part of joint Egyptian-Syrian coordinated attacks on Israeli-occupied territory in the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights. Egypt also celebrates the perceived "victory" on October 6 as Armed Forces Day. The Egyptian army was able to cross the Suez Canal and break through the Israeli defenses, although with heavy casualties.

The Syrian decree drew sharp criticism throughout the Arab world, particularly Egypt. While both Syria and Egypt view their performance in the two-week conflict as a victory, it was a stalemate at best, a defeat at worst. The rest of the Arab world goes along with the mischaracterization as it provides some relief from the humiliation that usually follows their military clashes with the Israel Defense Forces.

I have always been amazed that both Egypt and Syria regard their military operations in the Yom Kippur War as a victory. Let's take a quick look at what started as successful assaults, but soon withered in the face of Israeli counterattacks. It took a few days for the Israelis to stop the advances and activate enough of their reserve forces to mount counteroffensives on two fronts.

First, Egypt. Yes, the Egyptians crossed the Suez Canal and broke through the Israeli defenses, a series of fixed fotifications along the canal known as the Bar-Lev Line. They used water cannons to breach the high sand berms, and built pontoon bridges to move enough troops to overwhelm the sparesly manned fortifications. 

The success of that part of the operation has become a teaching point in many military schools - static defenses can be overcome by determined troops using innovative tactics. So, yes, initial success. 

Israeli forces pulled back and regrouped. As reinforcements and reserves arrived, the Israelis counterattacked. They eventually encircled the entire Egyptian Third Army in the Sinai and cut them off from resupply and reinforcement, effectively taking them off the battlefield without having to defeat them militarily. 

Other Israeli forces crossed the canal and proceeded down the main highway towards Cairo, eventually reaching a position known as Kilometer 101, just over 60 miles from the capital city, where they were located when the ceasefire took effect. 

Egyptian victory? Hardly. Yet, it is celebrated like they just won World War II.

Now Syria. Yes, Syria was able to seize portions of the Golan Heights from Israeli forces, only to be forced back as the Israelis regrouped and launched a counteroffensive, advancing on the main road from al-Qunaytirah toward Damascus.** 

By the time a ceasefire had been arranged, Israeli troops were as far along the road as the town of Sa'sa', roughly 18 miles from the city. That placed the Syrian capital within artillery range of Israeli gunners.

Syrian victory? Hardly. I will say this for the Syrians. There never seems to be the level of celebration there as compared to the massive celebrations in Egypt. It's hard to claim victory when the opposing army can fire artillery into the capital city.

Shara' may be making a gesture to Israel. There have been a series of talks between Syria and Israel possibly leading to a security arrangement between the two countries. Tension with Israel is something the Syrian president doesn't need. He has his hands full with not only the Druze in the south, but also the Kurds in the northeast, and al-Asad loyalists in the northwest. Then there are the parliamentary elections - you get it.

________

* In 1981, Israel announced "application of Israeli law and administration," replacing the military administration of the area. Although the word "annexation" has never been used, it is in effect what it is. Only the United States recognizes Israeli sovereignty, done so by President Trump in 2019.

** This is the same "road to Damascus" traveled by the apostle Paul (then Saul) cited in the Bible. During my assignment as the Air Attache at the embassy in Damascus, I traveled this road regularly "observing and reporting." There is a Russian Orthodox chapel at what is believed to be the spot of his conversion. And there's a huge Syrian military facility there as well....

Tweet

Today’s Trivia – “From the River to the Sea”

 

“From the River to the Sea” - You’ve heard it at all of the anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian, or Hamas-support demonstrations. It is the oft-repeated mantra that most of those who are shouting it likely have no idea what it means. The modern mantra includes the additional phrase “Palestine will be free.”

In Arabic, the words rhyme: it is pronounced “min al-BAHar ilah an-NAHar” – in Arabic, the definite article AL before the letter N changes to AN.*

For those not exactly sure what it means, it’s quite simple. The river is the Jordan River, and the sea is the Mediterranean Sea. While the meaning is quite simple, the implication is not.

A look at a map that shows the area between the Jordan and the Mediterranean reveals that what the Palestinians believe is their country would include what is now the State of Israel, the West Bank of the Jordan River, and the Gaza Strip. 

That is basically the complete territory of the British-administered Palestinian Mandate. The map to the left shows the United Nations partition plan of the Mandate proposed in 1947.

Use of the chant “from the river to the sea” is a call for the elimination of the state of Israel. It also is a refutation of the so-called “two-state solution” called for by the United Nations, European Union, Palestinian Authority, some Arab countries, and even some Israeli political parties. As you would expect, both Hamas and most Israelis are against the plan. 

Ask virtually any of the protesters to explain it – most of them can’t.

 _________________

* In Arabic grammar and pronunciation, the concepts of solar letters and lunar letters are essential for correctly pronouncing the definite article (“al‑”). Do a ChatGPT search on “Arabic solar and lunar letters” for a complete explanation. It’s a complicated language.

Tweet

United Kingdom: The Royal Air Force and Power Projection

 

In response to the obvious question - what does this have to do with the Middle East? While doing some research on the U.S. strike on the Iranian nuclear facility at Fordow nuclear enrichment facility, specifically the use of aerial refueling to support the B-2 bomber attack, I discovered an interesting fact about what I believe is a Royal Air Force refueling shortfall.

Over the last few years, the Royal Air Force (RAF) has acquired more modern aircraft that normally would allow significant power projection capability in addition to enhanced regional operations.

These include:

- E-7A Wedgetail airborne early warning and control aircraft

- P-8A Poseidon (RAF designation Poseidon MRA1) maritime patrol and - anti-submarine warfare aircraft

- C-17A Globemaster III strategic airlifter

    - RC-135W Rivet Joint (RAF name Airseeker) signals intelligence (SIGINT) platform

All of these aircraft were built by Boeing Defense, Space & Security, and include aerial refueling capability via the flying boom system. In this system, fuel is transferred from a tanker aircraft to a receiver aircraft via a rigid, telescoping tube called a boom, which is controlled by a boom operator on the tanker. 

This system is used extensively by the U.S. Air Force, as well as air forces that operate many American built aircraft, such as the F-15 Eagle, F-16 Fighting Falcon, and the F-35A.

Flying boom: U.S. Air Force KC-46A Pegasus refuels a Royal Australian Air Force E-7A Wedgetail

Although the RAF operates a fleet of 14 aerial refueling tankers, none of them are equipped with the flying boom system.

The RAF tankers are Airbus A330 Multi Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) aircraft and are only equipped with a probe-and-drogue refueling system. In this method, a flexible hose with a drogue (a small parachute-like basket) is trailed from the tanker aircraft, and the receiving aircraft inserts a rigid probe into the drogue to receive fuel. 

This system is used by the U.S. Navy* and Marine Corps, as well as air forces that operate some U.S. built aircraft such as the F-18 and some versions of the F-35. Most foreign-built aircraft, many in service with the RAF, are designed to use this system as well.

Royal Air Force Voyager KC3 refueling two Eurofighter Typhoons

Airbus offers a flying boom capability for the A330 MRTT, however, there are no plans to retrofit any of the existing 14 RAF KC2 or KC3 tankers with the Airbus Aerial Refueling Boom System (ARBS).

Of note, the 14 Airbus A330 MRTT Voyager aircraft are owned, managed, and maintained by a private consortium called AirTanker Services Ltd on a 27-year contract that was signed in 2007. The RAF leases these aircraft and its crews operate them for military operations.

This lack of flying boom refueling capability presents an issue for RAF operations planners. Should the United Kingdom have a need to deploy an expeditionary force to anywhere beyond the unrefueled range of these aircraft, they will need to obtain assistance from one of the air forces that operate boom equipped tankers. Also, they have to consider how long they will want the E-7 and RC-135 to remain on station providing command and control, and electronic intelligence support.

Who will they rely on? Obviously, their first call will be to the U.S. Air Force. There is an already established relationship between the two air forces. If for some unlikely reason the U.S cannot or will not support the RAF, there are other options. These are the air forces that operate boom-equipped tankers: United States, France, Spain, Italy, Turkey, Australia, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Israel, Singapore, South Korea, Japan, and Chile.

NATO also operates nine boom-equipped aircraft in a partnership of the Netherlands, Germany, Norway, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Czech Republic.

______________

* U.S. Navy P-8 maritime patrol aircraft and E-6B communications relay aircraft require flying boom refueling, and thus are normally refueled by U.S. Air Force tankers.

U.S. Air Force KC-135 Stratotanker refuels a U.S. Navy E-6B TACAMO over our house (red dot)

Russian Deployment of North Korean Artillery in Ukraine

 

170mm Koksan self-propelled howitzer in Iraq

A recent article in Military Watch magazine reported on Russia's use of North Korean-made heavy artillery in Ukraine. The article was based on comments made by the commander of the Ukrainian Defense Intelligence Directorate.

“Unfortunately, this gun is demonstrating itself quite well in battle. It’s firing from quite a long range, and it’s quite good in terms of accuracy. We have data that the Russian Federation was provided 120 pieces. But I think that supply will continue because these guns are demonstrating themselves quite well. This is unfortunate for us because this is artillery for long-range firing.” 

Why I am writing about a North Korean artillery piece being used by Russian forces in Ukraine? This is, after all, Middle East Perspectives by Rick Francona. Read on.

I am very familiar with the Koksan gun. In fact, I believe I am one of the few Americans who have ever had the opportunity to get in, on, and under the weapon. I took the above photograph in 1988 at an Iraqi Army artillery depot south of Baghdad. At the time, I was serving as a liaison officer to the Iraqi Directorate of Military Intelligence at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. It was the eighth year of the Iran-Iraq War; we had developed a relationship with the Iraqis to prevent a recurrence of Iraq's mistaken attack on the USS Stark in the Persian Gulf in 1987 in which 37 sailors were killed.

I wrote about this experience in my book, Ally to Adversary - An Eyewitness Account of Iraq's Fall from Grace. From the book:

PROJECT MORNING STAR

Our cooperative relationship with the Iraqis allowed us unprecedented access to the Iraqi military. For example, the Iraqis had captured a large artillery piece from the Iranians during the liberation of Al-Faw. They could not identify its origin and were perplexed by the unusual 170-mm bore. Artillery pieces worldwide are generally manufactured in standard bore sizes, normally 122-mm, 130-mm, 152-mm, 155- mm, 175-mm, and 203-mm. We knew they had captured this gun: Army Colonel Gary Nelson—our newly assigned defense attaché in Baghdad and an artillery officer by training—had seen it while it was on display at a victory celebration in Baghdad. We knew what it was, and we wanted it.

The Iranians had acquired this self-propelled howitzer in 1987. At that time, it was the longest-range artillery piece made anywhere in the world, capable of firing a rocket-assisted projectile to a range of almost sixty kilometers. It had been used by the Iranians to conduct harassment fire from the Al-Faw Peninsula into Kuwait’s northeastern oil fields. The Iranians were applying military pressure on the Kuwaitis in a variety of ways, as punishment for supporting Iraq in the war and for alleged violations of oil export and pricing policies of OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries). This artillery fire was complemented by Chinese-made “Silkworm” cruise missile attacks on Kuwait’s oil ports and by naval attacks on Kuwaiti shipping in the Gulf. 

The attacks were the catalyst for the March 1987 decision to register Kuwaiti oil tankers under the American flag (a procedure called “reflagging”) to offer some protection for oil shipping in the region. The U.S. Navy could not legally protect foreign shipping, but a merchant ship flying the U.S. flag was entitled to armed escort through the Persian Gulf war zone.

The high level of U.S. interest in the gun had little to do with the situation in the Persian Gulf and rested instead on the fact that the weapon had been designed half a world away to fire on the capital city of a close U.S. ally, South Korea. What the Iraqis had captured on the Al-Faw Peninsula, though they did not realize it, was a weapon designed and built by North Korea to fire on Seoul from the North Korean side of the Demilitarized Zone. The U.S. military refers to it as a Koksan gun.

While inspecting the gun (the project was called Morning Star), we discovered more evidence of Iraq’s use of nerve gas. As I rooted around the cramped driver’s station of the gun system looking for anything of intelligence value—maps, notes, logs, manuals, firing tables, communications charts, and so forth—I found several used atropine injectors. These auto-injectors had been manufactured in Iran and were similar to those I had found earlier on a battlefield on Al-Faw. I showed one of the injectors (and pocketed another) to both Majid and the brigadier general commanding the artillery depot, explaining that these used injectors indicated to me that a nerve agent had been used at Al-Faw. 

I was careful not to accuse the Iraqis, but the implication was clear. The brigadier general replied that Iraqi artillery doctrine calls for use of obscurant smoke in the preparatory artillery barrages. His “analysis” was that the Iranians mistook the smoke rounds for nerve gas and, therefore, self-administered atropine. 

Not wanting a confrontation while standing in the middle of an Iraqi military installation, I did not mention to the Iraqi officers that we had also discovered decontamination fluid in many places on the weapon, most noticeably trapped in the headlights. It would make no sense for the Iraqis to decontaminate the vehicle if they had only fired smoke rounds at the Iranians.

In the end, the Iraqis decided not to allow us to move the gun back to the United States, so I arranged for a small team of artillery experts and engineers to fly to Iraq and do a field exploitation of the piece. I remember that working on the gun in the blazing sun in the Iraqi desert was, and still is, the hottest I have every been. My insides felt like I was being roasted.

Just as the Ukrainian intelligence chief noted, the gun was well-engineered and manufactured. It was an intelligence boon - these guns pose a threat to U.S. forces in South Korea. 

Movie Review: 6 Days (General Film Corp - 2017)

 

6 Days is a 2017 joint British and New Zealand production based on the events of April-May 1980 when six armed gunmen stormed the Iranian Embassy in London and took 26 people hostage. The perpetrators of the takeover were Iranian Arabs from the Khuzestan area of Iran. These Arabs are one of the ethnic groups that make up the country, and have at times sought independence from Tehran. That effort continues today.

The six gunmen traveled to the United Kingdom on Iraqi passports. The weapons they used in the attack on the embassy were brought into the UK in diplomatic shipments to the Iraqi Embassy - the entire operation was planned by the Iraqi Intelligence Service. Iraqi President Saddam Husayn was a supporter of the uprising by the Iranian Arabs – at one point, he wanted to annex Khuzestan to Iraq.

After taking control of the embassy, the gunmen demanded that Iran release 91 Arab prisoners in Iranian custody, and that they be provided safe passage out of the United Kingdom. Iran refused the first demand, and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher refused the second – the siege began.

Two teams of the British Army’s elite 22nd Special Air Service (SAS) Regiment were deployed to London and began planning various options to rescue the hostages and either capture or kill the perpetrators.

The movie details each of the six days alternately through the eyes of BBC reporter Kate Adie, SAS team member Lance Corporal Rusty Firmin, and Metropolitan Police hostage negotiator Max Vernon.

Vernon played a critical trying to keep the situation from spiraling out of control . Eventually, he was able to secure the release of five hostages. On the sixth day, one of the perpetrators killed the Iranian Embassy chief press officer.

That murder triggered the approval from Mrs. Thatcher for the SAS teams to assault the embassy, attempt to free the hostages, and either capture or kill the perpetrators.

The SAS did just that. They assaulted the building, much of it caught on broadcast media, and succeeded in rescuing 19 of the remaining 20 hostages; one was killed in the attack, and two others were wounded. Five of the perpetrators were killed by the SAS teams, and one was captured. He was sentenced to life in prison, but was paroled in 2008. He was allowed to remain in the UK since neither Iran nor Iraq would take him, and lives in London under an assumed identity.

The assault took 17 minutes.

Let’s take look at the conditions that led these Iranian Arabs to conduct this attack. In 1979, after the Iranian Islamic revolution had brought down the Shah, there was an uprising in Khuzestan, fed by demands of autonomy. The uprising was crushed by Iranian security forces, resulting in more than a hundred combined casualties from both sides.

Since 1999, the Arab Struggle Movement for the Liberation of Ahwaz (ASMLA), headquartered in Denmark and The Netherlands has advocated for an independent Arab state in Khuzestan, and has committed acts of terrorism and assassinations in support of this goal. The group is allegedly financed and sponsored by Saudi Arabia.

My major issue with the movie: Subtitles claim that the terrorists, nationalists from the ethnic-Arab Khuzestan area around Abadan, are speaking Arabic. Anyone with more than a week’s language training in either Arabic or Farsi will know that this is Farsi, the language of the majority Persians. Khuzestani Iranians mostly speak Arabic as their native language, but of course, also speak Persian. I would have expected them, given the context of the film, to be speaking Arabic. Yes, I know, small knit pick, but it does impact the credibility of the movie.

How close are the two languages? Arabic is a Semitic language, along with Hebrew and Maltese. Farsi is an Indo-European language in the family of Dari. Urdu, Pashto, and Hindi. There are many crossover words in Farsi that appear to be Arabic, but have different meanings – the linguistics scholars call that a “false cognizant” and is enough to get you in trouble if you think you know the actual meaning.

Strong performances by Mark Strong as Max Vernon, Jamie Bell as Rusty Firmin, and Abbie Cornish as Kate Adie. Since this was closely based on actual events, there was almost no suspension of disbelief required to watch and enjoy this presentation.

I recommend it – it moves quickly and can be intense.

Watch on Amazon Prime.

Movie Review: Damascus Cover (Vertical Entertainment - 2017)

 

Damascus Cover is a 2017 espionage film, based on the 1977 Howard Kaplan novel of the same name. The book is the first of four in Kaplan’s The Jerusalem Spy Series. I have not read the book. There are a few confusing scenes, but it can be difficult to boil 321 pages into a 90-minute screenplay.

Mossad officer Ari Ben-Sion, working undercover as German businessman Hans Hoffmann in Berlin in 1989, is recalled and ordered to Damascus to help a Jewish family flee the country. This turns out not to be his actual mission, which is revealed to him only once he is on the ground in Syria. I am not sure why he was not just briefed with the real mission so he could properly prepare and train.

There is, of course, the required romantic entanglement – this with an American photojournalist.

There is also the required double-crossing and changes of allegiance as the story unfolds. Hoffman/Ben-Sion adjusts his operation to exfiltrate a Syrian scientist and quickly finds himself in way over his head with lessening chances of success.

I will not describe what happen so as not to spoil it for any of you who wish to see it. You will have to watch it to the very end – I was surprised.

The movie stars Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Olivia Thirlby, Jürgen Prochnow, Igal Naor, Navid Negahban and John Hurt (in his final role).

I must compliment the producers for the excellent attention to detail when it comes to replicating the country of Syria and the city of Damascus in the Moroccan countryside and city of Casablanca, even down to the accurate Damascus street signs, including shari’ madhat basha (A Street Called Straight) and the Hamidiyah suq.

The movie received mixed reviews. I enjoyed it, not only because it took me back to my posting at the US Embassy in Damascus, but because it was a good story not requiring too much suspension of disbelief (except maybe at the very end).

Watch it on Amazon Prime.

Tweet

REVISED - Miniseries Review: "The Last Post" (BBC - 2017)

 

I originally reviewed this excellent miniseries in 2018 soon after it was released. I watched it again because of what is happening in the region, including the Yemeni Houthi involvement in the Israel-Hamas conflict in Gaza and the West Bank, and I was in the mood for some good entertainment. You can read that initial review here. I was able to get much more out of it the second time – there is a lot there.

I highly recommend it on the same two counts as before. Not only is it solid entertainment – the performances across the board of the BBC production are excellent – but also addresses the British experience in Aden (‘Adan) in the mid-1960’s; It is somewhat applicable to the geopolitical situations in which the United States finds itself today in the region.

"The Last Post"* follows a unit of the Royal Military Police and their families in Aden in 1965. Newlyweds Captain Joe Martin and his wife Honor arrive into the mix and must adapt to their new environment and their new lives together. Throughout the community, relationships are tested as the women struggle against what is expected of them as British Army wives and their own preferences.  At work, the soldiers fight a growing local revolutionary insurgency and face constant threats from hand grenades and snipers.

That’s the theatrical story that carries the underlying theme – a declining empire dealing with local nationalism and confronting “liberation” movements. It also deals with military relationships between the officers (and their families), noncommissioned officers, and enlisted troops. It offers insight into the British Army, still one of the best military forces in the world. The series did not fully explain the command relationships between the various military units in Aden, but, this is entertainment, not a documentary. An added predictable touch is meddling from an American journalist (ably played by Australian actress Essie Davis).

On November 30, 1967, British forces withdrew from Aden and the independent People's Republic of South Yemen was proclaimed. It lasted until 1990 when South Yemen and North Yemen (Yemen Arab Republic) merged to form the Republic of Yemen.

We’ve seen how that has worked out. The port of Aden was the location of the October 12, 2000 terrorist attack on the US Navy Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer USS Cole (DDG-67) while the ship was conducting an ill-advised, politically-motivated refueling/“show the flag” stop in Yemen. Read my comments on that folly.

I want to give a shout out to the standout performances by Stephen Campbell Moore as Lieutenant Ed Laithwaite (I see some of me in his character), and Jessica Raine and Essie Davis for, well, first, being Jessica Raine and Essie Davis. Jessica Raine’s performance as Alison Laithwaite, a conflicted, alcoholic, unfaithful wife dealing with her marriage, is excellent, often to the haunting rendition by Ketty Lester of “Love Letters (Straight from Your Heart).”

I highly recommend the series. It moves quickly, and despite a few questionable military tactics, requires very little suspension of disbelief to watch.

Watch it on Amazon Prime.

_____

* The "Last Post" is a British and Commonwealth bugle call used at end of day ceremonies, as well as military funerals, and ceremonies commemorating those who have died in war, similar to the US armed forces’ “Taps.” 

Listen to the “Last Post” by the Royal Marines at Prince Philip’s Funeral.

Israeli Airstrike on Iranian Consulate in Damascus Kills Senior Iranian IRGC Leader

Iranian Consulate - Damascus, Syria

An Israeli airstrike in the early evening hours of April 1 on the Iranian consulate in Damascus, Syria, killed the apparent target of the operation, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Zahedi.

According to Iranian television, Zahedi was the commander of Qods Force units in Syria and Lebanon. The Qods Force is a capable special operations organization charged with much of Iranian activities in the region and around the world. A previous commander of the Qods Force, Qassem Soleimani, was killed in an American airstrike in Baghdad in January 2020.

According to the semi-official IRGC-affiliated Tasnim News Agency, five other IRGC commanders and two advisers were killed in the consulate along with Zahedi. They include Zahedi's deputy and chief or staff. The Islamic Republic News Agency reported that the consulate building was completely destroyed. Syrian television added that everyone in the building was killed.

Mohammad Reza Zahedi

Zahedi is one the IRGC's top commanders with a wealth of operational and command experience. A combat veteran of the Irani-Iraq War, he previously served as the commander of the IRGC Air Force, then commander of the IRGC Ground Force, before taking command of all Qods Forces deployed to Lebanon and Syria - one of the key commands in the IRGC. 

The loss of Zahedi and virtually his entire senior staff is a severe blow to Iranian foreign policy in the region - this was a bad day for the Iranians.

I am impressed with the execution of the Israeli operation. 

I lived in Damascus not far from these Iranian diplomatic facilities - embassy, consulate, and ambassador's residence. These are located in crowded areas with civilian residential compounds and buildings. The Iranian diplomatic staff in Damascus reported that neither the ambassador nor any other personnel were injured in the attack - this shows the accuracy of the Israeli strike.

It also highlights the ability of the Israeli intelligence services to determine that at least eight IRGC commanders and advisers would be in the consulate building at the same time, and determine it in time to take action to eliminate the targets.

Impressive.

Tweet

Taliban to revive policy of stoning and flogging women

 

Mullah Hibatullah Akhundzada

 

Taliban Leader Mullah Hibatullah Akhundzada announces a return to the policy of stoning women: 

"We will soon implement the punishment for adultery. We will flog women in public. We will stone them to death in public. We will bring shari'ah to this land.”

How enlightened - stoning and flogging. 

Stoning as a form of capital punishment goes back to ancient times. Stoning appears to have been the standard method of capital punishment in ancient Israel. The Torah and Talmud prescribe stoning as punishment for a number of offenses, however, Rabbinic Judaism developed a number of procedural constraints which made these laws practically unenforceable. 

Although stoning is not mentioned in the Quran, classical Islamic jurisprudence imposed stoning as a shari'ah punishment for adultery based on hadith (sayings attributed to Muhammad). 

Only a few isolated instances of legal stoning are recorded in pre-modern history of the Islamic world. In recent times, stoning has been a legal or customary punishment in Iran, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yemen, parts of Nigeria, Afghanistan, Brunei, and tribal parts of Pakistan. That said, it is rarely practiced - it appears that is about to change in Afghanistan. 

If you want to see just how barbaric Islamic stoning is, I recommend the excellent movie The Stoning of Soraya M, a 2008 movie about the stoning of a young woman in Iran.
 

Scene from "The Stoning of Soraya M"

The movie stars the talented Shohreh Aghdashloo, Mozhan Navabi, and Jim Caviezel, and is available for free on YouTube.

I will caution that the stoning scenes are graphic and intense. The requirements for stoning are quite precise, as shown here (click here for a larger view):

Welcome to the 7th Century.

Tweet