Gaza attack: World nations watch as Israel 'wins'

                                                                                                                Pic: WSJ

The scoreline says it all: 1814-67. Israel 'won', Palestine battered black and blue. This latest round of Israel-Palestine conflict started with the abduction and killing of three Israeli youth in June 30. Israel began a manhunt for the people behind the killing and started bombing what it called 'Hamas targets'. On July 17, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) invaded Gaza and on August 5 withdrew its forces. On Friday, hours before a 72-hour ceasefire was to end, two rockets were fired into Israel by militants from Gaza. Hamas has denied firing the rockets. The Cairo-brokered ceasefire was has come to an end with Israel and the Hamas not reaching an agreement.

After nearly 30 days of violence more than 1,814 Palestinians, mostly innocent civilians, have been killed. On Israel's side, it lost 64 army personnel and three civilians. That's roughly 27 Palestinian lives for every loss Israel suffered.

For those who enjoy the spectacle of warfare this is how comfortable it gets. A news report that is widely circulated and called the 'Sderot Cinema' shows how Israeli residents climb a hillock, sit on chairs and cheer as bombs fall on Gaza. For those who are shaken by its horrors, this is what 21st century massacres look like.

While Israel is guilty of using disproportionate force, Hamas cannot escape blame. Its use of human shields, keeping weapons in schools and firing rockets from densely populated civilian areas has jeopardised the safety and security of Palestinians — who the organisation claims to serve and protect.

Guilty of complacence

World nations have expressed grief at the events and have asked for peace to prevail but have stopped short of condemning Israel for its attack on innocent civilians (however, many nations have condemned the Hamas for its atrocities).

The United States has always showed unwavering support to the Zionist cause and this time also it stood by its ally. However, two instances stood out that showed a bit of insensitivity on Washington's side. First was on July 14 when President Barack Obama hosted prominent American Muslims at the White House Iftar dinner. Obama probably chose a wrong occasion to reiterate Israel's right to defend itself against attacks from Hamas, especially at a time when scores of innocent Palestinian children and women were dying. The second was on the next day, on July 15, when a shipment of 4.3 ton US-manufactured arms arrived at the Port of Haifa, Israel.

Former US President Jimmy Carter in an article co-authored with former Irish President Mary Robinson for 'Foreign Policy' said, "There is no humane or legal justification for the way the Israeli Defence Forces are conducting this war… Hamas cannot be wished away, nor will it co-operate in its own demise". Carter and Robinson go on to say that only by recognising Hamas as a political player can the West provide it incentives to lay down arms. But it seems Obama is in no mood to listen to Carter.

 

BRICS leaders at Fortaleza

Playing both sides of the fence

New Delhi, it seems, is playing both sides of the fence. In mid July in a strong-worded statement released at Fortaleza, Brazil, India, along with other BRICS nations, censured Israel. However, a discussion on the Gaza conflict was not permitted in Parliament. Following this, on July 23, India voted in Palestine's favour at the UNHRC.

No friends in West Asia

Though the grand visions of a United Arab Republic and Arab Federation have more or less perished, the fault-lines that drove such ambitions during the mid-20th century are visible. If Arab socialism and nationalism were the threats to the monarchies in West Asia then, today it is democracy and variant Islamic schools of thought. That's why even though Saudi Arabia will not break bread with Israel it will not lend a hand to the Palestinian cause in which Hamas is a player. Add to this Syria's historical claim that Jordan, Lebanon and Palestine are part of Greater Syria (Damascus disapproves the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916) and the hostility the Palestinians have faced from Jordan's Hashemites, the Palestinians have few friends in the region.Read: Militants fire rockets at Israel as Gaza truce expires

John Kerry

So it's not surprising that there was not much condemnation from the Arab world against Israeli action, except for token statements calling for a ceasefire and peace from the Arab League. The 21-member league was, however, critical of US secretary of state John Kerry's meeting with officials from Qatar and Turkey (two countries that back Hamas) in Paris.

Far from a solution

While Israel maintains that it cannot lower its guard, the Palestinians are replete with stories of atrocities and injustice by Israel that 'occupies' its territory. Israel's violation of international norms, especially its spree of new settlements in the occupied territories (in 2013 there were about 540,000 Israelis living here), has made it hard for even its well-wishers to defend its cause. On the other hand, Hamas, which is ruling the Gaza Strip, without shunning its violent ways has not made it easy for the people of Palestine.

                                                                Pic: Twitter

In its zeal to 'protect' Israel's interests the IDF have forgotten the number of innocent Palestinians killed by its mindless bombings. In the din of new settlements coming up Tel Aviv has forgotten UN Resolution 242. Washington has shown double standards in defining human rights, and the world in general has remained a mute spectator. Hamas, which claims to represent the voice of a section of the Palestinian people, has been exposed and has done disservice to the Palestinians.

Israel has retreated to 'defensive positions' around Gaza claiming that its objective of destroying tunnels in Gaza has been achieved. But this is a pyrrhic victory — if at all there is a victor.

If Carter's words are uninspiring and violence is the preferred way, Israel and the US should consider another US president, John F Kennedy's words: Mankind must put an end to war before war puts an end to mankind.

(This article appeared in the Hindustan Times on August 8)

Israel's plans for more settlements will not help

                                                                                                    By: Ilia Yefimovich

The West Asia peace process can at best be described as one step forward and two steps backward — and this time it appears to be only steps backward. After the West Asia peace talks, initiated by United States secretary of state John Kerry, failed in April, both Israel and Palestine have been extremely jumpy when it comes to each other. Tensions broke out on June 12 after three Israeli teens were kidnapped. Their bodies were found in Hebron on June 30. Two days later, on Wednesday, a Palestinian teen was kidnapped and a burnt body believed to be of the boy was found later in the day. Clashes broke out between Palestinian protestors and Israeli soldiers in East Jerusalem, which has been held by Israel since the 1967 Mideast War. Following the abduction of the three teens, calls for ‘revenge’, like the one from Israel’s Kfir brigade, have vitiated the atmosphere further.
At a time when much of the Arab world was witnessing unrest — from Syria to Egypt to Iraq — Israel and Palestine were relatively calm. The recent abductions and killings are set to change things for the worse if reasonable reactions and policies do not prevail. With violence growing over the past two days there are fears that it might lead to a third Palestinian intifada. World leaders have criticised the killings. The United Nations and the Obama administration have condemned the killings but it’s highly unlikely that US President Barack Obama will actively step in, as his reluctance to engage in Iraq and Syria show. Meanwhile, Palestinian leaders have accused extremist Jews of the abduction and killing of Mohammed Abu Kheider, the slain Palestinian teen.

                                                                                           Reuters

As a first step towards easing tensions between the two, Israel must refuse to go down the road of collective punishment as it has done often in the past. The massive Israeli search exercise for the three teens led to hundreds of arrests and the death of five Palestinians. To worsen this volatile climate, earlier this week Israel announced a wave of new settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem — Israel’s housing minister, Uri Ariel, has called this move a “proper Zionist response” to Palestine’s new unity government. This is not a step in the right direction. This will not help the cause of peace or bring stability to the region. The Palestinian authorities, on their part, must rein in the extremist groups on their side.

Iraq: A brief history of ISIS and its brutal ways

The Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) has caught the world’s attention by the pace and brutality of its takeover of many Iraqi towns, especially Mosul and Tikrit over the last week.
But the Sunni terrorist organisation has been around for more than a decade. Earlier known as the al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), it sided with Osama bin Laden and was noticed for its beheadings to rampant bombings all over Iraq. The AQI was instrumental in fanning the Iraqi civil war.
In 2006, because of its extreme violence, a section among Sunnis joined the US forces in defeating AQI. Thereafter, it became the ISIS and focused on Syria until it turned to Iraq.

The aim of the ISIS is to spread a Sunni Islamic state — and a radical one — throughout the Levant (from the southern tip of Turkey to Egypt and from Israel to Iraq).
It has been active in opposing Syria’s Bashar al-Assad and has captured many parts of Syria where it administers its radical form of governance. From the latter part of last year the group was protesting in many towns in Iraq against the ways of the Nouri al-Maliki government.
News that ISIS fighters are being welcomed in many Iraqi towns rings similar to the jubilation that was seen in many parts of Afghanistan when the Taliban took over. However, it will face resistance from a demoralised Iraqi security force and Iran, which is helping the   government protect vital areas close to its border. The Kurds are also attacking the Sunni militants.
The group has used social media and the Internet to spread its message of fear. It released The Clanging of the Swords, a propaganda video series in which soldiers are killed and tanks are destroyed.
For India the concern has been manifold. Other than the upward spiral of oil prices, the Narendra Modi government’s immediate concern is the safety of Indians in Iraq, around 40 of whom have been kidnapped.
(This appeared as an article in the Hindustan Times on June 19)

Iran nuclear deal: It's an opportunity the world shouldn't miss

For decades Iran has been the bad boy for the West. The antics of its leaders in public coupled with its nuclear ambitions have not earned it many friends. But since June, when Hassan Rouhani was elected president, there have been changes in this outlook. The earlier round of talks, to put a tab on Iran’s nuclear programme, held in Geneva, between the West and Iran missed an agreement after France scuttled the deal at the last minute. While differences continue among the P5+1 (the United States, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom, and Germany) and Iran, leaders like US President Barack Obama and UK Prime Minister David Cameron have made the right moves: Mr Obama has stuck his neck out to stress the need for talks and the easing of sanctions, while Mr Cameron called up Mr Rouhani (a first in a decade by a UK PM) to ‘address concerns on both sides on the nuclear issue’. Given this, it is not in the best interests of anyone to further impose sanctions on Tehran. The loosening of sanctions would mean that Tehran has more flexibility with its trade on gold and oil, which is good news for New Delhi.

Naftali Bennett, Israel’s economy and commerce minister and leader of the ultra-nationalist Jewish Home Party, said a few days ago that Iran was six weeks away from enriching weapons-grade uranium. The fear of nuclear proliferation is not without merit but what about nations that have nuclear weapons acquired under the table, like Pakistan or North Korea? Douglas MacKinnon, a former White House and Pentagon official, has rightly asked, in a Fox News op-ed: “Are we endangering our own safety and that of Israel by over-exaggerating the nuclear threat posed by Iran while drastically under-estimating the growing threat posed by Pakistan?” There is a need for international pressure and scrutiny on Islamabad for its clandestine nuclear dealings. This is the clear and present danger — more than the likelihood of Iran’s plans.

The talks with Iran are perhaps one of the greatest tests for Obama. A deal could also bring greater peace to the region and change the course of world politics.

Politicians are not above the law — Boston showed that to Azam Khan

In what can be only seen as a new high — or low — in political paranoia UP urban development minister Azam Khan has said that his detention at the Boston Logan International Airport late last week was a conspiracy hatched by external affairs minister Salman Khurshid to defame him outside India. The detention — which according to some media reports was for about 10 minutes — ruffled a lot of feathers in the UP government. Reacting to it UP chief minister Akilesh Yadav cancelled his talk at Harvard University and also chose to skip a reception hosted by the Indian consul general at New York. Thus what should have been a routine security check has been blow out of proportion and the Samajwadi Party is chasing a phantom of its own imagination. Anyone who has travelled to the United States, Europe or even Israel will list out the inconvenient, and at times unpleasant, experiences of security checks one has to go through at the airports there. One cannot overlook the positives of being extra cautious, especially at times when the organisations and people with bad intentions are getting innovative by the day.
Azam Khan is missing the woods for the trees in his charge that he was singled out because he was a member of a particular religious community and was thus unfairly targeted. Security checks, irrespective of race, religion, etc, are norms different countries adopt to ensure safety of its citizens. The UP minister is not the first person to be ‘humiliated’ in such a scenario. Bollywood actor Shah Rukh Khan and former Union minister George Fernadez was also subject to such security checks. Most notably, former president APJ Abdul Kalam was frisked at JFK airport in 2011. While Kalam played down the incident and was not irked about it, the leader from UP is in no mood see reason. Given that the Azam Khan incident — if at all a routine security measure can be called so — comes a few days after the Boston marathon bombings, one cannot find fault with the airport authorities if they were a wee bit extra cautious in their duty.
Winston Churchill, former British prime minister, had a point while saying “The price of greatness is responsibility” and responsibility, it seems, is a trait wanting in many of our netas. What seems to have been hurt in this process is the fragile ego of our leaders. Much used to having all doors being open and royal treatment being meted out — often to the discomfort of others —politicians find it below their standing to follow the rules. Such an attitude might pass off in India but there is no point in getting miffed when asked to comply by the laws when abroad. One would have thought that such measures would dawn upon our leaders the realisation that when it comes to security, no one is above the law. Is it too much to ask from our politicians?
(An edited version of this appeared in the Hindustan Times on April 30)

Cold War Hangover

The 16th Non-Aligned Movement summit underway in the Iranian capital Tehran offers a mixed bag for India. India’s large delegation, headed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, sends out a signal that we still hold a lot of brief for a multilateral institution that has long outlived its purpose of creation. This is evident from the fact that for the Tehran meet the prime minister is accompanied by the external affairs minister, the national security adviser, and foreign secretary among other delegates. Giving such importance to a Cold War relic is a reflection of the flawed foreign policy approach of the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance.

While the meeting between Manmohan Singh and his Bangladeshi counterpart Shiekh Hasina is a positive, it would have had a better effect if the leaders met in either New Delhi or Dhaka. Singh meeting Pakistan President Zardari or any other Pakistan leader — and such meetings on the ‘sidelines’ of important summits have become nauseating frequent — will have little of the desired effect. Manmohan Singh and his government must realise that we have done enough of talking with our neighbour and now the message should be that unless there is tangible action from Islamabad normalcy in ties cannot be restored.
For Iran the NAM summit is an important event and it will be Tehran’s answer to Washington, and other Western powers, which has been exerting pressure to make it an international pariah. The presence of Latin American leaders, rulers from Oman and Kuwait, leaders from the subcontinent, Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi and the attendance of UN general secretary, Ban Ki-moon, is definitely a show of strength by Iran.
While it goes without saying that India has to have good ties with Iran on its own terms and not take instructions from the United States, it is important that we not strain our relations with Israel at the cost of extending a hand to Iran. This diplomatic tightrope walk is the challenge the Singh government will have to face.
(This appeared as an edit in The New Indian Express on August 31)

Obama's Fate and an Israel-Iran War

On February 13 a ‘sticky’ bomb placed in a car went off in New Delhi, grievously injuring an Israeli diplomat’s wife. While many were tempted to point fingers at India’s neighbour on the west, the choice of target and prevailing circumstances put Iran on the spot, though there was little evidence to back what till now appears to be a convenient guess. The same day an attempt to kill an Israeli diplomat in Georgia failed and on February 14 three Iranians were arrested in Bangkok for attempting to target Israelis. The Mossad, Israel’s spy agency, was quick to conclude that Iran was behind the brazen attack. Not going into the similarities of these attacks to the mysterious deaths of top Iranian nuclear scientists in the recent past (alleged by Iran to be the work of Israel) or Israel’s claim that these were the work of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards (which begs the question why it would send its men for an attack with documents identifying them), India’s response to the attack and the composure it has maintained is praiseworthy.

Selfish Interests
Since the attacks there has been more pressure on India to cut ties, mainly its oil trade, with Iran. New Delhi has maintained that it will not support any unilateral sanctions imposed by any bloc but will abide by a resolution adopted at the United Nations. It goes without saying that India has a selfish interest in maintaining ties with Iran.
India’s ties with Iran date back decades. Delhi-Tehran ties are on an economic, cultural and strategic level. Indian refineries are tuned to Iran crude standards and close to 12 per cent of our oil come from Iran. If India were to stop getting oil from Iran there would be two fallouts. Our refineries would have to be re-tuned to the standards of oil from another supplier country and India would have to turn to other countries, most likely Saudi Arabia. India definitely has better ties with Iran than with Saudi Arabia. Iran’s oil loss, in this case, would mean a gain for the desert kingdom but New Delhi will be on tenterhooks doing business with Riyadh.

India-Israel Ties
India’s ties with Israel have been growing stronger in the past decade or so, especially in the fields of defence and intelligence sharing. Intelligence sharing has been active especially after the 26/11 attacks in which the Lakshar-e-Toiba had specifically targeted Jews and the Chabad house in Mumbai.
Investigation is being conducted into the February 13 attack and if it becomes clear that Iran has used Indian soil to settle scores with Israel, New Delhi should condemn Tehran in the strongest of terms and take necessary action which it deems fit — not what Washington or Tel Aviv dictate.

Capitol Hill Race
The nuclear tension brewing in the Persian Gulf, as many of the problems in the region, has multiple layers to it. While on one hand it is a nuclear proliferation problem, on another it is the tension between Israel and Iran representing a Zionist-Muslim conflict hovering around the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 and the present Palestine crisis. The United States, by virtue of being Israel’s eternal best man and by dutifully performing its role as global super cop, is ‘concerned’ about the developments in the region and working towards ensuring that Iran does not gain nuclear weapons. The US, like many other countries, has not bought Iran’s argument that it is working towards nuclear power and not nuclear weapons and in the process enriching uranium to fulfil its power needs.

However, the call for action on Iran will be decided in Washington depending on the climate in the country. President Barack Obama came to office in 2008 with the promise of opening diplomatic doors with Iran. His letter to Iran’s religious head Ali Khamenei and the Persian New Year message that year were clear signs of openness towards realising better relations. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was not impressed because while extending a hand to Iran the US was also covertly operating in Tehran. Obama’s belief in reaching out to Iran through diplomacy has not gone down well with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a powerful pro-Israel body in Washington.
Israel wants to halt Iran — at any cost — and this is not an option for the US. It has just got itself out of two decade-long bloody wars that have lightened the state coffers considerably and earned more bad blood in West Asia than the goodwill it hoped to earn while going on its ‘democracy’ highway. Obama’s approach towards tackling Iran is cause for rebuke by the Republicans and in an election year Obama finds himself in a fix. Acting against Iran would further drain the country’s coffers, until recently on life-support, and men and women will be again sent out for war, but if he were to not act, it would be projected as weakness and give the Republicans a much-needed stick to beat the President with.
An attack on Iran will skyrocket oil prices and this will put pressure on the world’s economy. Iran, unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, is populous and, unlike Israel, is a bigger country.

Regional Supremacy
The present crisis at first reading gives the impression that Iran’s nuclear ambitions are developed mainly keeping in mind Israel. While a nuclear Iran is definitely a concern for Israel, what is forgotten is that as much as Israel fears such a scenario, countries in West Asia also dread it. A re-reading of the scenario will give more credibility to the fear of other Muslim countries in the region than to the paranoia exhibited by Israel. In other words, an Iran with nuclear power or nuclear weapons (there is no credible evidence to suggest Tehran is weaponising its nuclear programme) is worse news for Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait than for Israel.

This distinction is missed by the western eye that fails to appreciate the myriad intricacies within the Muslim world. Iran, which credits itself as the first to overthrow a western regime in the region, is vying for prominence in the region. Also Tehran detests Riyadh, which it claims takes orders from Washington. Further, when taken into consideration that religious clerics and heads wield much power in both countries, it will not be wrong to argue that a Shia Iran is trying to project itself as the big player in the region by eclipsing a Sunni Saudi Arabia.

Glimmer of Hope
Another question to be considered before condemning Iran is how much truth there is in Tehran’s tall claims. It is a fact that Iran has nuclear ambitions and that a middle level team of the International Atomic Energy Agency had an unsuccessful visit to the country. But Iran, in the past, has made tall claims that were proved hollow. Hyperbole is part of Tehran’s discourse.
James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence in the US, in a February report is of the opinion that Iran is more likely to look at the option of nuclear weapons based on ‘cost-benefit analyses’. This means that while it is not clear if Tehran will stop short of developing a nuclear weapon, it is premature for doomsday alarmists to cry mayday.

Conclusion
Whether Israel will attack Iran or not is a scenario that is best avoided. Even the US has been kept guessing by Israel. Every step taken towards tackling this situation is a tightrope walk. The questions are: Will the US succumb to pressure and toe Israel’s line in attacking Iran? Will Israel attack Iran without informing the US and pull Washington into a war it will have to reluctantly be part of? How will Iran react? How will world nations see an unprovoked attack by Israel (and the US) on Iran? Will Iran’s nuclear programme go deeper underground? Will India cut ties with Iran; will it use its leverage with Tehran to open diplomatic channels, and; how will the world avoid a catastrophe?
(This article appeared in The New Indian Express on March 5)

India Should Not Succumb to Pressure Over Iran

The Congress-led United Progressive Alliance government has showed unusual tenacity is holding its cards close to its chest and not succumbing to growing pressure from the United States and Israel to blame Iran for the February 13 bomb attack on an Israeli diplomat’s car in New Delhi. Not only has the government refrained from airing its doubts but has also approached the scenario with maturity. This is evident in the statement made by Union commerce minister Anand Sharma on Wednesday that India will be going ahead with its planned trade delegation to Tehran, and that terrorism and trade are “separate issues”.

While India has strong defence ties with Israel, India annually imports crude oil close to $12 billion. Iran is important not only because of oil but also access it provides to the region. The Port of Chabahar, in Iran, is vital for India’s access to Afghanistan, especially in a scenario where a US pullout from the country will leave India with little support in the region. New Delhi will have to factor this aspect as well while taking a call.
Without doubt India finds itself in a spot as both Israel and Iran are important allies. But New Delhi should see this as an opportunity to present itself to the world as a responsible nation capable of taking mature decisions even if it means not toeing the US line. Such an independent stand will also prove that India’s claim for a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council is one that is earned over the years and not one doled because of the benevolence for ‘right conduct’. India’s stand that it will abide by a United Nations resolution, be it against Iran or Syria, and not favour unilateral moves is the right approach.
India should go ahead with its investigation and not be influenced by outside pressure. If the trail leads to Iran, New Delhi should condemn Tehran in no uncertain words — but should not allow itself to be used as the stick by Israel or the West to beat Iran.
(This article appeared as an editorial in The New Indian Express on February 17, 2012)

As Uncle Sam Beats the Retreat from Iraq

In the euphoria of Libyan dictator-president Muammar Gaddafi being captured and killed by Libyan rebel forces on October 20, media houses around the world overlooked or underplayed a development in the Middle East. At a relatively toned down press briefing from the White House, the following day, US President Barack Obama announced that by December 31 all US troops would leave Iraq. Thus, by bringing to an end the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which was strongly opposed by many of US’ allies including France and Germany, Obama has kept one of his poll promises. This is a decision that future analyst will observe as an important move that changed the way the world does politics because a pullout by US from Iraq has more than one implication and impact. So why did such a monumental announcement by Obama go under the radar of sorts? While the move was discussed widely in the United States, internationally the response it received was lukewarm. Perhaps it was intended to be so.

Politics of pullout

Obama’s announcement was criticised by Republican presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney as a sign of weakness and an open invitation to Iraq’s neighbour Iran to fill in the vacuum. Romney while making these allegations is either exposing his political naivety for it was President Bush who signed the withdrawal in 2008, or it is political opportunism, a craft which needs a lot of honing.

For Obama it is a win-win deal in many ways. Firstly, as the 2012 presidential race heats up, the announcement is a brownie point for Obama. As of November 4, 49 per cent of Americans approve of the way he is handling his job; that’s a two per cent rise from the previous month. The spree of assassinations -- Osama bin Laden, Anwar al-Awlaki and Muammar Gaddafi --- has assuaged the US public that the billions they have been spending has seen some fruition.

Secondly, the war on terror, waged in Iraq and Afghanistan, has bled the US in many ways – financially, perception-wise and human casualty. Financially, the wars have cost the US close to $2.5 trillion and this sum is entirely --- yes entirely --- on money borrowed. With no tax reforms and the war spending increasing US’ debt has shot through the roof. Perception-wise the US has lost footing within and outside the country. The number of people in the US who think that the wars are of a “choice” and not a “necessity”, to use Obama’s phrase to describe the Iraq and Afghanistan operations respectively, are on the rise. Americans also feel that these operations in the Middle East and other countries have only earned them the hatred of others. A good example would be Pakistan, which is a war ally. Despite Washington pouring in billions into the country, US is detested by the people and government of Pakistan. Recent reports from Iraq indicate that even groups that initially welcomed the US forces are happy to see the pullout. The human casualty, in the form of wounded --- physically and mentally – war veterans, is an expenditure that is going to grow on the US economy as years pass by. Economists fear that this will have a telling effect on the economy in the years ahead.

Thirdly, the US, while in theory actually pulls out, actually does not. While on the surface there is a pullout the US has worked out mechanisms through which it will have a sizable presence in the Iraq. Through the various embassies in Iraq US will be employing close to 20,000 personnel. This soldier pullout paves the way for the comeback of the ‘notorious’ contractors. Ted Wright, president of Blackwater (responsible for the Nisour Square Massacre in 2007) has expressed interest to do business in Iraq again. The US has signed arms deal with Iraq worth more than $10 billion. In the lieu of training and maintenance US personnel will be stationed in Iraq soil. Given all this, it is clear that the US has made sure that it maintains its presence in the country. After all Iraq is a major oil producing country and the revenue trade with Iraq can generate through development work is too lucrative for any country to forgo.

Middle East equation

To understand the political fluctuations and future developments in the Middle East it is essential to first understand the two predominant sects in Islam --- Sunni and Shia. Sunnis form roughly 85 per cent of the Muslims world over. The Middle East is predominantly Sunni but Iraq and Iran have Shias as the majority with a presence in Bahrain, Yemen and Syria. Saddam Hussein was heading a Sunni minority government in a Shia majority Iraq. He suppressed Shia and Kurd movements and Tehran was his bete noire. Other countries in the region thought of him as a good counterweight to an Iran that was getting assertive and threatening after the 1979 Iranian Revolution. The United States, by invading Iraq, ousting and hanging Saddam did in a year what Iran was trying to achieve for decades. Thus Washington was levelling Iraq as a playing field for Tehran.

‘Good’ neighbour

For all the tall talk done by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that “Iran should not miscalculate about our (US) commitment to Iraqis” analyst agree that Iran’s influence over Iraq cannot be stopped, and definitely not by any of the tactics the US has used till date.

While invading Iraq former President George Bush had planned to reform the country and turn it into the first true democratic country in the region with the hope that it would serve as a beacon to other countries to move towards democracy. However, the steps taken by the US to usher in this change went wrong from the beginning. America’s hand-picked Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s government could get the required numbers last year only because it got the backing of Muqtada al-Sadr, who is a Shia with active backing from Tehran. Thus the democracy that the Washington propped up in Baghdad was on the stilts lent by Tehran.

However, there is a silver-lining as Iraqis, who have longed for democracy and have witnessed the developments in the neighbouring countries, have protested against the stand Maliki has taken on the uprising in Syria. Maliki has not criticised the regime of President Bashar al-Assad, who is an ally of Iran.

Pullout Panic

Of late there has been a call for attacking Iran for the threat it poses because of the nuclear weapons it has in its possession. A rattled Israel, which has not had good relations with Iran, is in the forefront with this call for attack. While it is a matter of concern that Tehran has a clandestine nuclear programme going on in the stealth, it is also a known fact, something akin to a public secret known to all. Russia has advised caution in approaching Iran.

It is understandable that Israel is worried that with US pulling out of Iraq, Iran will have a free run over there. Add to this the Arab Spring which is bringing traditional US favourites down and giving groups that are close to Tehran a chance to run these countries; not to mention the Gilad Shalit deal which has given the Hamas a boost. Thus a US pullout from Iraq can be said to be the trigger for this panic attack.
(This appeared as an Opinion in The New Indian Express on November 10)

Tharoor is looking Parliament, talking Knesset

Shashi Tharoor, when declared as the UDF candidate for the Lok Sabha elections from Thiruvananthapuram, appeared too polished to be a politician and had a panache that was the much-hooted sign of the middle class professional entering politics. But that was just a resounding loud false alarm. No sooner was his candidature announced than skeletons started to tumble; and tumble they did from everywhere imaginable.
Though Tharoor tried to lure the netizen youth and NRKs (Non Resident Keralites) through his website explaining his candidature, he has been criticised in many Internet forums. Right from his being a member of the advisory committee of the Coca-Cola India Foundation to the legal tangle for allegedly disrupting the National Anthem; to his 1992 comments on Sonia Gandhi’s inability to lead the party, to recently the KPCC youth burning his effigy at the state capital.
These allegation standing, what should be of concern to the diverse electorate of Thiruvananthapuram are Tharoor’s views on Israel and his admiration for its military offensive in Gaza that left the strip in tatters earlier this year. In an article titled India’s Israel envy (Haaretz, January 23, 2009) Tharoor, contrary to India’s stand on the Palestine conflict (which incidentally is also Congress’ view), expresses his sympathies for Israel that is “a small country living in a permanent state of siege… surrounded by forces that are hostile to it”. Tharoor, displaying his pro-Western ideology, might overlook the fact that the “forces” (read Hamas) is a democratically elected government the people of Palestine have chosen, but he cannot or rather should not gloss over the human right violations that the Israel army has done in Gaza for which it is drawing flak from the UN Human Rights Council, a subsidiary of the UN that he aspired to head only a few years ago.
While sticking out his neck for the Israelis, Tharoor does not miss to take a dig at the Congress-led UPA and the sorry state of India’s national borders in, “… unlike Israel, India has seemed unable to do anything about it (terrorist attacks)” and “India is a giant country whose borders are notoriously permeable, an open society known for its lax and easygoing ways”. Tharoor’s “lax and easygoing” comment reminds one of an oriental view of a Westerner who sees Indians as a group of people who ‘need to be governed’. This is a view of a person sitting in Park Avenue or cooling off at Burj Dubai, not that of a peoples representative who has sweated it out in front of the secretariat or the streets of Thiruvananthapuram.It will be interesting to see if Thiruvananthapuram, which last favoured a LDF candidate, oblige Tharoor. Tharoor claims to know the state capital. The question is: Does the state capital know him? For a man who until 2007 was “living in and out of a suitcase” while in the city, Thiruvananthapuram must be more than a handful. When Tharoor says that the time he has spent in the city is enough to represent it, it reflects poor of the electorate he aspires to represent. Come May 16 and we would know if Thiruvananthapuram will have a parliamentarian who is an Israel-sympathising NRK.