'ISIS is an American myth'

Many European countries — including France, Germany, Denmark and Britain — have asked the Bashar al-Assad government to ‘take care’ of Europeans who have been radicalised and are fighting in Syria.

These startling revelations were made by the Syrian ambassador to India, Riad Kamel Abbas, on Wednesday. “Intelligence leaders of many European countries came to Syria to meet officials”, Abbas said, and offered to not press charges of human rights violation on the Assad government if Damascus made sure that they (European citizens fighting in Syria) did not return to Europe. They fear that these fighters might return to their countries and radicalise more people at home.

Speaking at an interaction with the media arranged by the Indian Women’s Press Corps in New Delhi, Abbas was critical of the role of Turkey, the US and its West Asian allies. “ISIS is an American myth, which gets direct support from Tayyip Erdogan’s Turkey and is funded by Saudi Arabia and Qatar”.

“Al Qaeda appeared in Syria after the US invaded Iraq. Before that there was no al Qaeda in Syria. It is clear that al Qaeda was created by the US and it is supporting ISIS.” Abbas also said that the UN was not helping Syria and is under the US’ control.

As fierce fighting is underway in Kobane, Abbas expressed little hope in the government in Ankara.

The ambassador, however, appreciated the Modi government’s stand of not joining the US’ coalition against ISIS.

(This news report appeared in the HindustanTimes on October 17)

A united West Asia to fight ISIS: It's easier said than done

The Islamic State (ISIS), by beheading two American citizens, has drawn international attention and has made US President Barack Obama send American troops as military advisers to Iraq. In his speech last week, Mr Obama stressed the need for a coalition of countries to tackle ISIS. Britain has decided not to be directly involved but France and Australia have extended support. US secretary of state John Kerry is in West Asia, stitching together a coalition of regional players. Several Arab countries have reportedly reciprocated, expressing willingness to join in airstrikes on ISIS. The details are yet unclear, but forging a grand coalition amid the complex politics of West Asia is easier said than done.

John Kerry with Arab leaders after the Jeddah meet on ISIS

The role of Arab governments, especially Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE, in the growth of ISIS is well known. So why would they now want to destroy ISIS? The rise of ISIS, a Sunni terror group, which targeted Shias and other minorities, was acceptable  — even desirable — for Sunni kingdoms in West Asia. For them ISIS’ anti-Shia drive meant the ultimate weakening of Iran, the Shia heavyweight in West Asia. However, the equation changed the moment ISIS revealed its grand plans for an Islamic caliphate. Put differently, the snakes in the backyard have turned homeward. Also many countries fear that their local Sunni population might get influenced by ISIS. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and others put their forces on alert in July since the caliphate was declared.
The US does not want Iran and Syria to be part of the coalition, thereby making it a largely Sunni group. Turkey’s reluctance to join the coalition also weakens the drive against ISIS. Ankara is wary of the Kurdish resistance in the country and 49 Turkish diplomats are in ISIS’ custody. But it shares a 1,200-km-long border with Iraq and Syria and can choke ISIS by tightening its border and stopping the flow of oil from ISIS-controlled areas. It needs to be seen how much the US and its allies will be willing to attack ISIS in Syria without aiding the Bashar al-Assad government. The regional coalition should also check terror groups in, say, Libya, Egypt, etc. Focusing solely on ISIS and leaving other groups is half the job done. ISIS, through its call for an Islamic caliphate, is hoping to rekindle the passion for Arab nationalism. More importantly, it wants West Asia to unite and oppose Western powers that have ‘subjugated’ the region for more than two centuries. Given this, there is a grain of truth when Mr Obama said that “…this is not our fight alone” and “nor can we take the place of Arab partners in securing the region”. The success of the coalition depends on a united West Asia that overlooks sectarian and national differences. Unless the Arab nations take up the fight, the attack on ISIS will be viewed as Western propaganda against Islam and the region — and ISIS will continue to terrorise the world.

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)

Syria Question Divides the World

On Saturday the United Nations saw Russia and China vetoing a West and Arab League-backed resolution against Syria demanding President Bashar al-Assad to step down because of the bloody crackdown on his people. Hours before the UN meeting deadly attacks carried out by Syrian security forces (Syrian authorities have blamed the opposition) killed more than 200 people in Homs, 160 kilometres north of Damascus. Though Russia and China acted on expected lines, India voting in favour of the resolution was a surprise. Known to usually abstain from such moves, India has asked for a peaceful resolution that sees Syria also being involved in the process. India has done the right move by showing that it is capable of taking tough decisions at an international forum. This is also a statement that it has earned its UNSC seat.





With Syria being the vortex of the so-called Arab Spring, the West has got in its hand a crisis it wished had not begun. Not only has the West lost its set pieces on the board, it has seen the rise of ‘radical’ forces like the Muslim Brotherhood in the region. Add to this the chaos spreading to other countries and an all-too assertive Iran - the West (primarily the United States of America) is having what seems to be a series of nightmares.
However, anyone who has observed Syria over the decades will not be surprised at the turn of events. After all it is Bashar whom the US preferred to keep in spite of the atrocities he has carried out in the region and against the US. Bashar has killed thousands of his people and sent militants into Iraq to kill American contractors; he has armed the Hezbollah, supported the Hamas, is an Iran ally and has adversely influenced the developments in Lebanon. But Washington maintained the stand that the known devil is better than the unknown. The fear of a more radical outfit gaining prominence in Damascus or that of the country descending into chaos has vanished and now the US is in the forefront of demanding the ouster of Assad. The factors that have led to Washington’s change of mind are not clear yet. David Schenker, a former Levant director at the Pentagon, was of the opinion that America’s policy towards Syria has always been one that has not yet been developed.

The Survivor
Bashar al-Assad has been able to hold fort till date mainly because of two reasons. First is the relation he has maintained with the West and other countries, importantly Russia (see Russia Factor). The second is Assad’s minority plank. Assad, a Ba’ath Party member and Alawi has made sure to infuse pride among the minorities in the country that their president, ruthless as he may be, he is one among them and has protected them from the majority Sunni community which otherwise would have relegated them to the margins of society. There are also sections in Syria that feel that he has lend respect and honour to a country that was otherwise not taken seriously in the region. Bashar al-Assad is known to have told his close associates that he was of the view that if a ruler provides the people with what they want, he can rule without hassles. According to Bashar he would provide the people of Syria the basics - a home, a job and a car - and in return his rule will go on unopposed, unquestioned.

Lessons Learnt
The prolonged crisis (the unrest started in March last year) in Syria shows that unlike as was the case earlier when the United States (without considering the option of approaching the United Nations) thought it fit to invade Iraq on its hunt for non-existing WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction), now the scene has changed. The economic slowdown, the rise of other economies and the international condemnation Washington has received for its exploits in West Asia, both from within the country and outside, has played a role in it mellowing down on its ways. It has realised that its trigger-happy enforcement of democracy around the world has earned it more enemies than friends.
The experience in Egypt and Libya has taught the world, especially the West, important lessons on how not to go about in Syria. While in Egypt (after initial reluctance) the US supported the opposition movement, the result is not what as expected. The rise of the Muslim Brotherhood, through the ballot, has caught them unawares. In Libya, the West managed to oust and capture Muammar Gaddafi but the Libyan Transitional Council has not been able to show the promise of stability and peace, vital for a country that has witnessed a revolution.

Russia Factor
Russia has been criticised for being the stumbling block for a UN Security Council resolution against Syria. Russia’s deputy foreign minister Gennadi Gatilov has said that the move to ouster Assad was a “doomed” one and instead the call should be to fight the opposition forces that are causing violence in the country. Syria is a big client of Russia’s arms industries and this lobby has a great sway over Kremlin. Syria yearly buys close to $700 million worth of arms from Russia. The unrest in the region has caused a dip in the sales and Russia has already cancelled lucrative deals with Iran after reaching an agreement with Washington.
Political analyst observing Kremlin believe that elections in Russia will change its approach towards Syria and any future UNSC resolution. Many say that President Dmitry Medvedev was ‘fooled’, by the West, into believing action was necessary in Libya. Moreover, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who is likely to be the next president, has not been mincing his words while criticising the West (US) for creating unrest in Russia. He is also doubtful of the West’s intentions in West Asia. Russia is also not buying the argument put forward by the West that unless it supports the opposition movement in Syria, it will not be a frontrunner when the new government is formed in Damascus. Russia’s defense, and a valid one, is that if the current government falls it will be followed by a civil war and sectarian violence leading to chaos, as is witnessed in other countries in the region. Assad’s iron hand over the political system has rendered it without a visible and efficient opposition that can takeover once Assad is gone. The civil war will create large-scale migration into neighbouring countries further worsening the situation.

Arab League Report
As is the case with most of the developments in West Asia, the Arab League report submitted by its observers who toured Syria is mired in controversy. While the report was backed by Algeria, Egypt, Sudan and Oman, it was opposed by Qatar - the current president of the league. One of the arguments is that the observers were not able to extensively tour the affected regions and thus their report does not reflect the extensive damage done by the Assad regime. Damascus, in its defense, is arguing that violence was on the rise in many of the regions the observers toured because the government had pulled back its forces, according to the demand of the observers. Groups backing the Assad regime state that the government is fighting ‘shady armed gangs’ that are causing unrest in the country to bring down the government.
The Arab League report and the developments thereafter should be viewed from the fact that Syria was suspended from the league in November last. Also, among the more than two dozen countries that are calling for Syria’s ouster from two UN committees are Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. The UNESCO executive board meeting convening from February 27 will take a call on this issue.

Conclusion
There is an urgent need for a plan to stop the violence and bloodshed in Syria because the longer the unrest prolongs more are the chances of sectarian wars breaking out between the Sunni majority and the Alawite, Christian, Kurd minority. The United Nations will not be able to bring peace to the country once things deteriorate to that level and we can expect something at par or even worse than what is now being witnessed in Iraq and Libya.
Given this one cannot sit idle and watch as Assad, or as he claims ‘extremist elements’, continue to unleash violence and kill innocent people throughout the country. The West has its interests and so do Russia and other Arab nations. There are pitfalls in a UNSC resolution against the Assad regime but if one were to weigh both the options, it is better than not taking any action at all. The world has to choose between the lesser of evils to check a brutal dictator and give Syrians the freedom and peace they deserve.

(An edited version of this article has appeared in The New Indian Express on February 6)