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.

ISIS: Is Obama doing the same mistake Bush did in West Asia?

                                   Barack Obama                Pic: Telegraph

US President Barack Obama’s strategy, which he unveiled on Wednesday, against the Islamic State (ISIS), had the stench of a stale dish. Only a week ago when he was asked about the US’ strategy on ISIS, Obama said: “We don’t have a strategy yet.” He was criticised for this response and Wednesday’s speech was expected to minimise that damage. The US president’s plan involves attacking the ISIS in Iraq and Syria, increasing assistance and training for all forces fighting ISIS (except the Bashar al-Assad government), cutting off the funding and recruitment channels for the terror group and continuing humanitarian assistance to those affected.
Obama has done the right thing — though late in the day — in deciding to pursue the ISIS “wherever they are”, but his strategy leaves many questions unanswered. There is no clarity on the specific roles of the US’ coalition partners. There is no stipulated timeframe— experts estimate will take two to three years to “degrade and ultimately destroy” the ISIS.
After the 9/11 attacks, Washington was quick to respond, first by invading Afghanistan and later Iraq. As The New York Times’ Carlotta Gall in The Wrong Enemy: America in Afghanistan, 2001-2014 writes: “…by going to war in 2001, the United States was walking into the Islamists’ trap. It was just what al Qaeda wanted: for Afghanistan to serve again as a battleground for Muslim fighters against a superpower”. Is the US repeating the same mistake and walking into an ISIS trap?
While speaking about sending troops to the region, Obama said: “…American forces will not have a combat mission — we will not get dragged into another ground war in Iraq.” The usage of the word “dragged” gives the impression that in 2003 the US was forced to invade Iraq. This is not true.
The US invaded Iraq in search of fictitious weapons of mass destruction and left an ineffective ‘democratic’ government, headed by Nouri al-Maliki. Not only did Maliki favour Shias but he also cracked down on protests and alienated the Sunnis. Chelsea Manning, former US army intelligence analyst, recently said the US did nothing to stop the “brutal crackdown against political dissidents by the Iraqi Ministry of Interior and federal police”. This prepared a fertile ground for al Qaeda to recruit and build its network in Iraq.

                                                                                                     Pic: CBS News

Nothing explains Obama’s dilemma better than the crisis in Syria. Since pro-democracy protests broke out in 2011, the US has been trying to overthrow the Bashar al-Assad government. The US and its allies in the region have been aiding various rebel groups and the Central Intelligence Agency has been running training camps in Jordan for the Free Syrian Army, which is fighting against Assad. If ISIS bases are attacked in Syria, Washington will be indirectly helping Damascus, thereby strengthening Assad. It would be interesting to see how Obama plans to weaken the ISIS in Syria and at the same time not give Assad an advantage.
The plan to train and aid rebels is a myopic one — and Obama should know it. In July, the Pentagon said that it was difficult to identify ‘moderate rebels’ and train them against Assad. The rebels are an amorphous group of fighters, many of whom are pro-al Qaeda. Obama’s idea of picking the best among the worst is similar to America’s perception of the ‘moderate’ Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
After the hasty retreat from Iraq and setting a deadline for pulling out of Afghanistan, Obama had shown an obdurate reluctance to intervene in foreign conflicts. Obama, especially in the second term, has focused on internal matters, leaving foreign policy to his secretary of state, John Kerry. Obama’s foreign policy arc has been so limited that suddenly Sarah Palin’s “they’re our next door neighbours” comment on Russia looks brighter.
Obama’s speech came on the eve of the 13th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks and if the US is at the drawing board, chalking out plans after more than a decade in the region, one would at least expect Washington not to repeat past mistakes. However, Obama’s move to aid rebels sounds more like his predecessor George W Bush’s ‘War on Terror’. And that’s not good news.
(This appeared as an article in the Hindustan Times on September 12)

Nuclear Games and a Cold War Relic

Sami Al Faraj is the head of the Kuwait Center for Strategic Studies and an adviser to the Kuwait government. In an informal meeting last winter he spoke about the possible threat countries, both small and big, in West Asia face with a nuclear Iran in their midst. Kuwait has normal ties with Iran (the same cannot be said of Iraq with whom Kuwait shares a border) and more often than not dons the hat of a negotiator between countries within the region. The concern Faraj had about Iran going nuclear — the fear of a nuclear disaster or of the technology falling into the wrong hands — was striking. It was fear that stemmed out from a state of helplessness in knowing that stopping Iran or making Tehran understand the concerns of other countries have was easier said than done.

The nuclear debate

The debate on nuclear power is understood depending on which side of the argument one stands. One side argues that nuclear power is an evil that should be detested at any cost. It should not be used, not even for peaceful purposes. A few countries have the technology and it should remain with them.

The US and the Non-Proliferation Treaty signatories fall into this category. Nuclear technology for peaceful use should be pursued only under the watchful eyes of international agencies like the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The other side, Iran and other non-NPT countries belonging to this group, believes that nuclear technology is not a privilege that only certain countries can enjoy — it can be used for peaceful ends like meeting power sector requirements and can even as a deterrent when it comes to the grandstanding of military might. It eventually boils down to a debate between the haves and the have nots.

This argument is further complicated when regional equations and past record is added. India, though not a signatory of the NPT, is largely trusted as a nuclear power because of its impeccable record. Neighbouring Pakistan, which also went nuclear after India, does not enjoy that confidence thanks to a certain A Q Khan who went around the world with a briefcase containing nuclear know-how.

Iran’s nuclear ambitions are complicated on several counts. Iran is an NPT signatory and going by its rules Iran is wrong in nurturing nuclear ambitions. The constant anti-West sabre-rattling Tehran indulges in at the drop of a hat further adds to the fear. Its Holocaust denial and anti-democtic moves makes it unpredictable for the West, thus further complicating the picture. As a final dab to this threatening portrait of a nuclear Iran, add the complex mixture of the country’s Shia-Sunni divide and regional issues.

Iran’s advantage

Under normal circumstances most nations of the world would have opposed Iran going nuclear, even if it were for the said purpose of fuelling its reactors to provide power to the country. That is what we see in the opposition to North Korea going nuclear. However, that’s not the case with Iran. Some of the most evident advantages Iran has over North Korea are its geographic position, which places it at the eye of Asia, its crude oil deposits and economic bargaining power however flawed it might be.

For more than a year now there has been active international debate on Iran’s nuclear capability and the imminent threat posed by whether Iran has been able to enrich uranium good enough for weaponisation. For almost the same amount of time Israel has been threatening to strike Iran. Israel still continues with its chorus of attacking Iran ‘if need be’, often leaking to the media hints about the government seriously considering sending its air force to target the nuclear installation Tehran has kept out of the purview of inspecting IAEA officials (like it destroyed the Osirak reactors in Iraq in June 1981). What has taken the wind out of the anti-Iran sails is the cautious approach adopted by the Obama administration. While Washington understandably has reasons for its caution after being embroiled in two long-winding, costly wars in the region, it is hoping and going the extra mile to ensure that Iran comes to the table for discussions.

NAM games

It is at this juncture that Iran hosted the 16th Non-Aligned Movement summit in Tehran. The Non-Aligned Movement, formed in 1961 at the height of the Cold War, is a consortium of around 120 countries that did not want to align with the West or the USSR. However, today, long after the Cold War has ended, its relevance is questioned, especially since many member countries have drifted from the core principles of non-alignment. India is one such example after it went ahead with the Indo-US nuclear deal. Whatever be the perceived benefits of hanging around in the NAM, India’s purpose is long-lost, and is a ship that has lost its compass. The NAM is a Cold War relic maintained at best (in its present form) for the nostalgic value it imparts.

What would have otherwise been a damp NAM summit gained prominence as Tehran was the host. That the US and Israel stuck their necks out to ensure that many members abstained from attending the summit went on to show that the 16th NAM summit was a sort of referendum for Iran. That things did not go the way the US wanted was evident in the turnout for the summit. Iran made sure to play all the right cards and got more than 30 heads of state to attend. At the moment it is not sure how significant is it that the Natanz uranium enrichment plant was open to Mongolian President Tsakhia Elbegdorj, but nonetheless Iran has used the NAM summit as an effective PR campaign against Israel-US efforts to ‘isolate’ Iran.

Everything could not have gone according to plan. There had to be an unpleasant moment for Tehran at the summit and that came in the form of Egypt’s newly elected President Mohamed Morsi. While Ahmadinejad thought that he had managed a coupe de grace in getting the Egyptian president to attend the summit, Morsi had other plans. Morsi, holding Ahmadinejad at arm’s length, was so critical of the Assad government in Syria, which is blindly supported by Iran, that Syrian officials attending the summit walked out in protest. Again, when Tehran thought it was thumbing its nose at Washington by getting UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon to attend the summit, Ban was scathing in his criticism of Tehran for making the IAEA run in circles. He was severe on Iran for its ‘war of words’.

Ways forward

While the western world, including, of course, Israel, is quick to junk Tehran’s nuclear ambitions and club it with North Korea as two rogue states having nuclear ambitions, there are not many countries around the world who would want to see it that way. This was clearly evident at the NAM summit. On a lighter note, the action and attention that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad & Co are demanding has given Pyongyang’s greenhorn ruler Kim Jong Un time to consolidate his position with the ranks in the country without calling for much international attention.

The world must bring Iran back to the table for talks and should stop it from weaponising its nuclear material. Sanctions, as many in Washington now agree, are not the way to achieve this goal. Concessions, from both sides, need to be made as an initiatory move. Trade ties should be established and cultural exchanges done, because once trade ties get strong it’s hard for mindless politics to derail the achieved progress. Cultural exchanges will help clear lot of the misconceptions both sides have and will pave the way for better understanding. While this is so, focus should be on North Korea — a closed country with appalling human rights and living conditions that are any day a more potent danger — and other countries with nuclear ambitions waiting for someone with a briefcase full of explosive details.
(This appeared as an opinion piece in The New Indian Express on September 10)

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)