Risk Assessment

Israel Strike in Doha Shakes Middle East Stability

Context

Israel struck Doha on September 9th—an attack that targeted Hamas political leaders during Gaza ceasefire negotiations and has pushed the Middle East into a new phase of instability. The incident killed at least six people, including a Qatari security officer and the son of a senior Hamas negotiator, and sent shockwaves through the already fragile Gaza peace process. The strike was remarkable not only for its timing, but for its location: an unprecedented Israeli operation on the sovereign soil of Qatar, a key player in Israel-Hamas mediation.

The immediate impact on the Gaza ceasefire talks has been devastating. Hamas quickly announced that its demands had not changed—insisting on a full ceasefire, Israeli withdrawal, humanitarian aid, and a prisoner-hostage exchange—while condemning Israel for sabotaging negotiations. Qatar, which has long played host to Hamas’ political bureau and served as a linchpin in past ceasefire talks, declared that the attack had “killed any hope” of a near-term agreement. The perception is now widespread that Israel is prioritizing military elimination of adversaries over a negotiated solution, a view reinforced by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s repeated calls for the “total defeat” of Hamas. This narrative threatens to undermine confidence in ongoing Gaza peace initiatives.

For Qatar and the broader Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), the strike represents not only a political affront but a strategic shock. Doha has convened emergency consultations, and GCC states from Saudi Arabia to the UAE have summoned Israeli envoys to protest the violation of sovereignty. An Arabic-Islamic leaders’ summit is scheduled for September 15 to discuss the situation created by the Israel strike. The summit will be attended by members of Arab League and Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).

After decades of multibillion-dollar arms purchases and hosting of U.S. military bases, the GCC now confronts the reality that Washington either could not—or would not—prevent Israel from striking within their borders. The strike risks driving Gulf nations to reconsider their reliance on U.S. guarantees and to explore alternative security alignments. The Israeli strike has shaken Gulf confidence in the American security umbrella. Qatar’s Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman al-Thani also met with President Trump in New York on September 12 but the details of the meeting were not disclosed.

The Future of Hamas

Whether Hamas keeps political and military control or is replaced in Gaza, and how any post-conflict governance would work, remains the key stumbling block. Israel has pressed for assurances related to demilitarization while Hamas rejects disarmament demands or removing its political authority without a full agreement.

For Hamas, its armed wing is more than just a military tool—it is central to its political identity. The group insists that its “weapon of resistance” is sacred and non-negotiable. In recent ceasefire discussions, Hamas has repeatedly declined to give up its military capabilities without a comprehensive deal that includes guarantees of Palestinian statehood, Israeli withdrawal, and full respect for humanitarian and governance rights. Any demilitarization demand, from this perspective, is seen as a demand for surrender.

On the Israeli side, demilitarization is non-negotiable. Israel views Hamas’s military and governing structure as the main obstacle to peace and security. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other officials have made clear that any viable ceasefire or peace agreement must include: the destroying or dismantling of Hamas’s military infrastructure; the exclusion of Hamas from any future governance of Gaza; and the establishment of long-term oversight or guarantees that Gaza will not again become a base for armed attack.

For Israel, the demilitarization demand serves several purposes: a way to neutralize threats (rockets, tunnels, armed operations), to reassure its domestic political coalition especially hardline elements who see any compromise as weakness, and to prevent the recurrence of another large-scale conflict.

Third-party mediators, including Egypt, Qatar, and the United States, recognize that full instantaneous demilitarization is extremely unlikely. Hamas is deeply embedded in Gaza society, not only militarily but also through governance, social services, charities, religious institutions, and local legitimacy. Stripping it of arms without offering political, security, and governance compensations risks collapse of both trust and order.

The Israeli strike on Hamas negotiator’s in Doha can be seen as a tactics to pressure Qatar, and other Arab interlocutors, to support the demand for not only disarming Hamas-but to prevent any future role for the group in governance. Not doing so, now risks their own security.

Religious Dimension

By striking Hamas negotiators on Sunni Arab soil, Israel risks reframing its conflict as a broader war against Islam. For years, Israel’s regional clashes were directed largely against Shiite state actors such as Iran and groups affiliated with it. By striking Hamas leaders on Sunni Arab soil, Israel may have inadvertently broadened perceptions: that its war is not just against specific militant or extremist groups, but against Islam itself.

This is precisely the narrative that the U.S. sought to avoid during the War on Terror when American officials took pains to distinguish between global extremist movements like Al Qaeda and Daesh, and groups with localized political grievances like the Afghan Taliban. Ironically, the Taliban peace deal that the U.S. eventually negotiated was known as the Doha Accords, named for the very city that has now been bombed by Israel. The targeting of Hamas negotiators in Doha erodes the perception that there are safe spaces for diplomacy, and risks fueling extremist narratives.

Netanyahu’s own trajectory adds fuel to this interpretation. In recent weeks, he has doubled down on settlement expansion in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, bluntly declaring that “there will be no Palestinian state.” Reports suggest he has ordered preparations for a full military takeover of Gaza, with evacuation of civilian populations and consolidation of Israeli control.

At the same time, momentum is building at the United Nations for recognition of Palestinian statehood. The non-binding resolution sponsored by France and Saudi Arabia, named the ‘New York Declaration’, was presented on September 12. The resolution supporting the two-state solution was endorsed by 142 states with 12 nations abstaining. U.S. and Israel voted against the resolution. Netanyahu is expected to reject such recognition outright, portraying it as a reward for terrorism and a betrayal of Israeli security. Indeed, his government may respond by accelerating annexation policies to establish irreversible “facts on the ground.”

Implications for US

For the United States, the diplomatic fallout is complex. Qatar has been a vital partner in Hamas mediation and hostage negotiations and hosts the largest U.S. airbase in the Middle East. The GCC’s strategic importance to U.S. energy, counter-terrorism, and anti-Iran strategies makes the Israeli strike particularly sensitive.

Israel, meanwhile, remains Washington’s closest regional ally. The strike in Doha thus forces U.S. policymakers to confront the uncomfortable question: will American policy sacrifice credibility with Arab allies to defend Israel’s unilateral actions? The Trump administration’s own dismay was evident when President Trump declared himself “very unhappy” with the strike. The incident comes at a critical time for the Abraham Accords, the Trump initiative carried over from his first term, to normalize Israel’s relations with Arab states, potentially undermining Israel-Gulf diplomatic relations.

The implications for U.S. strategy are stark. Washington risks losing its credibility as a mediator, damaging its relations with the Gulf, and undermining its own long-term vision for Middle Eastern stability while benefiting China and Russia. More dangerously, it risks fueling the perception that Israel—and by extension its American backer—is engaged in a wider war against Islam. This perception could radicalize new generations across the Arab and Muslim world, erasing the careful distinctions that U.S. officials have drawn for decades between extremist groups and sovereign states.

The Israeli strike on Qatar is a wake-up call. It threatens not only the Gaza peace process, but the entire architecture of U.S. strategy in the Middle East. Unless Washington can re-balance its approach—standing firm on sovereignty, reviving diplomacy, and reaffirming its partnerships—it risks watching both the peace process and its regional influence collapse.

Related Articles:

Gaza Ceasefire Plan And US-Iran Tensions – April 26, 2025
Two-State Solution, Future Of Gaza, And Iran – February 25, 2025
Assad’s Demise And The Shifting Balance Of Power In Middle East – Dec 26, 2024
The Escalating Middle East Crisis And President Elect Trump – Dec 5, 2024
Iran’s Potential Retaliation For Haniyeh’s Killing And Wider Consequences – Aug 30, 2024
The Iran-Pakistan Gas Pipeline Project: Economic and Geopolitical Realities – Sep 27, 2024

The post Israel Airstrike Targets Hamas Negotiators In Doha, Threatening Gaza Ceasefire Talks appeared first on Politact.

After the February 8th controversial parliamentary elections in Pakistan, the new government has been officially sworn in. The information that has emerged since then points to gross irregularities before and after the polling, raising serious doubts about the credibility and fairness of the electoral process. This has put the future of Pakistan, a critical US ally, at a crossroad.

While the US administration has backed the assertions of election observers regarding its credibility – it has also indicated its willingness to work with the next government. The approach US takes in the face of these election irregularities will also impact the American global standing and long-term interests. The US role in Pakistan is likely to surface in the upcoming US elections, as the debates voice concern about how US upholds its values in the conduct of its foreign policy.

When it comes to the legislative side, a Congressional Letter was sent to President Biden and Secretary of State Blinken to address the alleged election rigging in Pakistan. A Congressional Subcommittee hearing is also scheduled for March 20^th on “Examining the Future of Democracy in Pakistan and US-Pakistan Relationship.”

The traditional U.S. policy towards Pakistan, a nuclear armed nation with a population of about 240 million people, tends to align more closely with the security establishment. This has been the outcome of heavy reliance on Pakistan when it comes to issues of national defense, especially extremism, and before that navigating the Cold War and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 80s. The relationship has also come in handy to contain the occasional flareups with India.

However, by giving precedence to security affairs, or partnering with civilian governments that are widely perceived as either corrupt or lacking credibility, has usually led to short-term gains at the expense of long-term stability and democratic norms not maturing. In the era of escalating great power rivalry, this could be consequential.

Contrary to what many believe, the bedrock of the long US-Pakistan relations has been the people-to-people contact and the soft appeal of the US. It is crucial to maintain and strengthen these bonds by supporting democracy and human rights in Pakistan. In recognition of the peace dividend, a popularly elected government may actually improve relations with India – and become a trusted partner against extremism by adopting a holistic approach. By prioritizing US support with the aspirations of the Pakistani people, rather than narrow security interests, US can foster a more stable and democratic Pakistan, which ultimately is in the interest of both nations.

Rejecting the mandate determined through elections in Pakistan risks radicalizing the populace and especially the youth. This radicalization would be counter to U.S. interests, as it could fuel extremism and instability in the region and beyond. If the public feels disenfranchised, it is likely to provide opportunities for extremists to make inroads. With the Taliban in control in Afghanistan and tinderbox like situation in the Middle East, this would add fuel to the fire.

Additionally, a weak government in Pakistan that lacks credibility will be unable to implement necessary economic and political reforms to check kleptocracy, hindering progress and potentially exacerbating existing challenges.

It is imperative that the United States consistently supports democratic values not only in Pakistan but across the world. By doing so, will not only help in upholding American moral obligations but also strengthens US position on the world stage. Reliable support for democratic values serves as a powerful counterbalance to the authoritarian regimes and global rivals like China and Russia. It demonstrates unwavering US commitment to the principles of democracy, human rights, freedom of expression, and the rule of law, which are fundamental to American national identity and global leadership.

Arif Ansar and the Pakistan Policy Forum

The post Is The Traditional US Policy In Pakistan Sustainable? appeared first on Politact.

Context

Never before have there been so many conflicts been brewing at the same time, in particular in the regions of Middle East – and the adjoining areas of South Asia and North Africa. There is a tendency to view these conflicts as separate with their individual dynamics. However, they are intertwined and there is a need to understand their intersections and trajectory. In this, it’s also essential to grasp the mega trends and how they are linking these otherwise desperate conflicts.

History obviously is the most important determinant, playing out over time, as different empires and nations rise and crumble. Old grudges reappear in different form as attempts are made to settle scores. Many of the present day inter-regional conflicts can be associated with the following:

1. Left over business of World War II, falling empires, and end of colonialism that led to the creation of present day nation-states.
2. Shifting balance of religious dominance, such as that between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. And there are tussles with in religions for example between Shiite and Sunni Islam – spearheaded by Iran and Saudi Arabia, and joined by Turkey recently. And then there is the Eastern Orthodox Church, which Putin energizes. And more importantly, how these trend correlates with the role of religion in politics.
3. War Against Extremism
4. Rise and fall of different political and economic systems: from communism to capitalism – and from authoritarianism to democracy etc.
5. Struggle for the balance of power and resources between the regional and global powers, which is now taking place in a setting of climate change and Coronavirus pandemic.

The Corona Factor

While most of the characteristics laid out above represent a consistent part of the cycle of change and conflict as the world knows them. However, it is the climate change, and now the Coronavirus, that have seriously altered the dynamics and the struggle for the balance of power and resources.

Balance between Liberals and Conservatives and Nationalists

In many parts of the Islamic world, economies had already been suffering under the corrupt rulers, often supported by the West. These governments have focused most of their efforts on self-preservation than on the uplift of the masses. In the war against extremism with extraordinary focus on security, the fiscal systems have been further destabilized. This has lead to increased internal polarization, in which the space for liberals has been continually shrinking while the conservatives and nationalists are consistently on the rise, which also translates in to a growing role for religion in politics and governance.

Public versus Private Government Stances

In their efforts to promote their reign and retain western support, the leadership of these nations often went against the very fabric of public sentiment. This caused them to keep their political dealings private – away from the scrutiny of the public. This was the case during the Musharraf era and subsequent political set-ups in Pakistan that privately supported the drone strikes in the tribal areas – but publicly criticized them.

It is also true when it comes to the positions of Gulf States on sensitive matters such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Kashmir. On one hand, these states have grown closer to Israel and India – while mostly remaining silent on Indian and Israeli brutalities against Kashmiri and Palestinian Muslims. While this may have gained them temporary allocates in the West – the long-term implications of such policies are serious, and the gap between their public and private stances have grown wider and in some cases becoming unsustainable.

This divergence is even visible in the treatment of Uighur Muslims in China or when it came to Russian activities in Chechnya and Dagestan. Muslim states have kept quite on these maters because their national interests often converge with Russia and China on other important issues. Moreover, in the aftermath of 9/11 many movements and abuses of human rights have been conveniently lumped in to the category of extremism.

Political Governance

Added to this maze is the dynamics of Coronavirus. The dysfunctional systems in many of these nations were hardly able to deliver during normal times – let alone during the uncertain present. Moreover, the elongated war against extremism and prevalent corruption have eaten up and eroded the moral compass of these societies. With declining economies, the liberal and the ruling class are likely to be increasingly in the eye of the storm – as they are unable to deliver on the most basic services and provide security and opportunities for their citizens. This will push government to take on even more nationalistic and conservative stances.

In the long run, this will likely lead to more protests and upheavals, as the voices and messages of the extreme factions are gaining traction. We saw a glimpse of this even in the developing world, where the death of George Floyd at the hands of the police in the US led to the unleashing of long pent-up grievances.

Conclusion

As the economies crumble under the weight of COVID-19, many nations are unlikely to survive the Coronavirus induced struggles for the balance of power. Moreover, the fiscal pressures are likely to promote fissures along racial and religious lines. These outcomes will aggravate the tussles of new winners and losers – that will emerge as the tentacles of the virus spread wider and deeper.

This is amply at display in places like Lebanon and Jordan, with large refugee populations. According to World Bank estimate the tourism has dropped by almost 50 percent in Jordan, which constitutes almost 14 percent of its GDP. Moreover, with the return of many expatriates employed in the Gulf region, it has seriously impacted the inflow of foreign remittances. With the drop in oil revenues, it’s unclear if the oil rich Arab nations will be able to continue funding the geopolitical games in Yemen, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Libya.

Moreover, it would be difficult for these governments to maintain their previous private stances, especially if India and Israel were to move forward with unilateral moves – like India displayed last year by abolishing the special status of Kashmir, and through possible West Bank annexation by Israel. And in this context, as the Coronavirus induced economic vows become more transparent; the political and governance challenges will manifold posing grave risks to the internal stability and state viability.

The post Coronavirus And Arab Spring 2.0 appeared first on Politact.

Since its advent, Coronavirus has been creating social, economic, and political havoc around the world. In this, US has been most adversely impacted. More than 100,000 Americans have died, a larger number than any other country. The economic impact is still unfolding and more than 41 million have lost their jobs. As expected, the lower stratum of the society was acutely impacted, including minorities. However, up to this point it had not taken on a racial dimension.

The death of two black Americans, Ahmaud Arbery in Georgia, and subsequently George Floyd in Minnesota, have now transfused the economic impact of COVID-19 along racial lines. Inequality, poverty, and racial tensions are a consistent part of the American social landscape that boil over from time to time, but in the COVID-19 atmosphere they pose a unique concern and risk. And while the racial tensions have a unique setting in the US, many other nations are likely to face similar stresses and riots if the economic downturn continues.

The messaging from President Trump appears to be further complicating race relations. Then there is the polarization developing from the policies adopted by the Republican and Democratic Party to deal with the pandemic and in preparation for the upcoming elections.

In the COVID-19 environment, President Trump is appealing to the right wing white supremacists and big businesses, while the Democrats want to harness the minorities and the small businesses. This is creating a volatile political environment. Moreover, President Trump is against electronic voting that may have to be implemented if the Coronavirus related circumstances prevail. For this, Trump recently ran in to a quarrel with Twitter – on being factually incorrect.

For all intents and purposes, March to May represented the first phase of the pandemic in the US. The businesses were shutdown and the society went into a lockdown. The government provided needy citizens and businesses direct financial assistance to deal with the dire economic consequences. However, as lockdowns are being lifted in phases, many of the assumptions being made are likely to be tested in the next three months i.e., from June to August. For example,

1. Will the opening up lead to increase in the spread of the disease – and will the health care system be able to deal with it?
2. Will the business activity recover quickly enough, which is key to the viability of many businesses?
3. With millions out of job and looking for assistance, will they continue to be able to get government assistance if the crisis prolongs?
4. Will the government continue to suspend evictions from homes and rental properties due to non-payment?

What steps the government takes to address the present and upcoming challenges, carry high stakes as protests continue. While the Democratic Party wants to offer a new economic assistance package for the impacted Americans, the Republican Party appears to be delaying it stating that they want to observe how the earlier stimulus package was utilized. Under pressure from big businesses, the Republic Party wants to lift lockdowns and have also attempted to safeguard businesses from liabilities if a person acquires Coronavirus at work.

On the other hand, by involving the military to calm the situation President Trump wants to appear strong and for law and order, while the Democratic Party leaders have criticized the move to involve the military. Albeit a few, most members of the House of Representatives and Senate are conspicuously missing from the media and debate related to the racial tensions, and the matters have mostly been relegated to the Governors, Mayors, and Police Chiefs. With the elections fast approaching, the politicians are aware of the sensitivity and don’t want to get caught on the wrong footing.

Delivering a statement on Twitter, Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill stated, “We cannot allow any Commander in Chief to put our Armed Forces’ reputation as the last institution Americans can trust and respect at risk by using them unlawfully and putting them in a position of exacerbating the divisions driving our union apart. … Threatening military force and imprisonment against Americans exercising their Constitutional rights is not Presidential, it’s tin-pot dictatorial.”

If the riots spread further, they are likely to incorporate other long entrenched economic and social grievances and upset the multicultural setting of the US. Already there are signs; some elements want to aggravate the riots and confrontation for their own political ends – that would escalate the anti-globalization and anti-immigration agenda.

Thus the politics of Coronavirus can convert inter-racial tensions in to an ideological tussle between the haves and have-nots. The political parties will have to adapt to the new reality. The masses, the proletariat, will need more assistance than usual, and the Republican Party will not be able to continue toeing the corporate line – and at the same time maintain the system. And with the decreasing tax base, it’s unclear how the government would continue to provide social services and safety nets for its citizens. And in this context, the whole social contract is at stake in the US and around the globe.

The post Coronavirus, Race Relations, And Upcoming US Elections appeared first on Politact.

Context

PoliTact’s Chief Analyst Arif Ansar discusses the emerging positions of Pakistan and the US on Afghanistan in a VOA Urdu Program ‘View 360’. Other guests included Marvin Weinbaum of the Middle East Institute, Shuja Nawaz from the Atlantic Council, and Adil Najam from Boston University.

In the aftermath of the January 20^th attack on the Intercontinental Hotel in Kabul, US conducted a drone strike in the Kurram Tribal Agency of Pakistan. US claims the attack targeted commanders linked to the Haqqani Network, while Pakistan stated that the drone strike was aimed at an Afghan refugee camp.

Pakistan went on the add the drone strike validate its claim that there are no safe havens for Afghan Taliban on its territory. However, Haqqani Network can hide or merge with the Afghan refugees, and therefore they need to be repatriated quickly. US was quick to deny this assertion that it struck an Afghan refugee camp in the area.

Strategic Insight

In all likelihood, each time there is a significant attack in Afghanistan, Pakistan will be targeted in some fashion. One of the ways Pakistan will respond is by speeding up the Afghan refugee repatriation, which will inflict a cost on the Afghan government. The Ghani government is usually quick to blame Pakistan for supporting the Afghan Taliban to conduct these attacks in Afghanistan.

This pattern will likely continue when the next attack happens, as the one that took place today in Kabul using a bomb-laden Ambulance. Media reports indicate close to 95 people were killed and 158 wounded. Will the US restrict itself to drone strikes in the tribal areas, and how Pakistan will react, could further escalate tensions.

It remains unclear how this pattern will impact the budding Afghan peace process. Representatives from the Afghan Taliban have recently met with Pakistani, Chinese, and Turkish officials. One could assume that this emerging trend may be to establish an upper hand on any peace talks.

The post Deteriorating Situation Of Afghanistan And The Emerging US-Pakistan Ties appeared first on Politact.

A media discussion on a VOA Urdu Program Jahan Rang hosted by Behjat Gilani on December 10, 2017. The Panel included:

Arif Ansar, Chief Analyst, POLITACT, Washington DC
Sangeen Shah (Tariq Ahmed), Senior Research Fellow, Kings College, London
Dr. Asim Yousafzai, Analyst of Geopolitics, Kent University, USA

Listen to the Interview (first 35 minutes)

Strategic Insight

For many President Trump’s decision to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem came as a surprise. However, the changes in the political, economic and security landscape of the Middle East have been pointing in this direction for a number of years now. PoliTact had noted this trajectory in July 2015 as the emerging ‘Outside In Approach’ to the Middle East peace process. The variable influencing this move involve the dynamics associated with War against Extremism, Arab Spring, Iran-Saudi tussles, and the ongoing Syrian conflict.

Now that the US has taken the decision, there is an urgency to understand the wider peace plan being envisioned by the Trump Administration and preserving the two-state solution. Delaying the unveiling of this plan can cause adversaries to exploit the circumstances, especially against the Muslim allies of the US.

Furthermore, the most immediate beneficiaries of this decision can be the non-state actors participating in the War against Extremism. Groups such as Daesh and AQ will use it to strengthen their narrative against the role of UN and its failure to peacefully resolve long simmering Palestinian issue and Kashmir. This will pose acute challenges in the way of countering the ideological narrative being used by the extremists, which has already been diluted by the global power struggle.

While Daesh has been physically defeated in Iraq and Syria, reports indicate they are strengthening in Afghanistan, posing an emerging threat to the reconciliation efforts there, and to the wider South and Central Asia region. Deash and Associates are also likely to exploit Muslim resentments related to Kashmir and Rohingya genocide. This scenario was explored in PoliTact’s April 2015 assessment: Can IS jeopardize Afghan Peace Process and Pakistan India ties?

The post President Trump’s Jerusalem Decision And Winning The Fight Against Extremism appeared first on Politact.

Context

In the increasing global volatility, US had come to symbolize stability and continuity. However, the election of Donald Trump signifies this would no longer be the case. The unfolding reality has created a new level of uncertainty in world affairs, especially for allies under NATO and the European Union (EU). The EU was already struggling under the dramatic blow of Brexit, and now the Trump administration has decided to pull out of the Trans- Pacific Partnership (TPP), and the future of Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is also unclear.

Ethnic nationalism and protectionism is taking over the forces of globalization, and bilateralism is replacing multilateralism. But how did US reach this point. Back in July 2016, PoliTact had noted:

“The grave local and global challenges being confronted by the US are multifaceted and may not be resolvable by the politics of election cycles. The political jockeying can help parties win elections, but if they are able to actually resolve issues, is questionable. In fact, the problems and challenges are getting worse. If and when, America develops the will to conduct a system level correction, it will have profound global implications.”

So is the Trump administration carrying out the system level correction pointed out above, and which Trump calls “drain the swamp”. While it certainly appears to be, so far the answer seems murky. But what does reform in the system mean in the American context?

Analysis

It can be broadly referred to the relevance of American constitution and the election system. Then there are issues related to the influence of the lobbyists, corporations and interest groups. Thirdly, there are challenges connected to how strong the American institutions have become to control policy making, or implement the mandate of people exercised through the elected representatives.

In a nutshell, is the American system of checks and balances operating as the founders and the framers of the constitution intended? Or put in other words, is the system working for the benefit of the people – or for the few.

Campaign Financing

The New York Times op-ed columnist David Brooks reflected in May 2012:

“The American decentralized system of checks and balances has transmogrified into a fragmented system that scatters responsibility. Congress is capable of passing laws that give people benefits with borrowed money, but it gridlocks when it tries to impose self-restraint.”

The economic recession and banking scandals revealed what the unchecked association between money and power can do to the system. The representatives of the people are now caught between serving powerful interests groups or the welfare of common people, and the recent scandals reveal they have repeatedly chosen the former. The political leaders are dependent on funds they generate from the interest groups to contest elections, and they cannot afford to alienate them.

In a surprising ruling in 2010, the US Supreme Court gave corporations the permission to spend unlimited amounts of money to get their favored candidates elected and the despised ones defeated. The dissenting justices opined, “this threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation.”

A Washington Post editorial noted at the time, “It was wrong because nothing in the First Amendment dictates that corporations must be treated identically to people. And it was dangerous because corporate money, never lacking in the American political process, may now overwhelm both the contributions of individuals and the faith they may harbor in their democracy.”

Seemingly, these concerns have not been entertained. The situation has worsened to the extent that people have questioned how the complicated American Electoral College works. Irrespective of the original intent – it apparently dilutes the will of the people.

Fiscal Politics

In 2012, one of the critical battles complicating the American elections was how to address the then approaching ‘fiscal cliff’. A bi-partisan Super Committee was formed and instructed to come up with a working solution to the mounting budget deficit by Nov 23rd, 2011. Many seasoned politicians, including Senator Kerry, had warned at the time that inability to find a solution by the deadline, as had occurred, would make deficits a major issue in the presidential election. By law, the committee’s failure to develop a budget deal would automatically trigger spending reductions on October 1st, 2012, cutting $1.2 trillion from the military, education, health care and other priorities over the next decade.

The major bone of contention between the Republicans and Democrats was obviously what programs to cut. US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta had alerted lawmakers earlier not to implement a “doomsday mechanism” that would have resulted in Pentagon budget slashed by $600bn, saying that these cuts could severely threaten US national security. The cuts were only supposed to kick in if the Super Committee fails to secure a deal on budget savings.

On the other hand, President Obama faced stiff opposition from the Republicans on increasing tax on the rich to tackle the alarming US deficit. The Republicans had opposed the plan such as the ‘Buffet Tax’.

The debate between the two parties reflected their traditional world view. The Republican’s do not like to tax the rich and see it as counterproductive to inducing more investments. Moreover, they like to cut social programs, from which mostly the lower middle class and poor benefit. They are considered strong on issues of national security and thus they defend defense budgets. On the other hand, Democrats usually increase social spending that results in bigger government and want to tax the rich more and the middle class less.

The prominence of the debate on fiscal matters had given rise to the popularity of Tea Party Movement. The Tea Party believes in a nationalistic agenda with focus on balancing the budget and stopping the deficit spending. More specifically, it stands for ending the influence of special interest.

Now that Republicans have won, the defense spending is being increased and many social programs, including Obama Care are on the chopping block. According to CNN, the White House has instructed to cut the budget for State Department, US mission to the United Nations, including US peace making and development assistance, nearly by half. But how will this be beneficial for the Americans who have suffered from globalization and economic recession remains unclear.

On the other hand, presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders has put forth a 12-point agenda for America. This agenda focuses on themes such as rebuilding the crumbling infrastructure, raising minimum wage, implementing trade policies for the benefit of American workers, and taking on Wall Street etc.

Trump Phenomenon

It is in this context that we need to understand the Trump phenomena. He exploited that rage of the people against status quo and the establishment, when the economic prospects of many Americans have dwindled under the forces of globalization and economic recession.

Many claim that Trump did not need the support of corporations and the Wall Street to win the election, and this is why he is uniquely positioned to reform the system. With the appointment of many billionaires and executives from the Wall Street and mega Banks, that proposition has been silently laid to rest.

Another assumption is that Trump will ultimately have to compromise to win the support of other politicians and to develop consensus. This point is also being tested. Since Trump won the elections despite opposition from Republican heavies, it is questionable if he would adjust to their pressure. It is more likely the Republican Party would have to bend over backward to accommodate him, as oppose to the other way around. Trumps posses heavy sway on the constituents of these politicians, and they would probably be dislodged if they decide to go against Trump.

As policy deliberations move forward, conflicting statements continue to emanate from the top leadership regarding the future direction. In essence, the nationalistic economic agenda does not rhyme well with the US foreign policy, and aligning these will not be easy. It’s not clear how cutting social programs and resources for diplomacy, giving a free hand to Wall Street and the Banks that created the economic disaster, while increasing the defense budget, will rectify the ‘American Carnage’ Trump identified in his inaugural speech.

American Exceptionalism and Diversity

Making America great would have to be based on what US has become not what it was.

Countering Putin’s article in the New York Times on September 11, 2013, Obama had stated America is indeed exceptional, and it will act when there are justifiable moral and greater reasons to do so. “But I believe America is exceptional. In part because we have shown a willingness through the sacrifice of blood and treasure to stand up not only for our own narrow self interest, but for the interest of all.”

The query for Americans to address is: will the future policies be framed on the basis of how diverse it has become – or premised on revisionist tendencies? And this inquiry is especially relevant to the role of American Muslims, and other minorities, as the homegrown threats related to extremism become more acute. American’s would have to question that despite having a dynamic Muslim population, why is the nation loosing leverage in the Muslim world to other players, who have dismal record on dealing with their minorities.

The post Understanding The Change in America – How To Make America Great Again? appeared first on Politact.

Context

by Dr Claude Rakisits

Following Senator Ted Cruz’s much expected defeat of Donald Trump in the 5 April Wisconsin primary, Trump’s goal of winning the majority of delegates by the time the Republican Party holds its convention in July has now become even more elusive. Although the odds of becoming his party’s presidential candidate are against him, it’s still possible that he could receive the nomination even if he doesn’t win in the first ballot. He is, after all, a great ‘deal-maker’ as he keeps reminding everyone.

Accordingly, it’s important to examine Donald Trump’s views of some of the critical international issues he would need to deal with were he to get to the Oval Office. And, quite frankly, based on the few statements on foreign affairs he’s made on the campaign trail, most of them incoherent and unfocused, there’s little to feel confident about. Quite the contrary; were Trump to implement some of his convoluted and confused ideas on foreign affairs, the world would undoubtedly be a more dangerous place.

Let’s look at some of the remarks he’s made on foreign policy, particularly on three issues that would have deep ramifications for the Asia Pacific region and Middle East.

Analysis

Dealing with China

In a wide-ranging interview with The Washington Post in March, Trump was asked what he thought about China’s aggressive behavior in the South China Sea and how he would deal with the situation. He argued that the best way to halt China’s militarization of the artificial islands would be to threaten its access to the US market. He repeated that threat in another long interview with The New York Times.

While China does hold some $4 trillion of US reserves, in the long-run China’s access to the US market is critical for its continued economic growth which is heavily dependent on being able to export its cheap products. But more importantly, continued economic growth is vital to the survival of the Chinese Communist Party. So if such a measure were implemented by a Trump administration, it’s unlikely that Beijing would simply roll over. Furthermore, the financial knock-on effects for the rest of the world of a trade showdown between its two largest economies would be enormous.

US Military Ties with South Korea and Japan

Staying in the Asia Pacific, Trump has repeatedly stated that he doesn’t believe the US gains anything by having bases in South Korea and Japan. Accordingly, he said that he would pull US forces from the two countries unless the host governments ‘substantially increased their contributions to the costs of housing and feeding those troops.

Scaling back the US military’s presence in such a manner would be welcomed heartily by Beijing, as those bases are the linchpin of American primacy in Northeast Asia. It would also ring alarm bells with America’s edgy regional allies and friends who are already worried about Washington’s commitment to the rebalance. It would force regional countries to increase their defense spending to compensate for the US withdrawal. But, more worrisome, it would most likely make regional allies less supportive of America’s approach to the region which would in make it easier for China to assert itself in the Asia Pacific.

However, much more alarming than the military vacuum which an American departure from Northeast Asia would create is Trumps statement that he would be open to allowing Japan and South Korea to build their own nuclear arsenals rather than depend on the American nuclear umbrella.

Such a dangerous policy position goes against the many international agreements and protocols designed to limit nuclear weapons proliferation. If such a position became official policy in a Trump administration, it isn’t possible to sufficiently stress how destabilizing it would be to have two additional nuclear-armed countries in an already highly toxic and dangerous environment as is Northeast Asia. Moreover, it would give the green light for other countries to develop their own nuclear weapons, essentially beginning an Asia Pacific arms race.

Dealing with the Middle East

Turning to the Middle East, Trump has also indicated that because the US is now less dependent on Middle Eastern oil than it was before, there’s less reason for US troops to remain there. As with a withdrawal from bases in Northeast Asia, a US military withdrawal from the Gulf the US 5th Fleet is based in Bahrain would be a strategic disaster. Another military vacuum would be created, making it more difficult for the US to protect its allies, including Israel, and its vital strategic interests in the region.

With the Americans gone, Iran would easily fill the vacuum and further expand its presence in the wider Middle East. Already Iran is playing a destabilizing role by supporting militarily the al-Assad regime in Syria, backing its ally Hezbollah in Lebanon, and having a major influence on the Iraqi government. With an American withdrawal, the Iranians now free of the sanctions shackles would feel emboldened to press their presence even more, making the Saudis and the other Gulf states very nervous indeed. And it would give the already restive Shiite population in the Gulf countries a boost in confidence in their opposition to the Sunni-dominated Gulf governments. That would mean bad news for the stability of the Middle East.

So in the unlikely event that Trump wins the Republican Party nomination and, even more improbably, goes on to win the general election in November, we could expect radical changes to the White House’s approach to some of the more pressing foreign affairs issues. For all intents and purposes, Trump wants to rip up the post-WWII international order but without suggesting an alternative to replace it.

In that regard, he’s effectively a crypto-anarchist disguised as an isolationist. Fortunately Congress would be there to block or dilute any ill-considered foreign affairs decisions by President Trump. However, that isn’t the way for a superpower to run an effective foreign policy. On the contrary, such a scenario would undoubtedly be exploited by China and Russia, which could only mean bad news for global stability.

A version of this article also appeared in the blog for Australian Strategic Policy Institute, The Strategist.

The post American Elections: Trump’s Dangerous Foreign Policy Outlook appeared first on Politact.

Context 

By Adam Patterson

Despite the fact that al-Qaeda is responsible for the deadliest attack on U.S. soil, and that dismantling the terror apparatus was Washington’s primary motive for occupying Afghanistan, the burgeoning of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) is a development that has eluded much of the American public. Yet, since the Saudi Arabian-led military coalition launched “Operation Decisive Storm” on March 26 of this year, Osama bin Laden’s former cohorts in AQAP have effectively transformed their organization into an occupying militia. This development has largely escaped the U.S. mainstream media’s radar.

Lacking significant oil reserves, Yemen has not experienced an influx of wealth as have neighboring Saudi Arabia and other nearby Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states. As a result, it has become increasingly insular. Yemen has long attracted Sunni revivalists and assorted religious purists. The Yemeni strain of Arabic is believed to be the closest to that spoken during the times of the Prophet. Those with an especially austere, fundamentalist vision of Islam have flocked to Yemen believing that the area remains uncorrupted. The world’s most reactionary Sunni Muslims (frequently labeled Wahhabis or Salafists) share a special reverence for their vision of the early Muslim caliphate. Those who migrate to Yemen on these grounds do so to invoke the past and to promote a revival of their absolutist interpretation of Islam.

AQAP’s strong presence in Yemen long predates the country’s 2011 breakdown of civil authority, when the group constituted more of a hostile nuisance than a martial threat. According to reports, the al-Qaeda branch began germinating in the Arabian Peninsula during the 1990s and gradually rose to prominence as a regular instigator of violence following the escalation of Washington’s war on terror during the 2000s.

Analysis

Fertile Land For Global Jihadists

This unique situation drew Anwar al-Awlaki, the influential preacher and al-Qaeda recruiter, to Yemen in 2004. Hardline jihadists view the impoverished country as fertile ground in an ideological sense, while petroleum speculators have long regarded Yemen as barren. American-born Anwar al-Awlaki was a gifted agitator for Sunni jihadism, speaking English fluently in addition to commanding a poetic grasp of Arabic. He ultimately chose Yemen in which to exhibit his disreputable talents, which included the skill of attracting Anglophone recruits.

Al-Awlaki’s relocation to Yemen was part of a greater tide, one that has been met with increasing retaliation from both U.S. intelligence and Yemen’s local authorities. Drone strikes in Yemen became common early in the Obama administration, one of which killed al-Awlaki in 2011. Certain analysts suggested that the al-Qaeda recruiter became a regional commander within AQAP and was instrumental in overseeing the logistics of terror attacks, including the failed explosion aboard Northwest Airlines Flight 253. Despite his ignominious death, al-Awlaki’s presence still lingers in the jihadist psyche.

Yemen’s collapse into civil war was a catalyst for AQAP’s regional ambitions, plans that would have likely remained unrealized had the country not splintered itself into mutually antagonistic pieces. Evidence suggests that hundreds of foreign jihadists have filtered into Yemen since unified rule collapsed in 2011, drawn by the opportunities presented by a fractured central government in a failed state awash with arms caches. In a series of decisive skirmishes, AQAP began rapidly claiming territory outside of major cities and overcoming government forces. As of July 2015, AQAP holds terrain in the northern hinterlands of the Hadramaut Governorate (situated along the Saudi Arabian border) and in much of the Abyan Governorate (situated along Yemen’s southern coast). Al-Qaeda’s growing control in Yemen can be compared to the rise of AQAP’s Syrian counterpart, Jabhat al-Nusra, and of Daesh (“Islamic State”), which followed the rebellion against the Damascus regime in 2011.

One of the interesting components of the jihadists’ shift in priorities is the diminished emphasis on attacking the West. The previous generation of terror organizations have transformed from sleeper cells and shadow elements into openly declared militias. The focus of their aggression has been capturing and occupying contested territories in failed states. As a result, violence against the West is often waived off to copycats and supporters in Europe and North America determined to execute improvised lone wolf attacks. In recent weeks, AQAP has doubled down on this tactic, issuing two proclamations in early August that praised lone-wolf style attacks and exhorted aspiring jihadists to “strike America in its own home and beyond.”

In an extension of this doctrine, the organization has prioritized planned terror attacks in areas they hope to directly influence. AQAP’s bombings appear localized and often symbolic with an August 6 attack obliterating a 700-year old Sufi mosque in the Yemeni province of Lahj. In this case the perceived enemy is close both in terms of geography and religion with the target being a mystical order of Islam that is heretical according to AQAP’s worldview.

In contrast to the more reckless jihadi groups claiming territory in Syria and Iraq, AQAP’s style of operations appears more measured and procedural. They are less prone to the abrupt gains and losses that have characterized Daesh’s campaigns. Keeping in mind that Yemen is a different theater than the Levant, AQAP’s expansion in the area has been one of gradual encroachment. Yet, like Daesh, AQAP is comprised of opportunists, though they seem much more astute at calibrating logistical boundaries. In contrast to the recent blindsiding of Daesh at the hands of Kurdish Peshmerga fighters, AQAP appears less likely to overextend itself.

AQAP’s Prospects in Yemen

The return of a unified civil authority in Yemen would serve as the most effective counter to AQAP’s expansion. Unfortunately, all signs point to this being unlikely in the immediate future. Terror organizations by definition function in the least observable fringes, generally being unable to expose themselves in the face of disciplined martial and policing oversight. AQAP appears to have picked up steam in Yemen because their status as marginal figures has enabled them to bide their time and emerge only when more powerful factions with governmental roots began engaging one another.

Corralling al-Qaeda’s Yemeni branch has become less of a priority for locals now that Sunni and Shi’ite/Zaydi factions have turned their guns upon each other. Saudi Arabia’s military incursion into Yemen bodes poorly for the defeat of AQAP. Riyadh’s aggression breaks down largely along sectarian lines, with their hostility focused primarily on the Houthi rebels. Recent evidence suggests that AQAP has become an ally of convenience for the House of Al Saud, with terrorist militants fighting alongside Saudi-backed militias during open skirmishes. As long as al-Qaeda remains antagonistic toward the local Shi’ite/Zaydi Muslims of Yemen, AQAP will remain well out of Saudi Arabia’s line of fire. Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi, the president of Yemen’s ousted government, currently rules in exile from Riyadh. His ongoing protection under the Saudi banner practically guarantees that the Houthis will have to contend with AQAP as a tactical ally of the kingdom.

Unless the Houthis and their Sunni enemies reach a détente, or one side scores a decisive victory on the ground, AQAP is well poised to continue asserting control over portions of territory in Yemeni hinterlands by simple virtue of exploiting the martial chaos. Peace by any means would constitute the clearest threat to AQAP’s power because this would force local Sunnis to contend with pressure from Washington to either suppress or eliminate the al-Qaeda branch. Considering that the crisis in Yemen is escalating by the day, however, al-Qaeda is likely to sustain its position as a major power in the war-torn country, a thorn in the side of Houthi rebels, and a beacon for militant jihadists.

Adam Patterson is a Washington, DC-based analyst of international security topics, with a special focus on insurgency and conflict in Arab states.

This article is being published in affiliation with Gulf State Analytics

The post Al Qaeda And The Interplay Of Extremist Groups In Yemen appeared first on Politact.

Context

By Dr Claude Rakisits

The four-month old military operation in North Waziristan – Operation Zarb-e-Azb – and the smaller, more recent one in the Khyber Agency – Operation Khyber-I – against the various militant groups holed up in those areas have been successful, but only in a limited way. While the military capability of the Tereek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), the umbrella grouping for a large number of Pakistan-based militant organisations, has undoubtedly been degraded, many of the fighters have either fled across the border into Afghanistan, or they have found refuge in Pakistan’s urban centres, particularly in Karachi. So while in the short-term terrorism may have been held at bay, in the long-term Pakistan’s terrorism problem is far from being resolved.

According to official military sources, well over 1000 militants have been killed. And over a 100 tonnes of ammunition and explosives have been recovered. Of course, there is no independent source to confirm these figures. But what we can correctly assume is that apart from Mohammad Hassan, a senior TTP commander, none of the top commanders or militant leaders has been killed because had this happened their corpses would have been displayed by the military as war trophies.

But while none of the politically heavies has been captured or killed, the operations have undoubtedly disrupted the TTP’s network which it had established, especially in North Waziristan. As a result many of these fighters have had to flee across the border, where they have established safe havens. While this may be good news in the short-term, in that these terrorists have left Pakistani soil, in the long-term this is bad news for Pakistan in that the militants will have the opportunity to re-group and re-arm in order to cross back over into Pakistan in the future.

Analysis

Fractured TTP

Among those who were able to flee across the border were the high-value commanders from the Haqqani Network and the Gul Bahadur group. They were able to do so because of the much publicised lead time that they were given that a major military operation was about to be launched. This will be bad news for the future stability of Afghanistan because they will have joined their brothers-in-arm to fight the Afghan security forces and the departing Western troops. This will not help an already fragile Afghanistan.

These military operations have also accelerated the fracturing of the TTP, a process which had already started following the replacement of their leader, Hakimullah Mehsud, who was killed in a drone strike in November 2013. Divisions were also sharpened over the approach to take vis-à-vis the unsuccessful peace talks initiated in February 2014 by the government of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. However, it was the selection of Maulana Fazlullah, a non-Mehsud, as successor to Hakimullah which caused the greatest resentment within the ranks of the TTP, particularly among the Mehsud. Given the military importance of the Mehsud tribe in the TTP, the Mehsud feel that one of their own should be leading the TTP. An additional factor causing further bitterness inside the TTP is the fact that Fazlullah is not living among his fighters but is hiding across the border in the Kunar province of Afghanistan.

As a result of these deep divisions, the TTP has fractured into a number of different components. The first big split was caused by Maulana Qasim Omar Khorasani, alias Abdul Wali, who was head of the TTP in Mohmand Agency. Khorasani publicly disagreed with Fazullah regarding the peace talks with the government. Accordingly, after having been expelled from the TTP, he established Ahrar-ul-Hind (Freedom of India) which eventually morphed into the Tehreek-e-Taliban Jamaatul Ahrar (TTPJA, Assembly of Freedom), reportedly taking with him over 50 percent of the TTP’s senior commanders. He firmly believes that Sharia law must be implemented throughout Pakistan. Even among his fellow terrorists, he is considered ruthless. He was responsible for ordering the execution of 23 Frontier Corps personnel, who had been held prisoner for the last three and half years, during the peace talks in February 2014. This terrorist act ended the talks once and for all.

The other big split is within the Mehsud tribe itself, with two factions vying for supremacy, often very violently. One is led by Sheriyar Mehsud, a loyalist of the late Hakimullah, who mainly leads the younger TTP members and is based in South Waziristan. The other faction is headed by Khan Said, alias Sajna, who used to be a close confidante of Khorasani and is principally in North Waziristan. Reportedly, he is interested in entering into peace talks with the Pakistan government.

Punjabi Taliban

Finally, there is the Punjabi Taliban, headed by Asmatullah Muawiya, which decided in September 2014 that it would abandon its armed struggle in Pakistan and no longer target the security forces and government representatives but would instead focus on promoting Sharia law. It would, however, continue its armed operations in Afghanistan. If this is indeed the case, the Punjabi Taliban’s withdrawal from the terrorism business will be a major victory for the government of Nawaz Sharif. This group has carried out many spectacular terrorist attacks in the past, including the 2009 assault on the Pakistan Army’s general headquarters in Rawalpindi; the attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team in Lahore in 2009; and the 2011 raid on the naval airbase at Mehran.

IS and Taliban

Further weakening Fazullah’s precarious hold on what is left of the TTP is the recent decision by six leading TTP figures – Shahidullah Shahid, Hafiz Saeed Khan, Hafiz Daulat Khan, Maulana Gul Zaman, Mufti Hassan and Khalid Mansoor – to swear allegiance to the Islamic State (IS)(alias the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria alias the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant). What this means in practical, military terms is difficult to assess today. However, what it does mean is that Al-Qaeda’s pull in Pakistan is weakening and that its level of influence has diminished under the leadership of Ayman Al Zawahri. His public stunt of creating a South Asia branch of Al-Qaeda did little to hide this. On the contrary, it confirmed its desperate search for relevance in the wake of IS’s meteoric rise in the world of terrorism. The decision by the leader of the Pakistan-based Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan to also swear allegiance to IS in October 2014 was further confirmation of Al-Qaeda’s fast diminishing weight in Pakistan’s tribal areas.

Implications

So what do all the above developments mean in the battle against terrorism in Pakistan? In the short-term, it is on the whole good news for the government of Nawaz Sharif. The TTP is now more divided, which means that the different factions have to compete over limited resources, including human and financial. This means its capability has been diminished and therefore so has its threat. Moreover, if the government is able to cut a genuine peace deal with the Khan Said faction of the Mehsuds that would further diminish the TTP’s terrorist reach. However, it is important to note that a fractured TTP, with each faction acting independently, does complicate the military’s ability to destroy it, or for the government to enter into negotiations with the organization as a whole.

However, in the long-term, terrorism in Pakistan remains a genuine threat. As noted above, many of the TTP commanders and leaders and their fighters have crossed the border into Afghanistan where they have joined their fellow ideological travelers and established safe-havens. They will assist the Afghan Taliban pursue their goal of regaining power in Kabul. And given the fragility of the Afghan state and the Afghan Taliban’s recent military successes, such an outcome remains a distinct possibility.

Needless to say, a Taliban victory in Afghanistan would be extremely bad news for Pakistan because Islamabad could expect the Afghan Taliban to assist its Pakistani counterparts to also seek power in Pakistan. In the meantime, the Pakistan Taliban hiding across the border will conduct operations back into Pakistan and progressively seep back into the tribal areas. As for the Taliban fighters who fled to the cities of Pakistan to join the thousands of militants already living there, expect them to conduct terrorist acts against innocent civilians and government and military targets. Urban terrorism may quite possibly rise, possibly becoming a much greater threat than what Pakistan has had to endure to date. All in all, despite some of the recent military successes, Pakistan has not yet been cleansed of the terrorist scourge.

Note: A version of this article also appeared in the Foreign Policy Magazine and Defense Journal, Pakistan.

The post The State Of Terror In Pakistan appeared first on Politact.