Arab-Israel Normalization of Ties and US Middle East Policy

Context

With the normalization of ties between UAE, Bahrain and Israel, the so-called ‘Outside-In Approach’ to the Middle East Peace Process is now in full swing. Most GCC and Arab nations are on the way to normalizing of ties with Israel. This was predicted as regional situation dramatically shifted during the war against extremism, and as a consequence of Arab Spring. During this time, the threat perceptions of the Arabs have also gradually shifted away from Israel and towards Iran. What was the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, transformed in to an Arab-Israeli conflict, and now appears to have become Arab-Israeli versus Iran conflict.

At an event hosted by Atlantic Council on May 7, 2015, PoliTact’s Chief Analyst Arif Ansar asked the former US special envoy for the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations Martin Indyk, about how the Iranian nuclear deal and the US-Gulf partnership can help or hinder the Middle East Peace Process.

Martine Indyk replied that the prospects of a solution emerging from an ‘Inside Out’ approach i.e., from within Israel and Palestine, and independent of whatever else is going on in the Middle East, are not good. However, the potential for an ‘Outside In’ solution which has emerged because of the possible Iran nuclear deal and Israeli and Arab countries being on the same side, might emerge with positive response because of the new strategic alignment in the region.

The regional and global shift in the balance of power have also played a key role in this evolution – and caries critical implications for the South and Central Asia – and the strategic ties of India and Pakistan with the Gulf region – and for Afghan reconciliation and Kashmir quagmire by association. While there is a time during which the balance of power is in transition, obviously, there comes a time when the power shifts decisively and a new alignment starts to manifest. This is exactly what has transpired.

While PoliTact has been writing about the waning American influence in the non-Arab Islamic world, it had continued to maintain its sway in the Middle East and GCC. PoliTact has also recently contemplated and examined a scenario that explores why US would even want to maintain its presence in the Middle East – as it is now self-sufficient when it comes to energy needs. Moreover, if the region was left to implode, the global adversaries of China and Russia are likely to be more impacted.

And as such there is no direct threat from the region to the US, whether it be in the form of extremism or WMD. While no such weapons were discovered in Iraq, any such threat from Iran was curtailed as a result of Iran nuclear deal (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) reached in 2015 but later scuttled by President Trump. An argument can be made that the US policy towards Middle East now is mainly driven by protecting its regional ally Israel – and in turn its present and future allies. These new Arab allies will now likely take the frontal role in protecting Israel and could also become the main battlefield.

Future of War Against Extremism

The most used term during the Bush and Obama administrations that is no longer as popular is the War against Extremism. Several questions can be raised on why that is the case. Was the campaign won, the extremist ideologies that led to 9/11 eliminated, or were the organizations such as Al Qaeda (AQ) and Daesh (ISIS) dismantled. Moreover, what happened to the allies that were leading the fight against terrorists? The examination of these inquiries reveals clues about the emerging scenarios.

While the war against extremism has transformed, the risks to the Israel’s Arab allies are only quadrupling. The threats posed by the global extremists, such as AQ and ISIS and their associates, are only going to magnify after normalizing of their ties with Israel. After all the very premise these groups have used to inspire is their lack of action on the causes such as Palestine – along with allowing western military presence.

In addition, the dynamics of Arab Spring have been further aggravated by circumstances created by the Coronavirus pandemic and has limited the maneuvering space for many Arab states. Decreasing reliance on US for energy resources have left them further vulnerable and amenable to external pressures.

Nearly two decades of war against extremism has transformed societies and galvanized them towards nationalistic and conservative leaderships, such as Tayyab Erdogan in Turkey and Imran Khan in Pakistan. The political leaders close to the West, or needing their support, are no longer considered viable.

Global Power Dynamics

While the extending regional threat from Iran has been playing out in places like Yemen, Lebanon and Syria, the prospective China-Iran economic and security deal is a different ball game altogether. It has indicated that like Russia backed the Syrian regime, China appears willing to do that for Iran. And this is occurring at a time when Trump administration has completely reversed course on the Iran nuclear deal. It has exerted maximum pressure on the country to renegotiate the deal; now to encompass its missile program, accompanied by stricter monitoring, and wider behavior in the region.

The potential $400 billion China–Iran treaty must have been an ominous development from the perspective of the Arabs and the US. However, the talks have been proceeding for a while, and as has been the ‘Outside-In Approach’ to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Through its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), China has become an active player in the Middle East with strategic ties with a number of regional players, to include Saudi Arabia. As its influence increases gradually, it could become an active interlocutor between Israel and the Palestinians, and other conflicts of the Middle East. However, it’s not clear if China desires to get involved in the security affairs of the region, like Russia has in Syria.

Speaking at the Saudi embassy in China in July on the occasion of the 30 anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic ties, Saudi Ambassador Turki M. A. Almadi commented: “our relations are all-round, multi-field, not only about bilateral trade and mutual investment, but also extended to cooperation in the fields of culture, science and technology, and health.”

Zhai Jun, China’s special envoy on Middle East affairs indicated at the occasion that the bilateral trade volume between the two nations stood at $78.04 billion at the end of 2019. He added Saudi Arabia was the largest supplier of crude oil to China, and also the Arab nations largest trading partner.

Chinese analysts close to the government present a case the nation wants to be more involved in providing economic support than to get involved in security affairs of the Middle East. Nonetheless, it has good political and military relations with both Iran and Israel. As part of BRI, China has been extending its trade relations with Israel and lately US has objected strongly to some of them citing security concerns – such as the Chinese company Shanghai International Port Group (SIPG) running a container terminal at the Port of Haifa – near an Israeli naval base that is frequently visited by the US Sixth Fleet.

If the China-Israeli economic ties are allowed to strengthen uninhibited, overtime China will be able to build leverages that potentially can undercut US primacy in the affairs of the Middle East. The Israelis disagree on this, stating that the nature of its ties with China and the US are of totally different nature.

Conclusion

While Saudi Arabia has delayed recognizing the statehood of Israel, and Qatar remaining closer to Turkey, the shifting alliance of most GCC and Arab nations towards Israel and the US represents a decisive shift in the balance of power – that has serious costs associated with it. Adopting the threat perception that centers on Iran, and without any clear give and take on the Middle East Peace Process yet, is likely to revitalize the non-state actors.

While China has made an economic entry in the Middle East, it has not decided to influence the security affairs – other than under the umbrella of UN and for maritime security purposes. In Syria too, it has adopted a non-interventionist approach and has supported the Assad regime.

However, economic leverages will eventually lead to influences in other areas. And China would have to use its sway especially when it has the most to lose if a conflict breaks out in the region. One measure of if it’s heading in that direction would be the establishment of military bases, like the one in Djibouti, and potential militarization of Gwadar port. And in this context, the Iran-China economic and security deal takes on an added emphasis.

The post The Future Of Middle East Peace Process, Extremism, And China-Iran Deal appeared first on Politact.

Context

By Arif Ansar

PoliTact has previously noted that since 9/11 the threat perception of the Middle Eastern nations have transferred from being fixated on Israel to dealing with and countering violent extremism. A similar shift also occurred in South Asia, where the debate has continued if the threat Pakistan faces is primarily external or internal. More specifically, should Pakistan focus its defense and security strategies towards dealing with India, or fighting extremist groups that are specially targeting the country.

Despite years of effort, in the absence of political roadmap and deadlock on the diplomatic front, reaching a peaceful settlement to the perennial Arab-Israeli and Kashmir conflicts, appear remote. However, a new ‘Outside In’ approach is emerging in the Middle East that is equally applicable towards the Kashmir conflict and the Afghan political reconciliation. And it has to do with the change in the ecosystem in which these conflicts persist. Moreover, what appear to be the key challenges in the campaign against extremists, are also the key facilitators for the emerging approach.

At an event hosted by Atlantic Council on May 7 (video link), the author asked the former US special envoy for the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and the present executive vice president of Brookings Institution, Martin Indyk, about how the Iranian nuclear deal and the US-Gulf partnership can help or hinder the Middle East Peace Process. And now that a nuclear deal with Iran has been reached, this linkage is no longer just a hypothetical construct. His answer, and our research, points to the emerging approach.

Analysis

Understanding the Concept

Martine Indyk replied that the prospects of a solution emerging from an ‘Inside Out’ approach i.e., from with in Israel and Palestine, and independent of whatever else is going on in the Middle East, are not good. However, the potential for an ‘Outside In’ solution which has emerged because of the possible Iran nuclear deal and Israeli and Arab countries being on the same side, might emerge with positive response because of the new strategic alignment in the region.

Speaking at the Heritage Foundation, Israeli envoy to the US, Ron Dermer, recently commented along the same line:

“They used to believe the key to that [a rapprochement with the Arab word] was solving the Palestinian question, and there is no doubt that issue cannot be ignored,” Dermer said.

He continued: “But as the prime minister said a few months ago, I’m not so sure the reverse won’t be true, meaning that I don’t know if Israel and Palestinian peace will unlock wider rapprochement with the Arab world. It might be broader rapprochement with the Arab world will unlock Israeli-Palestinian peace. We should be focusing the next few years on how we can take advantage of this historic aligning of interests between Israel and our Arab neighbors.”

Key Elements of ‘Outside In’ Method In South Asia

As the theater for the war against terror expands unabated, the environments in which extremism persists in South Asia, Middle East and North Africa are also evolving. There are two particular impediments that are forcing the state actors to change their past policies towards non-state actors. These challenges ironically are also serving as the key facilitators for the evolving ‘Outside In’ method.

Multilateral Approaches

Firstly, without adopting a multilateral approach, it is difficult for any individual state to deal with extremism comprehensively. For example, in the context of South Asia, pressure on extremist groups in Afghanistan had made them slip over to the Pakistan side of the border. Now that Pakistan has acted forcefully through its operation Zarb-e-Azb, the extremists have crossed over to Afghanistan.

This reality has forced both nations to cooperate; especially when along with Afghanistan, the economic and security situation of Pakistan has also dwindled overtime. And if the trend continues, it would become very difficult for Pakistan to maintain its posture against its regional rival India.

Islamic State, Al Qaeda and their Associates

The other aspect has to do with the introduction of a new player in the extremist ecosystem of the region that goes by the name Islamic State (also known as ISIS, ISIL and Deash). While mixed reviews have emerged regarding the IS penetration in South Asia, the group does appear to be adding the pressure on different factions of Afghan and Pakistani Taliban. IS is aligning itself with those factions of Taliban that are against any kind of reconciliation in Afghanistan and the ones that are acting against the state of Pakistan.

If this pattern holds, IS is likely to undercut and weaken Al Qaeda’s (AQ) connection with its associates in the region. The associates are known to include Afghan and Pakistani Taliban, sectarian outfits, including jihadist groups oriented towards Kashmir and India. Allegedly, some of these entities are also under the influence of Pakistan.

In essence, IS can disrupt the traditional hierarchies and influences under which the extremist ecosphere has operated in the region and steal their long held platforms.

Transplanting the Circumstances of Middle East on South Asia

This can lead to a lot of infighting in a fashion similar to what is unfolding in the Middle East where the Sunni IS and AQ and associates are fighting with each other, and at the same time targeting governments of the region. On the other hand, Sunni nationalist groups such as Kurds and Shia non-state actor, Hezbollah, are proving quite effective in countering IS and AQ. Many claim that without the support of Hezbollah, Assad’s regime in Syria would not have survived as long as it has.

Recent reports indicate that IS has now also threatened and challenged Hamas in Gaza. Under pressure from Egypt and US, Hamas has cracked down on the jihadist that oppose reconciliation with Fatah and Israel. “We will uproot the state of the Jews [Israel] and you [Hamas] and Fatah, and all of the secularists are nothing and you will be overrun by our creeping multitudes,” an IS member was quoted as claiming in a video release.

While Hamas itself is a jihadist group, its struggle against Israel has been under the umbrella of Palestinian nationalism, unlike IS and AQ that have global ambitions and do not affiliate with nationalist causes.

There is a real prospect for a similar dynamics playing out in the South Asia region as part of the ‘Outside In’ process. In such a scenario, AQ and IS, including their associates, are likely to target the state of Afghanistan and Pakistan while at the same time attacking at each other. Some of this is already in play. As this evolves, and as is occurring in the Middle East, IS will attempt to steal the platform of Afghan Taliban, including Kashmir oriented jihadist groups.

On the other hand, India oriented jihadist groups may come to the defense of Pakistan, in the same way Hezbollah is now focused on protecting the Syrian regime and distracted from its concentration on Israel. In this context, the concept of non-state actors that are under some sort of state influence, and those that do not listen to anyone, as has been previously discussed in this space, has taken on an added emphasis.

In this picture, Sunni nationalist Baloch insurgents, would target both the state and IS and AQ. Moreover, the Baloch insurgents are likely to gain western support, as have the Kurds, in their fight against the extremists. This situation can add pressure on Pakistan and Iran to not target Baloch fighters, as they will be viewed as partners in the fight against extremists. This is the same predicament Turkey has found itself in vis-à-vis the Kurds in the Middle East.

As the sectarian angel deteriorates, the groups that formerly formed the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan could also return to action.

All of this will, however, shift the orientation of Pakistan’s policies and will make it view India and Afghanistan as allies against non-state actors. This is similar to how the threat perception of Arab states have shifted away from Israel, while at the same time made them share Israel’s fear from Iran and the extremist groups.

Conclusion

As this scenario and ‘Outside In’ approach unfolds, and faced with a common threat, is likely to change how the obstacles in the way of settling the Kashmir issue and Afghan reconciliation are viewed. During the first phase of the process, confronted with existential threats, will obviously result in transformation of long-held positions and policies of the states in question. However, its unlikely this would suspend the dynamics that would have been unleashed.

At the end of World War II, the insurgencies and other religiously oriented militancies that opposed the colonial powers, and their allies, were absorbed by the new nation-state structure, while giving birth to the irredentist claims that presently pose a risk.

Now that the concept of nation state is threatened, and as the extremist phenomenon undergoes fission and fusion, the question is what kind of new order will be able to absorb and deflect their energies. While infighting amongst extremist groups weakens them in the short term, in the long run, one or the other group may start to domineer. As was the case in the past, how these religious and insurgent groups intermingle with regional and global powers, will provide clues towards understanding the future direction.

Note: The above analysis is based on a scenario that explores the possibilities based on the trajectory of present circumstances in the Middle East. PoliTact will continue to monitor the situation and adjust the scenarios according to the developing reality.

The post The Emerging ‘Outside In’ Approach To Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Afghan Reconciliation, And Kashmir Issue appeared first on Politact.

If an offensive goes ahead, Pakistan’s military will be unable to take full control of North Waziristan, a ruggedly mountainous zone slightly larger than the US state of Rhode Island, said Imtiaz Gul, executive director of the Center for Research and Security Studies in Islamabad. And no offensive will significantly weaken the militant groups based in North Waziristan unless US and Afghan forces are able to block the mountainous border and prevent the escape of militant fight
ers into Afghanistan, Gul told a February 10 conference sponsored by the Atlantic Council’s South Asia Center, and moderated by its director, Shuja Nawaz. The talks initiated by the Nawaz government with TTP, are likely meant to create political space for a military operation, said Arif Ansar, the chief analyst and CEO of PoliTact, a Washington-area strategic consulting firm.

Summary

While Pakistan’s government and its Taliban movement formally have started peace talks, events there suggest that the coming months may as likely bring a Pakistani military offensive, long sought by the United States, against the country’s biggest territorial stronghold of the Taliban and other militant groups. In late January, the Pakistani military and the Taliban traded their heaviest attacks on each other in recent months, many of them around that stronghold, the district of North Waziristan.

Surgical strikes informed by good intelligence may be able to weaken the Taliban’s leadership, Gul said. On the night of January 20, Pakistan’s air force attacked villages in the Mir Ali area of North Waziristan, the second time in a month that Pakistan has launched such air strikes. Those strikes have come as the United States effectively has suspended (since December 25) its campaign of missile attacks from remotely piloted drones, a campaign that that overwhelmingly has targeted militant groups in North Waziristan.

As Gul spoke in Washington, Taliban leaders in North Waziristan hosted a team of mediators for talks with the government that began in earnest this week. Those negotiations are not likely to bring a real reconciliation between the two, but may help the government of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif demonstrate to Pakistanis that it seriously attempted peacemaking before any eventual military assault, said Arif Ansar.

Sharif won election in last year promising to favor negotiations, rather than military attacks, in an effort to halt the Taliban insurgency of recent years. He faces political pressure against an assault on the Taliban from opposition leader Imran Khan. Khan says the Taliban movement will subside after US forces withdraw this year from their combat role in neighboring Afghanistan.

But the just-started peace talks are likely to underscore the deep political and cultural divide between the government and the Taliban, Gul said. The Taliban demand that Pakistan’s constitution be scrapped and that Islamic sharia law be used to rule the country.

Arif went on to elaborate and emphasize the following strategic calculations:

➢ On the other side of the border, President Karzai is increasingly seeking peace talks and has linked the Bilateral Security Agreement on this. In such a situation, how will Pakistan’s approach against TTP fit with the US withdrawal this year?

➢ Furthermore, as Pakistan exerts military pressure on TTP, will they shift to Afghanistan, as occurred in Swat and other operations in the past, or will they hide with in Pakistan cities and other tribal agencies? And in this context, how will this operation be different than the past ones?

➢ If Taliban do shift to Afghanistan, will the country act against them, or will the border regions become a refuge for TTP, as FATA has become for Afghan Taliban factions? This is already the case in Nuristan and Kunar provinces where the Taliban moved after the Swat operation in 2009, and from where they conduct activities in the settled areas of Pakistan.

➢ Is Pakistan seeking a serious push against TTP or just maneuvering to pressure it towards peace talks? Will the nation also incorporate action against other allied extremist groups? If not, how will these groups and Afghan Taliban react to pressure on TTP? And, has the nation prepared for the possible reaction.

➢ What will be the impact of the approach adopted on the US-Pakistan and Pakistan-India ties?

➢ What lessons can be drawn from the evolution of Al Qaeda and extremist groups in the Middle East and North Africa? The emerging division is increasingly between extremist groups with local agenda, and groups with regional and global ambitions. The intermingling of Arab Spring, war against extremists, Shiite- Sunni tussles, and the global balance of power struggles, has immensely complicated the situation, and is weakening the nation-state in these regions.

➢ After the potential inclusion of Iran in the Geneva II talks over Syria, will Iran also become a part of the formal talks on Afghanistan? In essence, what will be the impact of the flux in the balance of power in Middle East on South Asia?

Click on the link to get the Script for the event.

The post Assessing The Chances Of Success For A Potential Counter Terrorism Operation In North Waziristan appeared first on Politact.

Context

As the world becomes increasingly chaotic, forecasting has turn out to be essential and complex at the same time. To predict what the future holds first requires identifying emerging patterns, which if not checked, will ultimately lead to certain outcomes. Policy makers and business leaders today are expected to not only manage the uncertainties of the present environment but also at the same time prepare their nations and organizations for the anomalies, discontinuities, and disasters that are likely.

To perform this task reasonably well requires charting the future direction of an organization in a given set of circumstances. Once the vision has been established, next comes developing an appropriate strategy.

This week the US National Intelligence Council (NIC) launched its much-hyped report titled Global Trends 2030 – Alternative Worlds. This analysis highlights some of the parallels drawn in the report especially related to the War on Terror and Arab Spring, including the weakening of nation-state system.

Analysis

A total of five forecasts have been produced by it to date by NIC, and the last one came out four years ago. The NIC also produces the report known as the National Intelligence Estimates (NIE) and supports the Director of National Intelligence. To launch the assessment, the Atlantic Council hosted a two-day conference this week and assembled more than 150 participants from around the world. These attendees represented the policy and business arena, including media and technology sectors.

The reports, the attendees, and the esteemed panelists discussed what megatrends, game-changers, and underlying tectonic shifts, are likely to change the future world and how the US should go about developing smart strategies to adapt. Not only that, the forecast also examines how the world is likely to react to American decline or re-ascendance.

Arab Spring And War On Terror

The preliminary review reveals the highly analytical and elaborate report has a fundamental flaw. The report appears to concentrate more on the consequences and implications of the major megatrends, disruptions and crises but does not delve a whole lot on their possible origins. On other occasions, it makes questionable connections about why certain patterns are at work. For example, Arab Spring may be connected to the demographics; youth bulge and lack of economic opportunities in the region. However, one cannot overlook its link to the war on terror that is dramatically altering the societies in the region in favor of Islamists, and certainly in Pakistan. This change is creating the civil war like scenarios in many states of the region.

The shortcoming can lead to faulty solutions and policies that create more risks in the short-term, which have to be dealt with in the medium to long-term.

Weakening Nation-State

Similarly, the report asserts the nation-state system is weakening, and ethnic tensions and tribalism are on the rise, a trend also noted by PoliTact in its forecast last year. However, the assessment links it more to demographics, economics, and environmental causes. Whereas, PoliTact contends that kinetic forces applied in the region since 9/11 are also a reason for the rise of nationalism and ethnic tensions. The change in the balance of power in Iraq is reverberating far beyond its borders. Similarly, the likely fall of Assad regime in Syria is going to have far-reaching consequences. The shape of the political landscape in Afghanistan once the US withdraws is a cause of great concern for Pakistan.

Framing The Problem Correctly

To understand the issues in the proper context is critical; how the problem is framed has direct implications on how to solve it.

For example, in a number of think-tank discussions recently held in Washington DC, there is a growing emphasis on how politics is increasingly determining the fate of economic decisions. A good illustration of this is the fiscal cliff debate. Underneath this deliberation is a concern highlighted by the secretary of defense Leon Panetta in his speech at the Center for a New American Security on Nov 20. In his address, he emphasized the US does not have to choose between national or fiscal security under the defense strategy he is propagating. Obviously, a weak economy will create vulnerabilities that will ultimately impact national security. However, it’s overemphasis on security related issues for the last ten years that are now complicating the political and economic matters of the country.

Pakistan knows this quandary very well. The Kerry-Lugar aid package fell because of security concerns. The reason India is hesitant in moving swiftly on economic ties with Pakistan is out of security apprehensions that are complicating the political and economic decisions.

What Is Strategy?

Another critical debate taking place in almost every intellectual talk around Washington is about what strategy means, and what organizational structure can best implement it. The textbook definition that often gets quoted is; where we are and where we want to go, and how to get there. The strategy has to be clearly led by a compelling vision. However, what is missing in these debates is a critical introspection; the ‘how did we get here’ part. Without this segment, the mistakes are likely to be repeated. The challenge in this regard is that bureaucracies by their very nature are self-perpetuating and cannot be expected to solve dilemmas they have a hand in creating.

Conclusion

The attempt here is not to regurgitate the trends identified in the report, written primarily from the vantage point of US, but to provide an alternative perspective. With the vast information superiority of the US, many around the world will take the report and its premises as a given, and their opinions, more likely than not, will be shaped by the assertions and conclusions of the report.

The most critical and foremost future frontier is the battle for shaping public perceptions, and social media tools have become its most lethal weapon. The future is relative to the entity envisioning it. How the outlook appears in one part of the world, may not be the same in the other. However, the more people buy in and share a certain vision; half of the battle may have been won.

The post The Art of Forecasting And Global Trends 2030 appeared first on Politact.