Context

As Israel continues its military campaign and air bombardments on the Gaza Strip and retaliates against Palestinians for the October 7 Hamas ambush, fears are mounting the conflict was widening to include Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and beyond. According to media reports, to date close to 26,000 Palestinians have been killed and 70,000 wounded.

For its part, it’s not clear if Israel is trying to contain or widen the conflict – towards its declared aim of eliminating Hamas and getting the hostages released. The strategic puzzle is, how to eliminate Hamas without also eradicating its backer, and that of Hezbollah as well, Iran. Israel has recently targeted Hezbollah commanders in Lebanon. Not only that, Israel has also gone after Iranian military advisors in Syria. These are seen as highly provocative actions.

Meanwhile, Iran backed Houthis are making the Red Sea unusable for cargo ships. Houthis have declared they are especially targeting merchant ships belonging to Israel and the powers supporting it in the Gaza operation. To address the deteriorating situation, US and UK launched missile and air raids against Houthi targets in Yemen that are continuing.

Iran has also seen increased attacks on the domestic front. On January 4, two bombs exploded at the memorial service for Qassem al Soleimani in Kerman in which about 80 people died. The Afghanistan based ISIS-K claimed responsibility for the attack. In December last year, 11 Iranian policemen were killed in an assault on a police station in Sistan-Balochistan province, and claimed by Jaish al-Adl.

However, the most dramatic escalation occurred when Iran launched counter strikes not only in Syria and Iraq, but also in its nuclear powered neighbor Pakistan, striking Jaish-al-Adl hideouts. These raids essentially connected the conflict that was mainly pestering the Middle East – to South Asia. Pakistan retaliated next day on January 18, by attacking Baloch nationalist groups operating from Iran and launching attacks against its security forces.

No one had expected the tentacles of Gaza conflict to reach as far as Pakistan, and entangle two proxy-war powers, one belonging to South Asia and the other, Middle East. Several angles have thus emerged, why did Iran strike Jaesh al-Adl in Pakistan at a time when it has so much to focus on in the Middle East.

While the ties have not always been amicable, often because of the cross-border activities of the non-state actors, neither Iran, nor Pakistan, consider each other an enemy. The puzzle becomes even more complex since the attacks at the memorial for the former intelligence chief, Qassem Soleimani, were claimed by ISIS-K based in Afghanistan. It is also noteworthy, the Iranian strikes in Pakistan came soon after the visit of Indian foreign minister, S. Jaishunker, to Iran.

Analysis

ISIS-K, Taliban, And Jaesh al-Adl,

There are some key plausible reasons why Iran may have decided to strike Jaesh al-Adl in Pakistan.

For some time, the risk has been growing regarding the level of collaboration that exists between Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and Balouch separatist groups, as they both have been targeting the security forces of Pakistan. Pakistan has been consistently pressurizing Afghan Taliban to act against TTP that has taken refuge in Afghanistan. While the Afghan Taliban has acted against ISIS-K, as demanded by the US too, they have not exerted such pressure against TTP. This has strained the relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan. The apprehension on the Afghan Taliban side is: if they operate against TTP, it is likely to drift towards ISIS-K.

At the same time, there is also the possibility that Jaesh al-Adl is receiving support from ISIS-K for attacks against Iran. ISIS-K has been expanding its reach and is responsible for a number of deadly attacks in Pakistan, and some in Iran as well. This is especially true when ISIS-K claimed responsibility for the bombings at the Qassem Soleimani’s commemoration. Iran must have deliberated on targeting ISIS-K in Afghanistan or Jaesh al-Adl in Pakistan.

In the past, Jaesh al-Adl, and it earlier version, Jundullah, was allegedly receiving support from US, Israel, and other Gulf nations. In the aftermath of the bombings at the Soleimani’s memorial, Iran gave less credit to ISIS-K claim and more to the involvement of US and Israel. In a tweet on X, Iranian president’s political deputy, Mohammad Jamshidi, wrote:

“Make no mistake. The responsibility for this crime lies with the US and Zionist regimes (Israel) and terrorism is just a tool.”

By striking Jaesh al-Adl, the impression emerges that the organization is once again enjoying some level of outside support. It could also be a signal to Pakistan to not extend any assistance towards targeting Iran.

The Role of India

Although a brief escalation, this recent episode has underscored the fundamental challenges Iran and Pakistan face in countering terrorism, with mutual distrust playing a significant role.

Both nations have long accused each other of providing safe havens to their respective enemies. Pakistan consistently maintains that India’s intelligence agency, Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), is operating from Iranian soil, orchestrates attacks in Pakistan’s Balochistan region – and supports the anti-Pakistan Baloch separatist movement. Conversely, Iran blames Pakistan for its inaction against anti-Iran terrorist sanctuaries in the Balochistan bordering region, and for not taking decisive action against infiltrators into its territory through human trafficking and smuggling of weapons.

In 2016 Pakistan had arrested what it clams to be an Indian spy, posing as an Iranian businessman. There are different versions of how and where Kulbhusan Yadav was captured.  Indian media had claimed, Kulbhushan was abducted by Jaesh al-Adl and handed over to Pakistan’s intelligence organizations. However, in a confession statement made under Pakistan’s custody, Kulbushan stated his main task was to sabotage CPEC (China, Pakistan Economic Corridor) and create unrest in Karachi and Balochistan. For this mission, he was in touch with leaders belonging to Baloch separatist groups. Thus, India has already been a player when it comes to regional proxy games involving Afghanistan, Iran, and Pakistan.

Recently, for its support of Israel, Indian cargo ships have come under attack in the Red Sea, threatening its energy supplies. This has pulled India into the conflict as well and has caused it to send three guided missile destroyer ships to the Arabian Sea.

Conclusion

As the Gaza conflict unfolds, the focus has mainly been on the Shiite and Sunni non-state actors in the Middle East. The Iranian strike on Jaesh al-Adl reflects the complexity of the non-state actor landscape that exist in South Asia, particularly as it relates to the politics of Pakistan, Afghanistan, India and Iran. However, the Iranian raids and Pakistan’s response have connected the geopolitics of Middle East and South Asia – in a way that it did not in the past. This obviously will have far reaching consequences.

Sunni religious leaders have been voicing support for Hamas in Pakistan, and the group leadership has also appeared virtually in different rallies organized in support of Gaza. Speaking at a conference in Islamabad in December via video link, Ismail Haniyah stated: “If Israel faced resistance from Pakistan, the perpetration of cruelty could cease.”

The leader of Jamiat Ulama-e-Islam (JUI-F) Mowlana Fazl-ur-Rehman even travelled to Qatar last November to meet with Hamas leader Ismail Haniyah and Khaled Mashal. He was quoted as commenting: “Palestinians are not only fighting for their own land but on behalf of the Muslim Ummah, are fulfilling their duty by fighting for the freedom of the first Qibla.”

The crackdown against Muslim Brotherhood under Sisi in Egypt has meant that Sunni Hamas has had to rely on Shiite Hezbollah and Iran for support, especially when Hamas and Salafi jihadist, like ISIS, hate each other. In the aftermath of October 7 attack, Israel has attempted to showcase Hamas to be the same as ISIS – but this carries dangerous consequences. Moreover, since Abraham Accords were reached, Palestinians also appear to be losing hope with the Gulf Arabs. In this context, Hamas reaching out to religious groups in Pakistan is significant. How will Iran, India, Israel, and other western powers interpret such outreach by Hamas is not clear. The longer the Gaza crisis lasts the greater will be the blow back – while also allowing for the potential reconfiguring of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The post Pakistan-Iran Cross Border Strikes, Gaza Conflict, And Expanding Proxy Wars appeared first on Politact.

Context

As the Gaza crisis unfolds, the Arab world is also engulfed in the Arab Awakening and the ever widening War and Terror. Meanwhile, the global power tussles are also escalating in the region. While the American perception has deteriorated due to the campaign against extremists, the Russians have gained in places like Syria. Iraq and Egypt both have shown indications on moving closer to Russia, especially when they don’t get what they want from the West.

The Gulf nations, especially Qatar and the Saudis, are caught in their own battle for supremacy in the region, and to establish their influence over one or the other Palestinian faction. While Qatar, along with Turkey and Iran, has economically supported Gaza and by default Hamas, Saudis and Israelis see this as detrimental to the two-state solution.

Ironically, there is synergy of interest between the regional Sunni Arab States and Israel. They both support Fatah over Hamas, the secular set up in Egypt, reversal of Iran’s regional resurgence and its endeavor towards acquiring nuclear weapons.

Differences also exist over the affairs of Syria and which opposition fighters to support there, the moderates or the AQ and IS linked extremists. Then there is the divergence over the future of Egypt, where Saudi Arabia went out of its way to back al-Sisi, who had earlier removed Muslim Brotherhood supported Mursi government. On the other hand, Qatar, Turkey and Iran, criticized the removal of Mursi from power. Among other matters, Mursi was attempting to develop better relations with Iran and that had greatly worried the Gulf States.

Analysis

As the Gaza crisis worsens, it is quickly becoming apparent that one of the major causalities of the changes in Egypt was its traditional role of playing a peacemaker between Hamas and Israel. With the crackdown on Muslim Brotherhood, al-Sisi seems to have lost this influence.

While Saudis and Turkey do not see eye-to-eye over the future of Gaza and Egypt, they coincide over how to handle the Syrian quagmire, where Iran is supporting the Assad government.

The evolving situation of Iraq has complicated and added pressures on the Saudis and on the positions of other Gulf States as well. On the one hand, they loathed the Iranian supported Nouri al-Maliki regime, but on the other hand they fear the IS onslaught, whose direction could easily change towards Arab states that are already reeling under the stress of Arab Awakening.

Respected Saudi journalist and editor-at-large of Saudi Gazette, Khaled Almaeena, wrote in Al Arabia News recently:

“The Arab masses see images of dead bodies of men, women and children. They observe the total disregard for the sanctity of places of worship and hospitals. They see orphanages being blown to bits. Above all they see the complete paralysis and helplessness of Arab governments which cannot even pressure their so-called friends in the West to ask Israel to stop this aggression.”

As reflected by the loss of Egyptian influence, if other state actors continue to fail towards playing a balanced approach, they too will start to loose relevance. Every time Israel launches aerial bombardments and ground operations and acts with impunity, the Arab and Gulf States appear more and more mute, leading to more loss of credibility while making peaceful settlement more elusive.

The post The Arab Fissions And Gaza Crisis appeared first on Politact.

Context
Quite a bit of discussion has already taken place on the magnitude and the type of strike to conduct in Syria and the legal justification for it. Moreover, work also continues on forming an alliance and clarifying the US and western objectives for such an intervention. Nonetheless, this debate has opened more potholes than to bring about clarity. This was obvious in the British Parliament today, which voted against interference in Syria.

Irrespective of the ongoing argument, one thing is certain now: action will take place in the next couple of days. The critical question to ponder over is what will happen next, and if there will be a response. The scenarios that can play out range from simple to really complex.

Analysis

No Reaction

It is quite possible that other than a few rhetorical statements, there is no reaction from Assad in the aftermath of the strike. After all, this has been his posture to the previous Israeli strikes with in Syria. This is especially true in case the missiles are used to target a limited number of military installations and the strike is seen as merely symbolic, as the debate presently suggests.

However, with non-state actors fully involved across the region, this scenario just looks too simplistic to digest. Even if Assad does not want to react, there are plenty of other players that would want to make something out of the opportunity at hand. Moreover, if the attack is seen as a stepping-stone towards a regime change, a response can be expected.

The Non-State Actors

It could come in the form of a chemical weapon attack against Israel, in a fashion similar to the one conducted in Syria last week. Israel has already pointed out it will react forcefully to any provocation of this sort. In the present chaos of Syria, it would be hard to nail down the source if this happened. From an Israeli perspective, the likely culprit would be Hezbollah. And, the reaction from Israel would be against the backer of both Syria and Hezbollah, Iran.
The cat and mouse game on how far Iran is from acquiring nuclear weapons has been raging for a while now. The above context provides ample pretext to tackle this aspect and Hezbollah. Meanwhile, NATO alliance could work on dealing with the Syrian chemical weapons and Al Qaeda linked groups, with the assistance of Free Syrian Army (FSA).

The Regional Angle

As this unfolds, it will be interesting to watch how Hamas and recently disenfranchised Muslim Brotherhood (MB) elements respond; which can create a nightmare for interim government of Egypt and its military. This is perhaps one of the other reasons MB senior leaders are being arrested in Egypt. In all likelihood, the situation of Sinai will worsen further as Syrian situation deteriorates.

Subsequently, with the involvement of Hezbollah, another front could develop against Israel around the Syria-Lebanon-Jordan corridor. If not managed well, the situation can easily turn in to a Shia and Sunni non-state actors going at war with Israel, while they are also fighting each other. The other regional state actors are likely to be caught in the crossfire.

How much time this scenario may take to unravel is difficult to predict at this time. It will depend on the nature of initial strikes on Syria, and what follows. So, an ‘action-reaction’ dynamic is likely to play out. How Russia responds will also be a factor. However, Russian involvement and efforts are likely to be focused towards what emerges from the chaos.

Another variable to consider is the irredentist movement of Kurdistan. If the above scenario plays out, Kurds are likely to join hands with the West and will act to counter the non-state actors. Some of this is already at display in Syria where Kurds have clashed with AQ linked groups near the border with Turkey. Kurds obviously want to correct the mistakes of history.

Conclusion

In essence, there are two forces of change acting in the Middle East: the West and the non-state actors, while the Sunni state actors are striving to maintain the status quo. For all intents and purposes, the West appears to be in the midst of an intitive to reshape the Middle East so it no longer poses any threat to Israel, and at the same time protect its Sunni allies and energy supplies from the region. For this to happen, both Sunni and Shia non-state actors will have to be dealt with. While the West and NATO are aligned strictly with Sunni state actors, Russia and China have maintained ties across the Shia-Sunni divide, which gives them a definitive advantage in the present circumstances.

The post Strike On Syria; The Day After And Non State Actors appeared first on Politact.

Context
Media discussion on VOA Dewa Radio’s Pashto program – Hello VOA. The discussion revolves around the situation of Egypt, future of Muslim Brotherhood, challenges for the US-Egypt ties, and American policy towards the country.

Panel includes:

– Dr. Ghulam Mustafa – Chairman Department of Political Science, Peshawar University, Pakistan

– Arif Ansar – Chief Analyst, PoliTact, US

– Ahmed Tariq – Kings College London, Head of Insurgency Research Group, UK

The post Future Of Egypt And US Policy appeared first on Politact.

Egypt and Pakistan have a lot in common, and different as well. Like Pakistan’s famous Indus civilization, Egypt has the ancient Nile. Anne Patterson, previously the Ambassador of Pakistan, is now the US envoy for Egypt. The country has acute energy shortages and financial crisis similar to Pakistan, and both nations are negotiating with IMF for economic assistance. The most stark similarity relates to the armed forces of both countries that have stood as bastion of western influence in these nations. At the same time, they serve to offset the conservative, liberal and nationalist societal forces.

Then there is the ideology of Ikhwan-ul-Muslemeen that over the years has spread throughout the Islamic world, including Pakistan. Muslim Brotherhood (MB) influenced parties in Pakistan have been part of numerous political coalitions but have never formed a national government. Their agenda has been exploited more, and their leaders have allowed this to happen on more than one occasion with a parallel loss of authenticity.

However, in Egypt a different story has played out. After decades of struggle and years of persecution at the hands of the state, MB finally gained enough backing to form the government in the aftermath of Hosni Mubarak. Though just after a year in power, Mohamed Mursi’s government was overthrown in a military coupe last week and the country once again appears to be on the verge of a civil war. The scary thing is it’s not just Egypt but the whole region, which seems to be heading towards a confrontation due to the societal imbalance and inability to peacefully resolve the battle for supermacy between the secular, nationalist, conservative and religious influences.

(Another version of this analysis was published in Pakistan Today on July 8, 2013)

Analysis

The Societal Balance of Power

Despite state harassment and ideological differences with factions that propagated total revolt against the perceived un-Islamic system, MB worked with in it to finally arrive at the helm of power. Moreover, Israeli apprehension proved to be a fallacy that once in power the Ikhwans will undo the peace treaty. Then what really happened?

While most of the focus has remained on the internal causes and mismanagement of MB that may have led to Mursi’s overthrow, there are obviously wider patterns to consider as the struggle between status quo and change continues in Egypt and the wider Islamic world.

Since the end of World War II, the liberals, socialists, nationalists, and a mix of conservatives and religious influences, have had their ups and downs in the region. For the most part, their political maneuvering was the outcome of tensions between the socialist and capitalist models that were playing out globally.

For example, it resulted in the creation of the Arab Socialist Baath Party in 1947; a coming together of nationalist and socialist forces against western imperialism that called for an Arab unification. It later split in to Iraqi and Syrian factions. These same influences were also acting out in Egypt, causing Gamal Abdul Nasser to play a leading role in the formation of the Non-Aligned movement and nationalization of the Suez Canal Company.

Generally, the nationalists in the Arab world were more accepting of socialist influences emanating from the Soviet Union. The conservative and religious influences, on the other hand, have had an uncomfortable political existence. They were looked upon with distrust, as waiting for their chance to revive the Ummah and the Khilafat. This in turn impacted the strategies of nationalists and liberals, who exploited the fear of global powers from the conservatives and religious segments.

The Role of Military

The military has usually played a pivotal role in balancing these different influences, and continues to in places like Egypt, Turkey and Pakistan. In Turkey, the army was the protector of secularism that was adopted under Ataturk. In Egypt and Pakistan, the military seems to choreograph the secular, nationalist and conservative responses, so that they don’t get significantly out of line from what would be globally accepted. However, due to factors like the war on terror, corruption, and lack of governance, the political landscape has changed dramatically. The conservative quarters have gained considerably while secular block appears to be receding.

The failure of secular governments and autocratic rulers to govern and provide better opportunities for the growing Muslim masses has also speed up the change in ground reality. While the communism was no more, these leaders used the war on terror to gain western legitimacy. This has been most prominent in Pakistan, where even the democratic system has failed to live up to the aspiration of the people. While high marks are being given to the smooth transition of government, or the process so to say, the performance of these governments was quite dismal.

Consider the following example: the PML-N government won the elections on a conservative platform with affinity towards some religious groups. Once in power, it has quickly distance itself from that posture and its present trajectory appears no different or better than Musharraf or Zardari. This misrepresentation also discredits the system in the long run. Without dealing with the security situation, the economic miracle simply will not happen and is it is disingenuous to claim so.

Conclusion

In short, the system in these states continues to revert towards status quo, when dramatic changes are required to adapt to the ground reality. In this context, the military coupe in Egypt is a dangerous reversal. It has given an opportunity to the extremists to convince even the moderate Islamists that there is no use in working with in the system to gain power.

With the help of the military, the seculars may have pushed back the Islamists in Egypt. However, subsequent demonstrations have shown the MB was not totally without support. As mentioned above, the conservative and Islamist influences are gaining throughout the Islamic world. How much have they penetrated the armed forces of these nations is a touchy question. It is imperative for the militaries of these nations to not tread to far from the pulse of the society, as they’ll do so on their own peril. With polarization at its pinnacle, it may mean staying neutral and not interfere in favor of one group or the other.

The post Egypt And Societal Imbalance Of The Islamic World appeared first on Politact.

Context

After days of turmoil, Egyptian President Mohamed Mursi was removed from power after having completed only a year. The Defense Minister and Army Chief General Abdul Fattah al-Sisi instead installed an interim government for an emergency period, before elections are held again.

No doubt, Egypt and the Arab world are going through a tumultuous period where the balance of conservative, nationalist, and liberal forces is swinging back and forth. PoliTact has been following the events of Egypt with special interest, as whatever happens there spreads. While the information is still pouring in, the take over by the military is hardly the end of the revolution that got initiated with the removal of Hosni Mubarak.

We have previously noted the causes for the fast moving change across the Muslim world, which includes incompetent leaders and the war against terror. As a result, the space for liberals to maneuver is consistently shrinking while nationalist and conservative forces are gaining. In this environment, the armed forces of Egypt, and for that matter Pakistan, are being seen as moderate and protectors of western interests.

This is indeed a volatile situation that could lead Egypt towards a civil war. The polarization that is reflected in the society will eventually creep in to the military, if it has not already, producing devastating consequences.

A lot will depend on how Muslim Brotherhood responds to be removed through a military coup. Western reaction to the forced dismissal of a democratically elected government, albeit an Islamist, will also set precedence.

While media attention has remained fixated on the domestic causes of unrest in Egypt, there are external factors to consider as well. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the situation of Syria should be kept in perspective. The question to ponder over includes; how does the removal of Mursi impact the situation of Syria, Gulf nations, and Israel’s threat perception. There is obviously a roaming fear of Islamist gaining influence throughout the region.

The post Egypt In Turmoil: The Role of Military appeared first on Politact.

Context

It was the impotence displayed by the autocratic regimes of Middle East to the Gaza crisis of 2008-09 that provided some stimulus to the Arab awakening that followed, especially in Egypt. Turkey’s strong stand against Israel at the time won it many popularity points in the Islamic world. The subsequent Marvi Marmara episode in 2010 cost Israel its defense ties with Turkey, which continues to complicate the politics of Middle East. Now, another Gaza eruption is well underway, and the pre and post-Arab Spring regimes are formulating responses not much different than before.

With Obama securely back in office, Israel, on the other hand, is feeling even more pressure to deal with the increasingly hostile security environment in the region. In the past few weeks, the country has come under fire from the Syrian forces in Golan Heights, the situation in Sinai has remained unstable, as the country was intermittent hit by rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip. The fresh conflict provides an opportunity for Israel to check how much the region has changed as a result of the Arab awakening and war on terror, and what to expect from states like Egypt under the control of Islamists now.

Analysis

Egypt, Sudan And Gaza

In the midst of this flux and before the initiation of the current Gaza crisis, Israel had received intelligence that Sudan was being used to store and smuggle weapons from Iran to Hamas and Palestine Islamic Jihad in Gaza via Egypt. Furthermore, Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported on October 16 on an unprecedented incident that would have certainly unnerved the Israelis. According to the report, an Israeli helicopter was targeted by a Soviet-made SA 7 Strela anti-aircraft missile over Gaza. The event was followed by the reported Israeli strike on the Yarmouk military complex in Khartoum on October 23.

With the assassination of Ahmed Jabari, that marked the beginning of the Operation Pillar of Defense, Israel has up the ante against Mursi’s government. If the Gaza operation continues and civilian causalities increase, Egypt’s government will come under mounting pressure to react. And, it will be expected to respond by more than simply symbolic gestures, like recalling its Ambassador from Israel or sending its Prime Minister to Gaza.

As compared to the 2008 situation, Egypt will not be able to keep the Rafah border closed. If and when Israel launches a ground operation into Gaza as it has threatened, the country will come under even more public pressure. If Egyptian leadership fails to match its rhetoric with action, they risk loosing credibility swiftly and will be compared to the regime of Hosni Mubarak.

Sinai-based Salafi Jihadi group, Al Salafiyya al Jihadiyya has already emphasized on Egyptian Army “If you cannot defend your brothers and your people in Gaza, at least let those who can do so and do not watch and fight them. So if you do not fight the Jews, (at least) do not be of help to them.”

On the other hand, Egypt worsening fiscal health has its hands tied down. Just before the commencement of the Israeli operation, EU had approved $6.4 billion in financial assistance to jump-start the Egyptian economy.

Turkey, Qatar, And Gaza

The situation of Turkey is also different this time compared to the 2008-09 Gaza conflict, mainly because of its preoccupation with the worsening Syrian situation. Turkey is asking NATO for the deployment of patriot missiles on its border with Syria. Despite all of this, Egypt, Qatar and Turkey have recently been trying to increase their influence with Hamas.

Prime Minister Erdogan commented on Friday that he planned to visit Gaza soon, a move opposed by the US as State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland stated, “This visit will not be favorable to advance the cause of peace and security in the region. We urge all parties to play a constructive role to bring all parties to the negotiation table.”

On the other hand, the emir of Qatar, Sheik Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani made a special trip to Gaza on October 23, the same day Israeli struck army depots in Sudan, becoming the first head of state to visit since 2007. On his six-hour trip, he announced the country will spend $400 million to rebuild Gaza. Some interpreted the move as an attempt to divide Palestinians between Hamas-controlled Gaza and West Bank under Fatah.

Reportedly, Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmer commented after the emir’s visit, “Most of the money that he’s (Qatar) pouring in Gaza will go to Hamas pockets, directly or indirectly. You think that will encourage them to hold national elections?”

However, the Qatari emir’s recent statement sums up where the Gulf nations stand,

“The peace process is not working, the Quartet (the United Nations, United States, European Union and Russia) is not working… We are not declaring war, we want a peaceful process… I’m not talking about war, I know our capabilities… I’m talking about standing by our Palestinian brothers,” he said.

Syria, Hamas And Gaza Crisis

The moves by Turkey and Qatar were meant to counter the leverage of Iran and to prevent exactly the kind of dreadful scenario that Egypt, Turkey, and other Gulf states are now likely to find themselves in. If the current Gaza crisis prolongs and civilian casualties mount, domestic backlash can be serious. Media reports indicate that four-way talks were held on November 17 between Mursi, Qatari emir, Erdogan, and Hamas leader Khaled Mishal in Cairo, and headway was made towards establishing another truce with Israel. From all this, the Middle East heavyweight, Saudi Arabia was curiously absent. It has also been conspicuously quiet on the recent Gaza flare-up.

It should be noted that Khaled Mishal recently left his refuge in Syria, as a consequence of Assad’s harsh tactics against the Sunni opposition, and is now based in Qatar. Major Gulf powers, Egypt, and Turkey are succeeding in moving Hamas from the axis of Iran, Syria and Hezbollah. However, while these powers are supporting the jihadist in removing Assad from Syria, it remains unclear if they will provide similar assistance to Hamas against Israel. And, if Gaza crisis prolongs, this irony could very well ignite a few more Arab revolts.

The post New Gaza Crisis, More Arab Revolts appeared first on Politact.

Context
Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas have accused Israeli intelligence organization Mossad for orchestrating the Sinai attack on August 5th that lead to the death of 16 Egyptian security troops. On the contrary, Egyptian military had indicated that the ambush might have been carried out with the help of Palestinian militants.

However, Hamas leader Ismail Haniya directly blamed Israel saying it wanted to embarrass Egyptian leadership and undermine its efforts towards ending Gaza blockade. Haniya commented, “No Palestinian wants to kill anybody in Egypt. Any attack against Egypt’s security is also against the security of Palestinians.”

Meanwhile, Israel’s foreign ministry has dismissed the allegations calling them nonsense. The country is preparing itself for the possibility of Sinai militants attacking Israeli vessels in Red Sea and other tourist sites.

On the other hand, Egypt has launched a military operation against the militants responsible for the Sunday attack. Israel has also ceded to Egypt’s request to deploy fighter jets in Sinai for a few days, which otherwise is a demilitarized buffer zone under the 1979 peace treaty.

However, Israel suspects that using the pretext of Sinai incident, President Mursi is cleansing the Egyptian military of officers carrying pro-western orientation. Since the Sinai attack, Mursi has fired the head of Intelligence, Military Police, and the Republican Guard. In a surprise move on August 12th, President Mursi has now also sacked the Egyptian Defense Minister Mohammad Tantawi, the Chief of the General Staff Hafez Sami Annan, and has ordered the retirement of the commanders of navy, air defense and air force. Moreover, he canceled the military-declared constitutional amendments that gave the generals extensive powers.

The post Using The Sinai Situation, President Mursi Reinforces His Hold appeared first on Politact.

Jordan’s King Abdullah II has expressed his reservations about the possibility of an end to Middle East conflict. In an interview on Monday, Jordan’s leader said he did not see the Israel-Palestine conflict being resolved. “I am one of the most optimistic people you’ll meet in the Middle East and for the first time I’m very pessimistic about the Israelis and Palestinians,” said King Abdullah.

The monarch also accused Israel of not being interested in working towards peace; “Israel is not really interested in a two state solution, and what is the other option?” He also suggested the United States needed to take a more active role in negotiations to prevent a power vacuum which could lead to a war in the region.

The post Jordan’s Abdullah Pessimistic About Israel-Palestine Conflict appeared first on Politact.

Muammar Qaddafi could be allowed to stay in Libya given that he steps down, according to France, indicating a new initiative to find a political solution to a military campaign that has up to now failed to overthrow the Libyan leader. Talking to France’s LCI TV, Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said global powers were ready to allow Qaddafi to stay in Libya once he quits. The new proposal reflects an understanding that it will be difficult, if not impossible, to drive Qaddafi out of Tripoli by persuasion or force.

The post France: Qaddafi Could Be Allowed To Stay In Libya appeared first on Politact.