Context

The American Middle East policy stands at a crucial juncture. The dramatic turn of events in Iraq, overthrow of democratically elected government in Egypt, the continuing Syria quagmire, and now the Gaza crisis, are all demonstrating the pressure points. The war on terror is covering ever-wider span, to include South and Central Asia and North Africa. The original Al Qaeda has over the years morphed in to a phenomenon called Al Qaeda and Associates, represented by groups such as IS (previously ISIS). What had originally started as the war against extremists is now truly a battle between non-state actors and state actors supported by the West.

This is happening at a time when the West is itself reeling under economic pressures and when it is increasingly faced with aggressive strategic adversaries, such as Russia and China. More and more the West is requiring its regional allies to lead the fight against extremists while it conserves and redirects its resources.

To avert the potential collapse of the entire nation-state structure in the region, leading to a protracted and bloody sectarian civil war, a complete rethink is now required. This review especially involves the role of non-state actors and how to deal with them. Without this revisit of the existing policy, the present global order risks further destabilization and loss of American influence.
Engaging Iran

In a dramatic turn of events, negotiations have not helped engage Iran but also create leverage for the West. Now, Iran has to seriously prioritize its interests and evaluate if it is more important to achieve a permanent nuclear deal and normalization of ties with the West. Or, will it continue with activities in Syria, and in support of Hezbollah and Hamas that are considered highly detrimental. From western perspective, Iran’s cooperation and constructive role in these areas, including in Iraq, can be highly conducive in achieving peace between Israel and Palestine. Iran can also play an instrumental role in Afghanistan.

While differences still exist on reaching a final deal, the reason the talks have been extended beyond July 20th is probably because engagement with Iran is already helping to control its behavior and influence vis-à-vis various regional flashpoints. However, this approach requires managing anxieties of Israel and Sunni Arab nations.

At this point, two outcomes are likely to further aggravate their concerns. First, the centrality of the nuclear talks, especially how Iran interprets it, is on the containment of its nuclear program, not elimination. Will this be acceptable to Israel is yet to be seen. Moreover, in the long run negotiations seem to increase Iran’s leeway and at the same time, eliminate the threat of a military strike against it. The debate continues if a ‘full spectrum’ approach to the talks with Iran is feasible. Israel has supported a stance that negotiations with Iran should also encompass its support for terrorism, human right abuses, and ballistic missile development etc. Iran has resisted such a broad approach.

All of this raises the question that if there is willingness to talk with Iran despite its support for extremists, then this suggests there is in fact a political solution to the menace of extremism. It requires talking to the actors who control and support them. The state sponsorship of these groups is not really the problem; the real danger is from groups that don’t listen to anyone.

Islamic regions and societies are undergoing a fundamental transformation, stratifying it across liberals, moderate Islamists, and extremists. Regardless of the reasons why this is occurring, the balance is shifting towards religious conservatism, which is greatly unnerving for global powers. Especially, when there exists an untested hypothesis that if moderate Islamists were to gain power, they will ultimately support the extremists’ agenda. This premise needs to be tested. As oppose to concentrating on preventing moderate Islamists from gaining power, they should be facilitated if they do win elections. Moderate Islamists present the last hope to change the tide. Let them come and fail, if that happens to be the case.

In this context, the engagement with Iran takes on added emphasis. If a deal over its nuclear program is reached in the near future, it conveys that if properly engaged, even theocracies can act rationally. While this may be true in the short term, the fear remains how this may turn out in the long run.

Focusing on the Masses

The success against extremists will not be achieved by ‘killing them all,’ in fact the number of extremists is on the rise. This war will be won by moving the masses away from the pull of non-state actors and making the state actors deliver, which are otherwise exploiting democracy and not governing. The association of dysfunctional state actors with the West adds to the motivation of non-state actors.

How this can be done requires more thinking. One way to achieve this is to bring more moderate Islamists in to the fold, despite fears and apprehensions, and then help shift the total societal balance to the center. Additionally, by linking economic assistance to this goal. There should be no illusions, adjusting this balance will require many years, as it did to get to the present state.

Managing The Saudis and the Israelis

Engaging Iran is only one part of the equation, managing Saudi Arabia and Israeli anxieties, is the other part of the puzzle. Letting Israel loose in Gaza, or falling to Saudi pressure to bomb Syria or arming the opposition will make the matters even worse.

It was the 2009 Gaza blockade that eventually led to 2010 Freedom Flotilla incident and the resurgence of Turkish image as the champion of Muslim causes. This Arab political and social weakness is also linked to the Arab Awakening that got underway in late 2010 and arrived in Egypt in 2011.

Moreover, relying solely on the military establishment to maintain a status quo is no longer feasible. As is putting one brand of non-state actors against the other. It will lead to further destabilization in the long run and creation of more IS like Frankenstein’s.

At this juncture, the best way to protect American interests and influence, and the global order, is to engage those that extremists listen to, and to go after the ones that don’t listen to anyone, and those that will create havoc to maintain status quo.

The post US Middle East Policy; Dealing With Iran And Non-State Actors appeared first on Politact.

Context

After more than a decade of status quo in the geopolitical environment of South Asia, the region is now entering a phase of tremendous flux. The transformation underway can be viewed from the regional lens and through the global angle.

At the regional level, elections in Afghanistan and US withdrawal represents the first level of change. The Indian elections and its potential outcome, symbolizes the second level, while the tussles of Middle East demonstrates the third. The fourth level of change can best be grasped by the interrelations of established and emerging powers. Some may call this the BRICS versus Europe/North America dynamics.

 Many analysts tend to connect the future of Pakistan on how it deals with extremism and manage ties with Afghanistan and India. These analysts also tie the future of US-Pakistan relations to this calculus. Perhaps the most important determinant of the future of US-Pakistan relations, and the region, is the emerging and established power dynamics. The manifestations of this factor are amply at display around various global fault lines, especially in Ukraine and Syria.

Analysis 

The Dynamics of Middle East

PoliTact has for long maintained that the situation of Middle East is likely to impose far more influence on the affairs of South Asia than any other region. To some extent, this has already proven to be true with both Saudi Arabia and Iran attempting to influence the position of Pakistan on Syria, for example. And in this regard, Pakistan has so far propagated neutrality.

If the situation of Middle East continues to deteriorate, the role of Pakistan, India, and Afghanistan, is likely to become even more critical; first of all because these states have economic and religious ties with the Arab region. Any worsening of affairs there will have an inverse impact on the economies and the religious balance of these three states, albeit disproportionately. At the same time, it’s the Shia influence that is resurgent in the Arab world and Pakistan, Afghanistan, and India cannot afford to alienate Iran at the cost of the Arabs.

If Iran’s détente with the West progresses despite friction with Russia over Ukraine, the Gulf States paranoia is likely to increase. These states would not like Pakistan pull away from their orbit under these circumstances. Recognizing the growing clout of emerging states, and disillusionment with the US over Syria, Gulf States are increasingly balancing their relations with China and India.

On the other hand, it’s possible that Iran détente runs in to trouble and the West does agree to arm the Syrian opposition, as demanded by the Saudis. This prospect has even higher chances of escalating Shia-Sunni fissures.

Thus, the situation of Middle East will have a greater influence on South Asian affairs due to religious and economic reasons. One of the ways to counter this tendency is perhaps envisioned in the ‘New Silk Road’ regional integration strategy, which transfers the nucleus of South Asia toward Central Asia instead, especially in connection to the energy needs of the region.

The New Silk Road

Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton had stated in Dushanbe in 2011, “we want Afghanistan to be at the crossroads of economic opportunities going north and south and east and west, which is why it’s so critical to more fully integrate the economies of the countries in this region in South and Central Asia.”

Good ties between Pakistan and India, and stability in Afghanistan, are essential prerequisites for this strategy to work. Another challenge includes: both Russia and China view the Silk Road Initiative with suspicion and as an attempt to undercut their influence in Central Asia. For China, it probably provokes a comparison to the politics of Trans Pacific Trade Agreement, through which US is attempting to workout trade pacts with nations of the Pacific region. In South and Central Asia, China did in fact come up with its own Silk Road vision, which bypasses Afghanistan and instead passes through Northern Pakistan to reach Gawadar.

Western Priorities in the Middle East

The critical question to examine is what does South Asia (Pakistan, India and Afghanistan) expect in the future from US and China and vice versa.

If Middle East provides any precedence, the western priority there, first of all, involves dealing with the weapons of mass destruction. At the second level, it is to tackle the extremists, and reforms to the political system particularly in view of Arab Spring come last.

The justification for this is simple; if the law and order situation worsens, like it has in Syria, the WMD can fall in the hands of extremists and threaten the security of Israel and the region. Dealing with Iran’s nuclear program has a similar logic. While Egypt does not posses any such deadly weapons, it’s security apparatus is key to holding the peace with Israel and keeping the Islamists at bay. In this calculus, the Gulf States were never critical for security purposes and their energy dependence has been decreasing for the US but increasing for China. In the grand scheme of things, and as US pivots to Asia, it’s conceivable there is an attempt to make the Middle East, and even Africa, inhospitable for China and Russia.

Applying the same logic to South Asia, presents an interesting picture. While India is not only an important market for the West, it wants to use the country to contain China; a security role India often appears reluctant to play. Pakistan, on the other hand, not only has the nuclear weapons but also the extremists linked to cross border terrorism. Thus, the security cooperation of Pakistan is of an utmost importance for the West.

What Pakistan desires is trade and the same economic wherewithal as that of India, and China and US are both offering Pakistan their competing visions. At the same time, the trade and economic prowess Pakistan aspires requires stable law and order situation as a perquisite. Without cordial relations with Afghanistan and India, neither of them is going to allow it stability.

In the aftermath of the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, the country may become the test case for how US, China, India, Pakistan and Iran manage their security, political and economic interests there. Moreover, how Pakistan, including Afghanistan and India, balance the competing Chinese and American visions for the region, and offset the Arab and Persian influences, will play an important role towards regional stability and future prosperity of South Asia.

The interplay of security, economic, and religious influences are creating a unique push and pull in the region and beyond. The security factors are coming in the way of economic and trade ambitions in the Asia Pacific and Europe. If the security situation of the Arab world continues to decline, it may ultimately lead to a situation where religious factors are given preference over both political and economic calculations, and this is indeed a grave risk.

The post US, Chinese Visions Compete In South Asia appeared first on Politact.

Iraq is undergoing a wave of bombing and shootings, predominantly targeting Shia areas and police. Shia government officials blame people linked to Tariq Hashemi for the attacks; however he has denied any involvement. The present Shia-led government under Nour al-Maliki has issued a warrant for the arrest of Tariq al Hashemi, who is the most senior leader of the predominantly Sunni Iraqiya bloc. Al Qaeda usually claims responsibility for most of these incidents.

The blasts come just weeks before the Arab League summit, which has now been postponed. Parliamentary speaker Osama al-Nujaifi stated the attacks aimed to “spark sectarian strife among the Iraqi people and to prevent the Arab League meeting from being held”.

The post Sectarian Violence Surge In Iraq, Arab League Summit Postponed appeared first on Politact.

At least three people including a police officer were injured on Thursday in the Shiite region of Qatif as unrest in Saudi Arabia escalated. Security personnel opened fire on protestors who had taken to the streets in demand for the release of political prisoners. Riyadh has increased its measures to bolster security in the country to prevent an Arab uprising in Saudi Arabia. Demonstrations and expressions of dissent are banned by the government, which claims they contradict Islamic laws. The Shiite community which forms nearly 10 percent of the population in the Kingdom is often at loggerheads with the authorities claiming they are marginalized in government jobs and positions.

Saudi unrest has also affected world markets. Oil prices which had dropped to below $101 a barrel rebounded on Thursday after the events to nearly $104.

The post Saudi Unrest Escalates appeared first on Politact.

Fourteen people belonging to the Shia community were killed and seven injured in Quetta in yet another incident of sectarian violence in the country. Unidentified gunmen on motorcycle opened fire on a bus headed to Hazara Ganji. The passengers who were on their way to the fruit and vegetable market were removed from the bus, lined up and shot by assailants.

Analysis

In a statement regarding Tuesday’s attack, the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) warned the killings “exposes once again the diminishing writ of the state.” Last month 26 Shia pilgrims were killed in a similar fashion in the town of Mastung; armed gunmen shot dead passengers on a bus carrying Shia pilgrims from Quetta to Iran.

The banned militant group Lashkar-e-Jhangvi has claimed responsibility for the attack.

The post Gunmen Kill 14 People In Quetta Sectarian Attack appeared first on Politact.

Shia pilgrims were killed on Tuesday when eight to ten gunmen opened fire on a bus in Pakistan’s province of Balochistan. Two vehicles intercepted a bus carrying more than 50 pilgrims to Iran, near the town of Mastung.

The driver of the Bus told reporters the passengers were forced off the vehicle and fired upon, the driver. Three more people were killed later as assailants opened fire on an ambulance heading to the attack site to help the injured.

This is the latest in a series of attacks by Sunni militants against Shia’s in the region. Media reports indicate Lashkar-e- Jhangvi (LeJ) has accepted responsibility for the attack.

The post Bus Carrying Shia Pilgrims To Iran Attacked Near Quetta, Killing 26 appeared first on Politact.

Context
According to media reports, at least 8 people were killed and 16 more kidnapped in two separate attacks in the tribal region of Pakistan on Friday.

In the first incident, unknown militants attacked a convoy of cars near Bagan Town in Kurram Agency, leaving 8 people dead and eight others wounded. All those killed and wounded were Shias, according to officials. The attackers torched two vehicles and fled.

In another incident, militants attacked another convoy near Medani Dam and hijacked a van with 16 people on board. The van was taken to an unknown location in the tribal belt. Nobody has claimed responsibility for the attacks. 

The post 8 More Killed In Kurram Agency Since Signing Of The Peace Treaty appeared first on Politact.