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.

Context

With the use of chemical weapons in Syria last week leading to the tragic death of more than 1300 people, the next stage of the crisis has arrived in earnest. When US Secretary of State of John Kerry spoke on Monday, he left little doubt about where things are heading. From the perspective of the US and the West, the question now is not who to blame, but what to do next.

The next steps involve sorting out the following:

– Building a representative alliance that involves western nations and regional countries.

– Using the appropriate military tactics and weapons to achieve the objective.

– Defining what the goal really is.

– Assessing the possible reaction to the military strikes.

Of all these, the most challenging aspects relate to ascertaining the goal. It would not be very difficult to build an alliance; US will most likely depend on NATO to spearhead the efforts, with UK and France in the lead, while by passing the UN Security Council. The hardest part is to figure out the immediate and long-tern goals of this intervention.

Similarly, the targeting of the chemical weapons stockpiles will not be that hard. The challenge in this respect is, it would be quite impossible to eliminate all of them without ground intervention. Eliminating the chemical weapons would ultimately require ground troops, for which little appetite exists in the West.

US/NATO would have relied on the Free Syrian Army (FSA) for this purpose. However, the risk is some of these weapons could slip to Al Qaeda or Hezbollah linked extremist groups involved in the fighting there.

Consider this scenario. Realizing that a military strike is imminent, Assad regime could supply some of the chemical weapons to Hezbollah, which can then use them against Israel, widening the theater of war. Israeli forces have already struck in side Syria a number of times to mitigate this risk. If this happens, Israel in all likelihood will strike Iran.

On the other hand, it is well known that FSA has been fighting along side some of the extremist groups, although they recently have claimed to be distancing themselves from these factions. Some infighting between FSA and AQ linked groups has also been reported. However, the fears remain that some of these weapons may ultimately slip to these extremist factions.

Thus, the US/NATO strategy would not only be to target the chemical weapon stockpiles in the first phase of military action, but also the radical groups operating in Syria. The trouble again is: if all the extremists could have been eliminated using the air power alone, war on terror would have been won a long time ago.

The outcome of a limited military action could produce more confusion and chaos, and would raise further questions about what the intensions really are. The objective of regime change in Syria is not as easy as it was in the case of Iraq and Libya, where the regime did not have non-state actors to rely on, where the battle lines were not so pronounced between the Shias and Sunnis, and the Russian and Iranian opposition was not as strong.

In short, any limited military strike will not work without planning the actions that would follow, which no body seems prepared or willing to deal with at this time, but have to nonetheless.

The post Syrian Crisis And Limited Military Action appeared first on Politact.

Context

The Intelligence Chief for the Lebanese Internal Security Forces, Wissam al-Hassan, died in a bombing October 19, and the Syrian leader Assad has been blamed for the killing as he was in the case of Rafiq Hariri. The proxy war in the Middle East is now escalating and taking a turn for the worse. It appears the emerging posture of Russia will play a key in shaping the politics of the Islamic world.

Analysis

Key Events

October has so far proven to be a dramatic month as far as the situation of Middle East is concerned; unprecedented events are creating unparalleled risks.

For example:



1. An unarmed drone belonging to Hezbollah was shot down over Israel on 6 October. Most analysts indicated the intrusion was to warn Israel and to showcase the vulnerability of its Dome anti-missile defense system.

2. A large arms deal was signed between Moscow and Iraq on 9 October worth 4.2 billion dollars. The deal includes MiG-29 fighter jets, Mi-28 helicopters and Pantsyr-S1 defense systems. Just like Pakistan, Moscow is also interested in Iraq’s energy sector.

3. On 10 October, a Syrian plane carrying surveillance equipment from Russia was intercepted by Turkish F16s, reportedly on US intelligence, and forced to land in Ankara. The event took place as shelling across the Turkey-Syrian border continued.

4. Following up on these events, Russia indicated that while NATO and Turkey are moving towards a no-fly zone over Syria, it will be deploying S-400 interceptor missile system on its border with Turkey. In addition to targeting plane, S-400 is also capable of destroying ultra-stratospheric and ballistic missiles.

Media reports indicated the move was in retaliation to Turkish participation in NATO’s missile defense system. However, the step clearly is also in retaliation to the recent Turkish and NATO actions over the situation in Syria.

5. On 17 October, US indicated that it will be conducting with Israel its largest ever military exercise, named Austere Challenge. The three-week exercise will test Patriot anti-missile systems, an Aegis ballistic missile defense ship system, including the Iron Dome and Arrow 2.

“This exercise is purely about improving our combined US-Israeli capabilities,” the US Lt Gen Craig A Franklin commented. “It’s about military teamwork. It is not related to national elections nor any perceived tensions in the Middle East. We are military professionals coming together to train for a defensive mission.”

The Proxy War Of Middle East, South Asia

The above listed sequence of events provides a glimpse of how the situation of the Arab World is beginning to look more like a tussle between international stakeholders. There is talk of bypassing the UN Security Council once more, where China and Russia have consistently vetoed intervention in Syria. There is also noise about acting directly, as witnessed recently in the Libyan crisis, where the French and the British took the lead while US played more of a supporting role.

The proxy war in Syria has already crossed over borders. The killing of Lebanese intel chief is blamed on Shiite Hezbollah who is also supporting the Assad regime against the rebels in Syria and is backed by Iran. On the other hand, the opposition to Assad, is backed by the Sunni factions in Lebanon and by Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, including NATO. As PoliTact pointed out previously, in the AfPak region, the opposite is occurring. The Sunni militants and jihadist there are opposed by NATO forces, and Pakistan is under pressure to act against Afghan Taliban and the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) that targets India.

This inherent contradiction is likely to complicate western posture in the war on terror and its policy towards the Islamic world. The war against extremists and Arab awakening is becoming a linked phenomenon where the Islamists are resurgent in both instances. Moreover, the inconsistency in western policy is making it difficult to convince China and Russia, and other emerging powers, about their stance on Syria. Especially when emerging powers feel the mandate given to them in Libya was violated.

What To Expect

Most of the Cold War was fought through proxies, while Russia and US though came close, they never engaged directly with each other. The present landscape of the Arab World appears to be showing similar symptoms and trajectory. The established powers are employing proxies as it suites their purpose and its matter of time before the emerging powers may be forced to do as well. The interception of Syrian plane carrying surveillance equipment from Moscow is a case in point. Previously, Russian ships supplying helicopters to Syria were also obstructed.

How far Russia will go to protect its global interests is pivotal to the present predicament of the Middle East. And it is for this reason Pakistan-Russia entente is being watched very carefully. Russia is keen on not letting Afghanistan be solely a NATO agenda. On the other hand, China is increasingly tied down in the pacific, as opposed to worrying about far off places. While China’s involvement in the Islamic world does not differentiate between the Shiite and Sunni factions, as the western countries do, Russia has aligned itself more closely with Shiite-dominated states and may be in the process of diversifying its approach. This fresh outlook is not going to be without challenges; Russia has its own problems with Sunni jihadist in places like Chechnya and Dagestan.

The post Russia’s Emerging Posture Towards Middle East, AfPak appeared first on Politact.