Differences emerged between Israel and the US over Iran’s nuclear program this week. The Israeli Defense Minister, Ehud Barak on Thursday criticized Washington. He said the US was likely to allow Iran to build nuclear weapons without taking military action against the country. “The difference between us and the Americans is this: We say that because the Iranians are busy moving their nuclear program to underground facilities, they can announce this (that they have a nuclear weapon) after it is no longer possible to attack it,” he said.

According to Israeli experts, Iran will be able to move its weapons to safety in 6-8 months. They also estimate Iran to have sufficient uranium to build 4-5 nuclear bombs.

The Chairman of the Joint US Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey also admitted there were differences in Washington and Tel Aviv’s approach to Iran. “I am not sure that the Israelis share our outlook”, he said.

The post Israel Losing Patience Over Iran As US Remains Cautious appeared first on Politact.

Context

In the aftermath of the third round of US-Pakistan strategic talks, held last week in Washington, the likelihood of North Waziristan operation has increased. The promised $2 billion worth of US military assistance for Pakistan and the reported breakdown of peace talks with Taliban have further increased the likelihood of the offensive. Meanwhile, Iran has joined the Afghan Contact Group, which met in Rome, with US acquiescence. This article looks at how Taliban are reacting to these developments in FATA.

The statements coming out of Washington indicate Pakistan Army gave assurances again about conducting a sweep in North Waziristan, however, the country has reiterated that only it will determine the timing of this operation.

In anticipation of the operation statements have emanated from both the Taliban of Pakistan and Afghan origin. If Pakistan was to act, it would raise serious problems for the Afghan Taliban strategy. Local Taliban belonging to the Mujahidin Shura of North Waziristan have stated they would relocate to Afghanistan, in case Pakistan conducts the operation, and threatened to ask Karzai for shelter. The Shura also clarified it would not violate the peace treaty it signed with Pakistan government in 2007, and all incidents would be first investigated.

Analysis

At the same time, the Afghan Haqqani network, which is based in North Waziristan, is trying hard to broker peace in Kurram tribal district. This is occurring after clashes have continued for three years, between local tribes that are for and against Taliban. Kurram borders North Waziristan and is of immense strategic value, as it is located on the Afghan border and quite close to Kabul. The Haqqani network intends to relocate to a new base in Kurram tribal agency before the launch of the offensive.

However, this is not the first time Taliban have attempted to clear out Kurram for their particular use. Pakistani Taliban have for years used ruthless tactics to eradicate the area of forces that have stood in their way, which are mostly Shiites. The Shiites are deeply indignant of Taliban and Al Qaeda and their Wahabi Salafi Islamic doctrine. On their part Al Qaeda and its affiliates, also loath Shiite population, be it in Kurram or Iraq.  According to the religious beliefs of Al Qaeda, Shiites are non-Muslims and traitors and liable to be killed.

Iran has been quite sensitive to the atrocities and mass murders committed by Taliban in Kurram. The Shiites of Kurram Agency, who have religious and cultural affinity with Iran, have been getting consistent flow of weapons and finances from Tehran in its fight against Taliban. This support is believed to be the main reason the anti-Taliban Shiite groups have successfully resisted Taliban taking over the area.

According to PoliTact sources, one of the other objectives of Siraj Haqqani to broker peace in Kurram, is to pacify the influence of Iran. Furthermore, to diminish the possibility and motivation for Iranians to allow the use of its Charbahar port, to supply NATO forces in Afghanistan via Nimroz province. In the aftermath of the closure of Torkham supply route, NATO authorities are trying to organize supplies through other routes, including Iran.

The attempts by the Haqqanis and Taliban to appease Iran, also has another critical reason. Iran continues to overlook the use of its territory, which the potential fighters crossover from Middle East to enter Afghanistan and tribal areas of Pakistan. Taliban want Iran to not produce any impediment in this regard. In the months ahead, this route is going to play a crucial role as US completes its troop surge in Afghanistan.

The above laid out reasons could be why US allowed Iran to join the International Afghan Contact Group meeting in Rome. The group gathers the Afghan government, NATO, the EU, U.N. and other key players to assess progress in Afghanistan. Richard Holbrooke, U.S. special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan commented that it had no problem with Iran joining the group. However, the reaction of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are far from clear.

Tell Us What You think

The post The Status of North Waziristan Operation and Taliban Contingency Plans -Haqqani Network, Kurram Agency and Iran appeared first on Politact.

Iran and the US have a long history of political animosity, mistrust and a war of words worthy of a couple of bound volumes. Recent statements from Washington say that the military option in the case of Iran is still on the table. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has raised the hackles of Israel and the US with his upcoming two-day visit to Lebanon, beginning October 13. This article presents the impact of the visit on the AfPak Theater.

Analysis

In responding to American threats, Ahmadinejad promptly prayed that the “undertaker bury…your table” making a new chapter in the war of words, but how serious is the US about a military undertaking, and what would be the costs of such a move, the benefits?

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has raised the hackles of Israel and the US with his upcoming two-day visit to Lebanon, beginning October 13. The visit will include a trip to the Israel-Lebanon border in the south of Lebanon, where the president plans to throw stones, as a symbolic gesture, across the border into Israel.

Ahmadinejad met privately with Syrian President Bashar Al Assad, who reportedly urged his Iranian counterpart to call off the ill-timed visit, which will only serve to increase tensions in the region. Al Assad may have had other motives as well, given that he and Saudi Arabia recently moved to reassert Sunni dominance in Lebanon with a State visit, so the move by Ahmadinejad is stepping on his toes as well.

Iran and Syria have long been considered friends, however in the past months Syria has positioned itself a few degrees away from Iran, probably in a bid to counter Iran’s growing presence in the region; certainly the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia are feeling the increase of Iranian influence with a measure of uneasiness. This restlessness has caused the Gulf States to go on an arms-buying spree. Kuwait, Oman, Qatar the UAE and Saudi Arabia have recently ordered arms worth $123 billion from the US.

Ahmadinejad’s brazen call that he considered Lebanon a part of its ‘security belt’ along with Iraq and Afghanistan has raised alarm bells in neighboring countries, but nowhere more so than in Israel.

With a hostile northern border with Lebanon, the last thing Israel wants to hear is that this is considered Iran’s security belt. Israel will be watching the border very closely in the days leading up to the visit, but with the recent settlement issues in the West Bank and the uncertain future of continued peace talks with the Palestinians, the timing of Ahmadinejad’s visit couldn’t really be worse. Ahmadinejad’s strong anti-Israel voice in the vicinity will only increase the tensions between Israel and her neighbors.

The US has expressed their disapproval of the visit, privately asking Lebanon’s President Michel Suleiman to cancel the trip. While the Lebanese authorities may not be overjoyed about the upcoming visit, they are nevertheless reluctant to go head to head with Iran, and so have said they are preparing for Ahmadinejad’s arrival.

With temperatures running high in the AfPak Theater and the Pacific realm, US can hardly afford affairs worsen in the Middle East. US would prefer tackling these global hot spots in an order of its liking. The country needs Iran’s help in settling Afghanistan and as a counterbalance to the Sunni Jihadist threat. Therefore, it would want to keep matters related to Middle East and Israel, on a low burner for the time being. However, Iran by visiting Lebanon is signaling otherwise.

Tell Us What You Think
Feedback@politact.com

The post The Connected Geopolitics of AfPak and Middle East -The Upcoming Visit of Ahmadinejad to Lebanon appeared first on Politact.

Context

Iran and the US have a long history of political animosity, mistrust and a war of words worthy of a couple of bound volumes. Recent statements from Washington say that the military option in the case of Iran is still on the table. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has raised the hackles of Israel and the US with his upcoming two-day visit to Lebanon, beginning October 13. This article presents the impact of the visit on the AfPak Theater.

Analysis

In responding to American threats, Ahmadinejad promptly prayed that the “undertaker bury…your table” making a new chapter in the war of words, but how serious is the US about a military undertaking, and what would be the costs of such a move, the benefits?

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has raised the hackles of Israel and the US with his upcoming two-day visit to Lebanon, beginning October 13. The visit will include a trip to the Israel-Lebanon border in the south of Lebanon, where the president plans to throw stones, as a symbolic gesture, across the border into Israel.

Ahmadinejad met privately with Syrian President Bashar Al Assad, who reportedly urged his Iranian counterpart to call off the ill-timed visit, which will only serve to increase tensions in the region. Al Assad may have had other motives as well, given that he and Saudi Arabia recently moved to reassert Sunni dominance in Lebanon with a State visit, so the move by Ahmadinejad is stepping on his toes as well.

Iran and Syria have long been considered friends, however in the past months Syria has positioned itself a few degrees away from Iran, probably in a bid to counter Iran’s growing presence in the region; certainly the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia are feeling the increase of Iranian influence with a measure of uneasiness. This restlessness has caused the Gulf States to go on an arms-buying spree. Kuwait, Oman, Qatar the UAE and Saudi Arabia have recently ordered arms worth $123 billion from the US.

Ahmadinejad’s brazen call that he considered Lebanon a part of its ‘security belt’ along with Iraq and Afghanistan has raised alarm bells in neighboring countries, but nowhere more so than in Israel.

With a hostile northern border with Lebanon, the last thing Israel wants to hear is that this is considered Iran’s security belt. Israel will be watching the border very closely in the days leading up to the visit, but with the recent settlement issues in the West Bank and the uncertain future of continued peace talks with the Palestinians, the timing of Ahmadinejad’s visit couldn’t really be worse. Ahmadinejad’s strong anti-Israel voice in the vicinity will only increase the tensions between Israel and her neighbors.

The US has expressed their disapproval of the visit, privately asking Lebanon’s President Michel Suleiman to cancel the trip. While the Lebanese authorities may not be overjoyed about the upcoming visit, they are nevertheless reluctant to go head to head with Iran, and so have said they are preparing for Ahmadinejad’s arrival.

With temperatures running high in the AfPak Theater and the Pacific realm, US can hardly afford affairs worsen in the Middle East. US would prefer tackling these global hot spots in an order of its liking. The country needs Iran’s help in settling Afghanistan and as a counterbalance to the Sunni Jihadist threat. Therefore, it would want to keep matters related to Middle East and Israel, on a low burner for the time being. However, Iran by visiting Lebanon is signaling otherwise.

Tell Us What You Think
Feedback@politact.com

The post The Connected Geopolitics of AfPak and Middle East -The Upcoming Visit of Ahmadinejad to Lebanon appeared first on Politact.

Context

The supply route for NATO forces in Afghanistan, passing through Khyber Pass and border town of Torkham, remains closed. Two increasingly reluctant countries of the Afghan coalition and NATO, France and Germany, are on an alert for possible Mumbai style terror events. The attackers are reported to have trained in FATA. However, on October 6th came the word of Afghan peace talks, which are well underway, and the associated debate about the key positions of various stakeholders. This article looks at pressures of the end game in Afghanistan. The outcome of the present US and Pakistan showdown will determine who has the upper hand at this stage.

Analysis

Only a week ago news media was reporting that Afghan Taliban remain unwilling to negotiate until and unless coalition forces give a date of their withdrawal from Afghanistan. Nonetheless, now the same media sources are presenting a different perspective that senior Taliban are eager to initiate the peace talks, under pressure of being left out. The information and psychological warfare have become a critical component of the larger strategy at this juncture of the Afghan war.

Following are the key positions of the main parties involved in the Afghan conflict:

US and Pakistan Leverages

Pakistan has suffered immensely from the recent devastating floods, which has gravely impacted its economic outlook. At the same time, economically distressed Pakistan is under tremendous pressure to reevaluate its position as it relates to Afghan Taliban, especially the Haqqani network. US believes the Haqqanis are extremely radical in their orientation and too close to Al Qaeda, to be part of any reconciliation. The cross border incursions by coalition forces thus serve as a pressure tactic on the country, to reconsider its position. The underlying message is; if Pakistan does not change its position and act in North Waziristan, the number of cross-border incursions in FATA could increase.

The tactical escalation would range from drone attacks to hot pursuit and ground troops. Such a strategy is meant to put pressure on Pakistan, which can in turn shift to Afghan Taliban, to change their hard line positions and be more amenable to peace talks and settlement.

On the other hand, through closing of NATO supply route, Pakistan is demonstrating the advantages it holds. No doubt, longer the supply route remains closed, and if the attacks on the fuel containers spread in Pakistan, the US operations in Kandahar (Dragon Strike) and other places would be impeded. The Chaman border crossing has remained opened for NATO supplies, however, if relations were to deteriorate further, it could also face closure. Pakistan’s help is also essential in negotiating peace with different Pushtun factions taking part in the Afghan conflict.

There are indications that US is beginning to show receptiveness to Pakistan’s interests. The Guardian newspaper reported on October 6th that US has been in contact with Haqqanis via intermediaries. Furthermore, the US apology offered to Pakistan over the helicopter incident in Kurram Agency, demonstrates there is a willingness to calm the waters for the time being.

Based on media analysis, PoliTact believes US has started to prepare counter leverages that would threaten Pakistan’s military aid. The US is unlikely to touch the civilian economic aid, as it would only increase its negative perception in Pakistan. This also implies the country will continue to back the civilian leadership in Pakistan. At the upcoming strategic dialogue between US and Pakistan on October 22, the economic leverage US holds over Pakistan would increasingly come in to play. In the post floods economic environment, this dynamics will only exasperate the civilian-military relations in Pakistan. To counter US economic leverage, Pakistan will in all likelihood depend on its traditional allies, China and Saudi Arabia.

These events represent the beginning of the first phase of political approach to the Afghan conflict and many hurdles are yet to come. If Pakistan emerges stronger as a result of the Afghan conflict, it would also enhance China’s role in the region, and this is where the prospect of long-term US-Pakistan strategic partnership weakens.

Tell Us What You think

The post The Pressures of the End Game in Afghanistan and Leverages of US and Pakistan appeared first on Politact.

Context
The shifting sands in the Middle East are being felt most strongly in Iran. On the one hand Iran is encircled by the US, with very little in the way of geo-strategic options; on the other a covert channel of communication and cooperation may be on the cards between the US and Iran over stability in Afghanistan.

Analysis

The August drawdown of US combat troops in Iraq has inevitably shifted the focus of the US military to Afghanistan. While it is no secret that the US is by no means gone from Iraq, the symbolic withdrawal has freed up US strategists to channel energy into the embattled US position in the Afghan conflict. The country is expected to increase its presence in neighboring Pakistan as well, especially with the post-flood political morass and the distinct possibility of militant elements filling the power vacuums left in the flood ravaged country. The on-the-ground US presence in the region is actually quite formidable, something which has no-doubt been bothering the largest US antagonist in the region, Iran, and to no less extent China.

Iran faces sizeable US components on three of its major land borders of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq. To counter Iran, the Gulf States of Kuwait, Oman, Qatar the UAE and Saudi Arabia have ordered arms worth $123 billion from the US. PoliTact has previously noted the new American strategy premised on building the capability of the partners, as oppose to itself getting involved in a direct confrontation. On top of this the American military presence in the Caspian Sea has been increasing and there has been talk of increased military cooperation between the US and Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan. Iran is effectively encircled.

Interestingly though at this point the encirclement is not overtly aggressive – there are definite passive aggressive tones, but the US is not showing signs of any immediate escalation. In fact it has been trying to open a route of dialogue and cooperation with Iran over stability in Afghanistan.

Whether the US has cleverly tried to engage Iran in Afghanistan to counter the claims of Afghanistan being Iran’s “security belt” or whether they are trying to find a diplomatic platform to engage with Iran one thing’s for sure; bring Iran in on Afghanistan under the umbrella of US cooperation and it will be a major turning point in US-Iran relations. If the US can pull this off they will effectively neutralize Afghanistan as a ‘buffer’ for Iran. It may however, be a strategy of keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

US has been flirting with the idea of bringing Iran on board for sometime now. In 2006 the Bush administration asked for Tehran to assist the US efforts in Iraq. When the US later spurned the helped they had asked for, the real opportunity was lost, and it became a sour point in the relationship between the US and Iran.

No one in Washington is under the illusion that this tactic will create a friend out of Iran but there is nevertheless hope that engagement and dialogue could soften the stark horizon of US interaction with Iran. Others are less optimistic and feel it is showing weakness on the US side; hardliners in Iran whole-heartedly agree.

Nonetheless, diplomacy is also about creating leverages. The talk of bringing Iran on board creates urgency for the Sunni stakeholders of the AfPak equation as well as the newly unfolding Middle East peace process.The recent incidences related to Shiite population of Bahrain and other Gulf countries, further add to this pressure.

The post US-Iran Relations and Afghanistan appeared first on Politact.