Category Archives: Middle East

Government, Middle East, National Security, Pakistan, Society, United States

Drone strike against the Taliban chief in Pakistan is a questionable victory…

U.S. DRONE STRIKE

Following last Friday’s US drone missile attack that killed the leader of the Pakistan Taliban, many ordinary people in Pakistan remain incredulous over US aims and objectives.

The assassination which came a day before a government delegation from Pakistan was due to meet him, leaves the government of Nawaz Sharif looking unreasonably irrational in the eyes of its own population. Worse still, the temper of anti-Americanism in Pakistan is likely to be exacerbated given the probable complicity in US violations of its sovereignty.

Hakimullah Mehsud was a repellent individual. Under his auspices, the Pakistan Taliban (the TPP), have killed thousands of people in sectarian driven attacks.

Western policy makers, however, should pause before rejoicing in the death of a reprehensible Islamist. The question is not whether Mehsud had a redeeming side, but crucially whether America’s drone missiles and the tactics being deployed are making a dangerous situation on the Pakistan-Afghan border even worse.

The evidence clearly suggests the situation has become worse. One only needed to have noted the furious reactions to Friday’s strike from prominent politicians in Pakistan such as Imran Khan and Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, Pakistan’s Interior Minister. Both indict the Americans with sabotaging the chances of peace talks between the Taliban and the government. Whether the CIA set out to deliberately derail the talks, or refused to be side-lined over its strike plans, the decapitation strike and timing of Mehsud’s killing was terribly misplaced to say the least. The very prospect of a negotiated end to the Taliban’s reign of terror was not mere idle fantasy on the part of the Islamabad government. Only two weeks ago, Mehsud told British journalists that he felt open to the idea of a peace pact.

Negotiations are now off the table. As normal with high-profile capitulations, the CIA will congratulate itself on having knocked out a long-standing target. Mehsud was on the agency’s most wanted terrorist list for a 2009 bombing in Afghanistan that claimed the lives of seven CIA operatives. Yet, after a successor emerges, Mehsud will quickly be forgotten. Meantime, the 30 or so Islamic militant groups loosely affiliated to the TPP will be off the leash, competing for the honour of how best to exact revenge on the U.S. or their perceived stooges.

It will be a surprise to no one that people in Pakistan have become weary of the war that America is conducting on their soil against militant Islamists. The recent visit to Washington by President Sharif in urging Barack Obama to stop the drone strikes came to nothing. This has only reinforced the feeling that, in the context of the alliance, Pakistan’s own wishes count for little.

The United States should listen to the concerns being expressed by their ally on drone strikes, but in all likelihood seems unlikely to. Instead, as we witness, Mr Obama has increased using them. A war without borders looks set to splutter on, while Pakistan continues picking up the pieces.

Related:

Standard
Egypt, Foreign Affairs, Government, Middle East, Politics, United States

Why has the U.S. taken this long to cut aid to Egypt?

U.S. AID TO EGYPT

Washington’s decision to suspend some of its military aid to Egypt is long overdue. By all accounts it should have happened months ago following the military style coup in Egypt that led to the fall of President Mohamed Morsi. America’s decision, however, is still only a symbolic gesture, one that the Obama administration acknowledges will have scant impact on either the regime’s crackdown on the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood or the pace of returning Cairo to democracy. Some commentators may view it as a carefully calibrated balancing act between the need to preserve US interests in the region and the desire to uphold the democratic principles it purports to value.

Had Washington’s decision come three months ago, immediately after the ousting of Mr Morsi, it might have carried some weight. Instead, the American administration refused to use the word coup, and has continued to do so even as it unveiled belated sanctions against the country. At the same time, Egypt’s military-backed regime has moved at its own pace, unhindered and unrestricted in its approach. Yet, whilst measures are being drawn up for a return of normal government – which are likely to be approved in a forthcoming referendum – most of the Brotherhood leadership are behind bars and Islamic media outlets are shut down. Such measures are likely to amount to very little.

Following Washington’s belated reprimand, Cairo announced almost at once Mr Morsi’s trial and declared that Egypt ‘will not surrender to American pressure’.

The US move may even actually boost the regime’s popularity, reducing what many see as a humiliating foreign dependency. Neither will it greatly affect the security balance in the region. Israel is agonised because such a cut in U.S. aid might jeopardise the 1979 treaty upon which its subsequent ‘cold peace’ with Egypt has rested.

The referendum may give the United States a pretext in resuming full military assistance to Cairo, a proviso Washington appears to be calling for. However, this temporary interruption in aid will not only end up pleasing no one, but will demonstrate once and for all how little influence the US wields in the most populous Arab country. To have had any real impact, America should have made its decision months ago.

Standard
Government, Iran, Middle East, Politics, United Nations, United States

US-Iran rapprochement requires time…

US-IRANIAN RELATIONS

Where a diplomatic stalemate that has lasted, off and on, for several decades, it would be foolhardy in being anything but wary before dealing again. No more so when the country in question is Iran who has made peaceful overtures towards the United States. The opportunity for misrepresentations and misunderstandings – on both sides – is more pronounced than most others.  Greater still, given the unpredictability of a domestic political scene in Tehran in which the remit of the President and the Supreme Leader are not always clear.

However, Iran’s new President, Hassan Rouhani, has made encouraging noises. He has released political prisoners, exchanged letters with the U.S. President and even used social media to offer New Year greetings to Iran’s Jews earlier this month. And, most significantly of all, he has shifted responsibility for the nuclear programme to a moderate former diplomat who has long established ties to the United States. Mr Rouhani says this has the express support of the Ayatollah.

With Washington responding in good faith, the world’s media expected a meeting to be held between the US and Iranian presidents following Mr Rouhani’s speech at the United Nations earlier this week. Not since the toppling of the Shah in 1979 have both presidents met.

In the end, though, no meeting took place. After more than 30 years without diplomatic relations, some commentators later argued that the absence of a meeting may have been for the best. Undoubtedly, there remains great hurt and pain on both sides. The US has had no official representation in Tehran for almost two generations, with a gulf of understanding left widely prized open. Compared with Iran, the US is an open book. The risk of misunderstandings, especially on the American side, would have been great. It would have been little short of tragic if the early signals from Tehran had been misread which might have squandered any chance of forging better relations.

It was apparent, from their respective speeches at the UN General Assembly that both leaders treaded carefully. They did, after all, have their own public opinion to consider, as well as the expectations that were running so high elsewhere in the world. Mr Rouhani’s stated readiness, though, to engage in ‘results-orientated’ talks on his country’s nuclear programme, and his disclosure that he has negotiating authority, delegated from the Supreme Leader, does raise hope. President Obama would be derelict if he did not now try to test them out in some way.

The rewards from improved US-Iranian relations could be far reaching, particularly if agreement can be made on the nuclear issue. Iran would be brought in from the cold at a crucial time, and the regional map – which looks increasingly hostile to the West – would seem a little friendlier. With the stakes so high rapprochement must be given time rather than scuppering any deal by rushing it through.

Mr Obama, of course, risks charges of capitulation. The concern of Israel, which has Iranian nuclear facilities on its radar, and is ready and willing to bomb them, is again raising its head. But the prize of a safer and less divided Middle East must be pursued with as much vigour as the West can muster. Syria’s bloody civil war, and the threat of regional meltdown, only makes the need for a deal with Iran more urgent.

Standard