Pakistan Stock Exchange benchmark index declines 9% in CY22

Economic and political issues badly affected Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) in 2022. The benchmark index, KSE-100 index, declined 9% during the year. With PKR depreciating 22% against greenback, Index was down 29% in US$ terms.

According to Pakistan’s leading brokerage house, Topline Securities, 2022 was also a turbulent year for global stock markets as US$18 trillion were wiped out in 2022 with drop of approx 20% in MSCI World Index which is worst performance since the 2008 crisis. MSCI EM fell 22%, while MSCI FM was down 29% in 2022.

According to Bloomberg data, Pakistan’s KSE-100 Index was amongst worst performing market in US$ term in 2022.

Due to macroeconomic issues, activity at PSX also remained dull. Average traded volume (ready/cash) per day at PSX was down 52% to 230 million shares/day.

Similarly, average traded value per day was down 59% to PKR7 billion/day which was lowest since 2019.

In futures market, total traded volume and value per day were also down by 33% and 56% to 94 million shares and PKR3.6 billion, respectively.

KSE-100 Index also underperformed as compared to other asset classes in 2022 including Gold (+45%), one-year US$ denominated Naya Pakistan Certificate (+36%) and greenback (+28%).

T-Bills, Money Market Fund and Property indices posted return in the range of 12% to 14% in 2022.

Initial public offering (IPO) market was also impacted due to eroding equity values as only 3 IPOs raised funds in 2022 as against 8 IPOs in 2021. The number of IPOs was also the lowest in 2019 when Pakistan saw just one IPO at PSX.

Selling by foreigners continued in 2022 with net selling of US$127 million. In last 7-years, foreign corporates have sold shares worth of US$2.5 billion at PSX.

Local Mutual Funds and Insurance Companies also trimmed their position in 2022, with Mutual Funds selling US$166 million, while Insurance Companies sold US$128 million.

Selling was absorbed by Local Individuals, Banks and Companies with net buying of US$138 million, US$117 million, and US$78 million respectively.

 

US wages almost 400 military interventions

Since I have started writing blogs, one of my assertions has been that United States is the biggest warmonger as well initiator of regime change programs around the world. This agenda is aimed at serving producers of lethal arsenal in the United States as well foreign policy objectives.

The United States has waged nearly 400 military interventions since its founding in 1776, according to a new research published lately. According to the study by the Military Intervention Project, A New Dataset on US Military Interventions, 1776–2019, half of those conflicts and other uses of force occurred between 1950 and 2019. 

More than a quarter of them have taken place since the end of the Cold War. Out of the nearly 400 military interventions, 34% have been in Latin America and the Caribbean; 23% in East Asia and the Pacific region; 14% in West Asia and North Africa; and 13% in Europe and Central Asia.

The authors find that US interventions have increased and intensified in recent years. While the Cold War era (1946 – 1989) and the period between 1868 – 1917 were the most militaristically active for the United States, the post-9/11 era has already taken the third spot in all of US history and most of that military adventurism has been in West Asia. 

It says, “These interventions have only increased and intensified in recent years, with the US militarily intervening over 200 times after World War II and over 25% of all US military interventions occurring during the post-Cold War era.”

Until the end of the Cold War, US military hostility was generally proportional to that of its rivals. Since then, the US began to escalate its hostilities as its rivals deescalate it, marking the beginning of America’s more kinetic foreign policy.  

The study reads, “Some scholars have explained such increasing interventionist trends as part of the new norm of contingent sovereignty, which explicitly challenges the traditional principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other states. Particularly regarding the US, one perspective is that the country is evolving past its Cold War doctrine.”

The study notes, “US military interventions to promote geopolitical interests cannot explain the dynamics of the post-Cold War era. If the US primarily intervenes when its security interests are threatened, we expect the US to intervene less in an era void of peer competitors where fewer vital interests are arguably at stake.”

The authors point out that other researchers have asserted the US uses force abroad without a clear organizing principle and thus its military missions have had disastrous long-term and unintended consequences.

In 2018, a co-author said, “Current patterns of US military engagement as kinetic diplomacy, diplomacy solely through armed force,” the research says, in the past years.

While US Ambassadors are operating in one-third of the world’s countries, US special operators are active in three-fourths. 

A challenging aspect of measuring military interventions is how to define an intervention, the research notes. The study highlights that the definition of US military intervention may fall under any of the following categories.

The movement of regular troops or forces of one country inside another one in the context of some political issue or dispute. To separate higher intensity interventions from minor skirmishes, this definition excludes paramilitaries, government-backed militias, and other security forces that are not part of the regular uniformed military of a state. 

Similarly, “Events must be purposeful, not accidental.” Inadvertent border crossings are not included in this definition and neither are unintentional confrontations between planes or naval ships. The definition excludes soldiers engaging in exercises in a foreign land, transporting forces across borders, or on foreign bases. Furthermore, the definition categorizes international military interventions by temporal guidelines so that interventions are continuous if repeated acts occur within 6 months of one another.

Instances in which the United States has used its Armed Forces abroad in situations of military conflict or potential conflict or for other than normal peacetime purposes...Covert operations, disaster relief, and routine alliance stationing and training exercises are not included here, nor are the Civil and Revolutionary Wars and the continual use of US military units in the exploration, settlement, and pacification of the western part of the United States.

The political use of military force involving ground troops of either the US Army or Marine Corps in an active attempt to influence the behavior of other nations

Use of armed force that involves the official deployment of at least 500 regular military personnel (ground, air, or naval) to attain immediate term political objectives through action against a foreign adversary

Routine military movements and operations without a defined target like military training exercises, the routine forward deployment of military troops, non-combatant evacuation operations, and disaster relief should be excluded

Militarized interstate disputes are united historical cases of conflict in which the threat, display, or use of military force short of war by one member state is explicitly directed towards the government, official representatives, official forces, property, or territory of another state

 This recent pattern of international relations conducted largely through armed force, it noted, has increasingly targeted West Asia and Africa. These regions have seen both large-scale U.S. wars, as in Afghanistan and Iraq, and low-profile combat in nations such as Burkina Faso, Cameroon, the Central African Republic, Chad, and Tunisia.

The authors say “the U.S. has increased its military usage of force abroad since the end of the Cold War. Over this period the U.S. has preferred the direct usage of force over threats or displays of force, increasing its hostility levels while its target states have decreased theirs. Along the way, the regions of interest have changed as well. Up until World War II, the U.S. frequently intervened in Latin America and Europe,” but beginning in the 1950s, the U.S. shifted its focus to West Asia and the North Africa region.

The data comprises confirmed covert operations and low-profile interventions by Special Operations forces, however, it points out that US government secrecy and scrupulous sourcing standards of the public database it studied guarantees that the post-9/11 tally is an undercount.

The post-9/11 era appear to be the third most active for US interventions of relatively higher hostility levels. In this era, threats of force are absent, while the use of force has been overwhelmingly commonplace. Since 2000 alone, the US has engaged in at least 30 military interventions. 

Experts say that the Pentagon has likely used secretive authority to carry out combat beyond the scope of any authorization for the use of military force or permissible self-defense.

They point out that while secretive “127e” programs in Somalia and Yemen for instance overlap with well-known US military interventions, other uses of the authority, such as in Egypt and Lebanon, may not. The same goes for even lesser-known programs like “Section 1202”.  

US military conflicts have provided American arms manufacturers with ample opportunity to make a profit and prolong the country’s history of violence based on its founding. 

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Global military expenditure is estimated to have been US$1,917 billion in 2019, the highest level since 1988. 

With a military expenditure of US$732 billion, the US remained by far the largest spender in the world in 2019, accounting for 38% of global military spending. The US spent almost as much on its military in 2019 as the next 10 highest spenders combined.

Today, SIPRI puts the cost of the US military at more than US$800 billion annually, accounting for almost 40% of global military spending.

 

United States the biggest war machine

It may not be wrong to say that military bases of the United States are the key pieces of the global war machine, but people don’t hear about these very often. It is estimated 800 US military bases are located around the globe that play an essential role in turning the whole world into a bloody battlefield. These bases are located in more than seventy countries around the world and represent a mighty military presence, yet rarely acknowledged in US political discourse.

The Marine Corps Air Station Futenma in Okinawa might occasionally grab a headline thanks to sustained and vigorous anti-base protests, and US military bases in Guam might briefly make news due to public opposition to “Valiant Shield” war exercises that have taken place on the US colony during the pandemic. But, overwhelmingly, foreign bases simply are not discussed.

They are immutable, unremarkable facts, rarely considered even during elections that repeatedly invokes concepts like “democracy” and “endless war” and, thanks to a raging pandemic and climate crisis, raises existential questions about what United States is and should be.

The people living in the countries and US colonies impacted by these bases — the workers who build their plumbing systems, latrines, and labor in the sex trades that often spring up around them, the residents subjected to environmental toxins and war exercises — simply do not exist.

These military bases hold the key to understanding why the United States has consistently been in some state of war or military invasion for nearly every year of its existence as a country.

US military bases around the world, from Diego Garcia to Djibouti, are nuts and bolts in the war machine itself. Military bases provide the logistical, supply, and combat support that has allowed the United States to turn the whole world into its battlefield. They make conflict more likely, and then more wars lead to more military bases, in a vicious cycle of expansion and empire. Put another way, “bases frequently beget wars, which can beget more bases, which can beget more wars, and so on.”

While the idea that the global expansion of military bases corresponds with the rise of US empire may seem obvious, it is both consequence and cause. The way global military positions spread — which are always sold to the public as defensive — are by their very nature, offensive and become their own, self-fulfilling ecosystems of conquest.

Just as the induced demand principle shows, building more lanes on highways actually increases traffic, United States of War makes the argument that military bases themselves incentivize and perpetuate military aggression, coups, and meddling.

The trajectory toward empire started with white settler expansion within the United States. In 1785, the US Army initiated what “would become a century-long continent-wide fort-construction program. These forts were used to launch violent invasions of Native American lands, to protect white settler towns and cities, and to force Native Americans further and further away from the East Coast.

They were also used to expand the fur trade, which, in turn, encouraged other settlers to keep moving west, with some forts functioning in part as trading posts. The famed expedition of Lewis and Clark was a military mission to collect geographic data that would be used for more “fort construction, natural resource exploitation and westward colonization by settlers.”

While the United States was expanding its frontier, its Navy was also pursuing fort construction overseas, from North Africa’s Barbary Coast to Chile, often for the purpose of securing trade advantages. In the thirty years following the war of 1812 — primarily a war of US expansion — settlers pushed westward within the United States, building infrastructure as they went: roads, trails, and more than sixty major forts west of the Mississippi River by the 1850s. After the United States went to war with Mexico, army bases were constructed in the annexed territory. Forts in Wyoming protected wagon trails, allowing settlers to expand through the western United States.

The violent conquest and massacre of Native Americans did not stop during the Civil War, and it escalated from 1865 to 1898, when the US Army fought no fewer than 943 distinct engagements against Native peoples, ranging from skirmishes to full-scale battles in twelve separate campaigns. White supremacist policies were particularly pronounced in California, but took place across the West. After 1876, when President Ulysses S. Grant turned over Native Americans to the War Department, Fort Leavenworth was transformed into a prisoner of war camp for the Nimi’ipuu tribe.

Over almost 115 consecutive years of US wars against indigenous nations, US military forts played a consistent role in protecting white settler pillaging and conquest.

The War of 1898 was the start of a new form of overseas empire which saw the country expanded across the continent with the help of US Army forts and near-continuous war. In some cases, it’s possible to draw a direct line between expansion within the United States and conquest abroad.

US Army waged brutal battles against the Kiowa, Comanche, Sioux, Nez Perce, and Apache tribes, then ordered cavalry to massacre as many as three hundred Lakota Sioux in 1890, and then violently put down the Pullman, Illinois railroad workers strike in 1894.

A bloody counterinsurgency war in the Philippines was aimed at defeating its independence movement. Similar continuity between domestic and global repression can be found today as counterinsurgency tactics and military weapons and equipment are used by US police departments.

Organized labor, immigrants, recently freed slaves and indigenous peoples at home and abroad were all subdued by the same military and police forces making way for white settlement and capital expansion.

After seizing Spanish colonies during the 1898 war, the US began to pursue a new form of imperialism that was less dependent on the creation of new formal colonies and more dependent on informal, less overtly violent — but violent nonetheless — political and economic tools backed by military might, including bases abroad. The US built up the military presence in the Philippines to seventy thousand troops, using these forces to help put down China’s Boxer rebellion, and used its military might to intervene ruthlessly in Panama.

World War II saw the dramatic expansion of military bases, an era commencing in 1940, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed a deal with Prime Minister Winston Churchill to trade naval destroyers for ninety-nine-year leases in eight British colonies, all located in the Western Hemisphere. In the immediate aftermath of the war, the US temporarily shrank military personnel spending, and returned roughly half its foreign bases.

Yet the basic global infrastructure of bases remained entrenched and a permanent war system was established. During the post–World War II era of decolonization, the US used its military base network and economic influence, buttressed by new institutions like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, to protect its preeminence.

During the Cold War, overseas base expansion became central to the goals of containment and forward positioning, premised on the idea that global bases allow quick response to threats and rapid interventions and deployments in crises. While giving the illusion of increased safety, these bases actually made foreign wars more likely because they made it easier to wage such wars. In turn, conflict increased construction of US bases.

The Korean War, which killed between three and four million people, prompted a 40 percent increase in the number of US bases abroad, and increasing concern about maintaining bases in the Pacific Ocean. Bases also spread across Latin America, Europe, and the Middle East.

CIA stations expanded alongside military bases, and clandestine meddling and supporting coups became a preferred tool of US Empire. When the US waged brutal war in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, it was assisted by hundreds of bases in Japan, Okinawa, the Philippines, and Guam.

The fate of the roughly one thousand Chagossians (descendants of Indian indentured workers and enslaved Africans) from Diego Garcia, an island in the Indian Ocean, spotlights the remarkable cruelty the US during this period of strategic island approach, whereby the US established control over small, colonial islands.

After making a secret agreement with Britain in 1966 to purchase basing rights, the US and UK governments expelled its residents between 1967 to 1973, leaving them trapped on Mauritius and Seychelles, without jobs or homes, many of their possessions lost to them forever.

During some phases of the expulsion, residents were forced onto cargo ships, their dogs killed. By 1973, the US was using this base to support Israel in its 1973 war with Arab nations. To this day,” Vine notes, Chagossians and many others among the displaced are struggling to return home, to win some justice and recompense for what they have suffered.”

The United States used bases from Diego Garcia to Oman to invade Afghanistan in 2001 and, once there, established more bases, and took over former Soviet ones. Likewise, bases from Kuwait to Jordan to Bahrain to Diego Garcia were critical for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, where the US immediately began building bases and installations post-invasion.

While the Bush-Cheney administration closed some bases in Europe, overall spending on bases reached record highs during their time in office. The war with ISIS has seen troops return to Iraq, and the acquisition of bases, even after the Iraqi parliament in 2011 rejected a deal to keep fifty-eight bases in the country.

Since September 11, 2001, the US has also expanded its presence in Africa, building “lily pads” across the continent — smaller profile, somewhat secretive installations, suggesting a frog jumping from lily pad to lily pad toward its prey. US bases have been central to waging the 2011 NATO war in Libya, drone strikes in Yemen, military intervention in Somalia and Cameroon. The military has been conducting a variety of operations regularly in at least 49 African countries.

Meanwhile, base spending has played a key role in the steady uptick of overall military spending. In addition to the direct harm they do through enabling war, bases are associated with incredible fraud and waste, and base contractors renowned for their significant political contributions. This political force, and self-contained logic of sustenance and expansion, is the key to understanding how the Military Industrial Complex can be like Frankenstein’s monster, taking on a life of its own thanks to the spending it commands.

The War on Terror ethos, in which the whole world is considered a US battlefield and the US grants itself broad latitude to wage preemptive war, has come to define US foreign policy. George W. Bush talked about the importance of having a military ready to strike at a moment’s notice in any dark corner of the world to the Middle East, Africa, and Muslim areas of Asia.

Today, the war on ISIS — responsible for significant civilian deaths — continues, so does brinkmanship with Iran, hedging against China, brutal war in Afghanistan, and US support for the war on Yemen, which has unleashed a profound humanitarian crisis.

Will China and Russia be the next targets if United States succeeds in imposing sanctions on Iran?

Reportedly on 14th August 2020, the 15-member UN Security Council (UNSC) unanimously rejected a resolution moved by United States to extend an arms embargo on Iran. All other JCPOA participants and most of the UNSC members argued that since the US was no longer a JCPOA participant it cannot use these provisions.

The majority of the UNSC members said they would not support the US move to snapback sanctions. One can still recall that US President, Donald Trump had signed a document reinstating sanctions against Iran after announcing its withdrawal from JCPOA on 8th May 2018. It is also on record that the US after ending its participation in the JCPOA had spared no effort to destroy the agreement.

One has to explore the validity of the US claim. It is believed that there is no legitimacy of the US claim. The imposition of sanctions and the defacto blockade of Iran is a long-standing act of the US to usher regime change, similar to those it had carried out in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. 

The next question to be explored is; will other members of the UNSC back the US move? It is doubtful that Russia or China would back anything the US aims at hitting Iran. The repeated failures of the US in UNSC have prompted it to move unilaterally to pursue its agenda against Iran.

Yet another question arises, can the US force other JCPOA members to back its actions? Historically, the US has used a variety of tools to threaten and coerce nations around the globe to support its demands. Its current trade war with China is in many ways designed to pressurize Beijing to make concessions. It is becoming evident that both China and Russia know that if the US is successful in imposing sanction on Iran, it will also become easier to take similar actions against them.  

The last question to be answered is, why has Trump focused on the Iran issue months before the 2020 presidential election? Trump had started talking about "ending the Iran deal" even before becoming president. If one looks at US foreign policy agenda, all US presidents eventually end up adopting the US policy papers like the Brookings Institution's "Which Path to Persia?" Declaring a desire to first create, then withdraw from a deal with Iran in order to make the US look like it tried to be reasonable before moving on to more extreme tactics. 

Barack Obama and Donald Trump merely played their role in this game - Obama created the deal and Trump withdrew from it. There are reasons to believe that the US had no intention of honoring its commitments even before its representatives sat down with their Iranian counterparts. Trump may win or lose the upcoming election, maximum US pressure will continue on Iran. Other JCPOA participants will have to deal with the US aggression pragmatically.

Is Lebanon the next target of US lust for oil?

The protests and political upheavals in Lebanon and apprehensions by United States must be read very carefully. The developments in Lebanon have to be viewed with a different perspective after Lebanese Energy and Water Minister Neda Boustani announced the start of drilling of country’s first oil well in the waters off the coast of Beirut.

The oil well is to be drilled in the Mediterranean 30 kilometers from the Lebanese capital in the north. About a year and a half ago, Lebanon awarded its first offshore gas and oil exploration and production agreements to a consortium of France’s Total, Italy’s Eni and Russia’s Novatek for two blocks out of ten.

Ten oil blocks have been identified in the coastal waters of Lebanon with an area about 18,000 square kilometers.

The Americans, who have shown that the smell of oil drives them to the oil-rich countries, these days, pretend that they are really concerned about the situation in Lebanon and its people. Mike Pompeo, US secretary of state, has recently claimed that Iraqi and Lebanese people want their countries back from Iran.

The expression of concerns by the US over the situation in Lebanon, in the light of Boustani’s announcement, has led various Lebanese groups, especially Hezbollah, to feel the danger very well. Hezbollah Executive Council Deputy Chief Sheikh Ali Da’mush has warned that the US and its allies are seeking to undermine the political system in Lebanon and restructure it in their own favor.

The US wants a government comes to power which would be under its own control and implement Washington’s plans. For example, it wants Lebanon agree to demarcation of borders based on Israel’s wishes, grant projects for oil and gas extractions to US companies, permanently house the displaced Palestinian people, and target the axis of resistance and its missile power.

In addition to the United States, the Zionist regime is also happy with the unrest because Israel has disputes with Lebanon over common borders as well as oil and gas resources. Such an uprising provides the opportunity for Tel Aviv to plunder Lebanese natural resources.

The Zionist regime which is violating the Lebanese land, airspace and territorial waters frequently will take advantage of the protests in the country while Lebanese officials are doing their utmost to improve and calm the situation. Consequently, the officials will not be able to pay attention to regional issues, which is a matter that Hezbollah has repeatedly warned about.

Undoubtedly, one cannot have a positive view of sudden unrest in oil-rich countries in the Middle East under the shadow of US intervention. History has shown that oil-rich countries have always suffered from domestic tensions and crises so that Western powers, that usually lead the riots, can easily plunder their oil resources. 

In any case, it seems that after Syria, the US has specified Lebanon as its next destination for oil robbery, and US officials are expected to make specific comments on the developments in the country in future days.

Media in United States in the grip of intelligence agents

Some of my blog readers did not like a term coined by me “Dishonest Western Media”. Today I got an opportunity to read an article in "Information Clearing House", I am happy to share it verbatim.

After years in the shadows overseeing espionage, kill programs, warrantless wiretapping, entrapment, psyops and other covert operations, national security establishment retirees are are turning to a new line of work where they can carry out their imperial duties.

That is, propagandizing the public on cable news. Reborn as cable news pundits, these people are cashing in. So many years working in the dark, only to emerge in the studio lights of the same networks that rail all day everyday against state TV from countries that America hates.

It may look crazy how many former spooks have been hired at corporate news outlets like CNN and MSNBC as “analysts”. After spending their careers serving the national security state, they get to shape the news under the guise of expertise. It’s like state TV

Following is but a partial list of prominent former spooks turned mainstream media pundits and analysts, to say nothing of the even greater numbers of retired generals the network continuously rely on. 

Former CIA Director John Brennan who is now an NBC News senior national security and intelligence analyst

Fran Townsend, former homeland security advisor to George W. Bush. She's now a CBS News senior national security analyst. 

But CNN takes the cake — it's the biggest spook show of all

Jim Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence, now a CNN national security analyst

Retired General Michael Hayden, former director of the CIA and the NSA, now a CNN national security analyst

Asha Rangappa, former FBI special agent, now CNN legal analyst

James Gagliano, a retired FBI supervisory special agent, now a CNN law enforcement analyst

Tony Bliken, former deputy secretary of state and former deputy national security advisor, and now CNN global affairs analyst

Mike Rogers, former chair of the House Intelligence Committee, now CNN national security commentator

Samantha Vinograd senior advisor to the national security advisor under President Obama, now CNN national security analyst

Steven Hall, retired CIA chief of Russia operations, now a CNN national security analyst

Philip Mudd, former CIA counter-terrorism official, now CNN counter-terrorism analyst

Can US afford an assault on Iran?

The US-Iran standoff continues to evolve quickly, yet commentaries covering tanker attacks, a downed drone, and reversed orders for airstrikes from the White House fail to explain the logic behind an intervention, if the Trump administration decides to intervene. Therefore, it is worth exploring what a war between the two would actually look like.

Ideally, the US should have learnt some lessons from Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Distant foreign conflicts are difficult to win, which most of the Americans are usually unwilling to think unless faced with a massive and immediate threat. Small-scale engagements accomplish little and are instead more likely to evolve into larger conflicts. Installing foreign governments are more difficult, costly, time-consuming and even deadly than leaders are likely to claim.

Backing a local proxy is often unpalatable for the country’s sense of ethics, but US adversaries often have no such misgivings. Those proxies are often an ineffective substitute for a US military presence when it comes to pursuing the US agenda. Without a substantial, long-term commitment of US forces, such wars are more likely to leave a power vacuum when the US withdraws. The outcomes are collapsed government, invasion by a neighbor, revolution that creates new and uncertain structures – or some combination of all these. In fact, the US has had a few true victories in the wars it has fought since World War II.

Airstrikes

Exploring US government’s options in a war with Iran, the most probable option is limited strikes, similar in scale to or perhaps somewhat greater than the strikes on Syria that the Trump administration ordered on Syria in 2017 and 2018. But Iran is not Syria, as it has a sophisticated air defense infrastructure and plenty of air denial capability, increasing the chance of US casualties. Further, a limited air strike probably wouldn’t accomplish anything meaningful. It might take out a handful of radar and air defense installations, sending a political signal but affecting in no real way the strategic reality on the ground. The only time US air power alone has significantly shifted the reality on the ground was in Kosovo, but Iran today is far more powerful than Serbia in 1999.

On the contrary, limited strikes may have opposite outcome. Iran’s economy is hurting and its society appears more divided as citizens continue to grow frustrated with the government. The US has imposed sanctions as a strategy to hobble the economy enough to create social pressure on Tehran, forcing the government to spend less on its defenses and funding of militias in Syria and Iraq, so far, they’ve been effective. If the US continues this tactic, over time Iran’s domestic situation would worsen, and its citizens would be more likely to blame its leadership for their problems. And that would likely intensify the divisions within the government that are already emerging, resulting in either a more Western-friendly government or one dominated by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Even limited US airstrikes would increase the probability of the IRGC consolidating power. If the sanctions can help create division, an attack would unite Iran’s hard-liners and reformers against the US. That unity would likely occur under the aegis of the hard-liners who have been warning all along that this day would come if Iran were foolish enough to trust the US. As the most powerful entity in the county, the IRGC would probably take over, and do so with popular support.

Use of Ground Force

Ground force is a less likely choice for the US, even with limited objectives (like eliminating specific military equipment or securing passage through the Strait of Hormuz). But it would be more likely to achieve what the US really wants, Iran to recall its foreign militias to defend the home. But when a military force is rapidly removed without a replacement ready to take its place, it creates a power vacuum and, therefore, an opportunity for others to fill the void. The pace at which Iran withdraws its militias from Syria and Iraq can alter the regional balance of power.

If any militant group occupies the space vacated by Iran, US would have to again deal with this problem, which would require reoccupying parts of Iraq while fighting Iran. This would likely entail support from Syrian and Iraqi Kurdish forces, which would again put pressure on US-Turkey relations. But the Syrian Kurds may not see a long-term alliance with the US as in its best interest after the US threatened to leave them high and dry in December 2018. They could instead seek out a political resolution with Damascus, backed by Russia that would protect them from Turkey. It is also likely that Russia may step in to back Kurdish groups such as the Syrian Democratic Forces to fight back. But that would mean the US would be depending on Russian assistance to cover its western flank, and in exchange for such cooperation Russia would likely demand US concessions in places like Ukraine. In short, going all-in with Iran would require either a large-scale US occupation or dependence on Russia in Syria and Iraq. Neither of those are appealing options for Washington.

Regime Change

If it is regime change that the US may attempt in Iran, the risks are even greater. The fallout would look much like that of the second Iraq war, but on a far greater scale. Installing a pro-American regime isn’t easy, but it can easily fail. The US would have to commit to an indefinite occupation of Iran or again risk the emergence of a power vacuum. The US would have to deal with the rest of the Middle East. In the best-case scenario, the US would install a new head of government while facing a lengthy insurgency, which would likely include the vestiges of the IRGC and its heavy weaponry. After a long, costly occupation, the US would have to withdraw, leaving Iran’s leaders to face opposition on their own. The half-life of US-installed leaders in the Middle East would not be long. Limited airstrikes or a full-scale invasion (military confrontation with Iran) would create more problems for the US rather than offering any sustainable solution.

US troops to stay in Afghanistan forever

I started writing blogs under Geo politics in South Asia and MENA about five years back. The objective was to share my views with global readers, particularly the Think Tanks operating in the US. Most of the topics I picked up over the years were: 1) proxy wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, 2) imposition of economic sanctions on Iran for decades, 3) use of crude oil as weapon, 4) melodramas in the name of change of regime, 5) creations of phantoms like Taliban, Al Qaeda and ISIS and 6) dishonest western media.

The title of one of my second blog written in August 2012 was Will US pull troops out of Afghanistan? Despite having little knowledge about international relations or geopolitics at that time, my conclusion was that the US will never pull its troops out of Afghanistan. My conclusion was based on the fact that presence of the US troops in Afghanistan provides it a safe haven for undertaking cross border actions in Pakistan, Iran, China and some of the energy rich Central Asian countries.

I had deliberately avoided mentioning drug as one of the prime reasons for the US troops for occupying Afghanistan, but one of the readers of my blog was prompt in raising this point. If one thinks with a cool head this may be the key reason because it gives control on drug trade and also the money to be paid to militants for killing the innocents ruthlessly and to keep the world permanently under fear. It may also be said that Afghanistan has become a nursery for growing mercenaries and people from around the world get training in the rugged mountains of Afghanistan. They are also paid from the money earned from cultivation of poppy.

Having born and grown in war-ridden Afghanistan, the locals have become ‘blood thirsty’ and suffer from restlessness unless they kill a few people every day. Ironically they not only kill their own countrymen but also go to places where conflicts have been created by the super powers to satisfy their lust.

The conclusion of my today’s blog is that after fighting two world wars, super power have decided to fight proxy wars, sell arms to the governments where rebel groups have been created by them, use income from drugs and oil for buying arms. The job becomes easier through propagation of regime change mantra.

These super powers are among the sponsors of the UN, created for restoring peace in the world. However, now the only role of Security Council is to grant permission for attacking a country chosen for the proxy war. Two of the worst examples are Afghanistan and Iraq and many other countries are also the victim of super powers. Usually the military dictators are made head of state and often the drama of sham democracy is also staged.

Are Pakistani politicians the only corrupt?

After having read the latest news about wealth of Pakistani politicians kept abroad I am neither surprised nor dismayed. Over the years many people in the country have highlighted this issue and some were even assassinated as the politicians never wanted this Pandora’s Box to open. One can still recall the statement of a famous columnist of Dawn newspaper who had once said ‘all are thieves’. A storm was created in a cup of tea and soon business was run as usual.

My own analysis of the situation is that around the world many politicians who are corrupt are made part of ruling junta because internal and external forces pick them to follow an agenda. History is full of such names but even a closer look at some of the politicians who were termed ‘corrupt’ was picked up, groomed and assigned specific tasks. Once the ‘mission’ was accomplished each one faced a fate as described by the spy agencies and underworld ‘eliminate an agent when he becomes redundant’.

I will begin the analysis from my own country, Pakistan. I will not talk about history spread over more than six decades but the present situation. Nawaz Sharif and Asif Ali Zardari, the chives of country’s two leading political parties have been accusing each other of corruption. Many references were filed and cases were brought to the apex courts but neither was convicted.

Three military dictators, installed by external forces were also not spared. The external forces bribed the dictators for towing their policies. These developed countries, who claim to be the champions of democracy kept them in power to attain their ulterior motives. One can say with reasonable confidence that the amounts they received from the super powers were also kept outside Pakistan.

The most notorious name of recent history is Saddam Hussain of Iraq, who fought war with Iran, after the Islamic Revolution for a decade and also attacked Kuwait. Once he became redundant he was hanged and no one has any clue of his wealth kept outside Iraq.

One just can’t ignore Anwar Sadat of Egypt; he played a key role in recognition of Israel by many Muslim countries after ‘successful’ negotiation at Camp David. Once the objective was achieved he was assassinated while taking salute on the National Day.

Many mysteries are associated with the sudden death of Indian Prime Minister after Tashkent Agreement, assassination of Sheikh Mujeeb-ur-Rehman soon after creation of Bangladesh, killing of King Faisal of Saudi Arabia by his own nephew after formation of OIC, shooting of Indian Prime Minister Indra Gandhi by her own guard after Shimla Agreement, assassination of Benazir Bhutto and alleged ‘judicial murder’ of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.

One has all the reasons to believe that the rulers are installed, toppled and even assassinated by the super powers to achieve their vested interest. They use different jargons for bringing the select in power and get rid of them in the name of ‘regime change’. The only regret is that the champions of democracy indulge in these ‘dirty politics’ but people of their own country hardly raise voice against them.

Oil glut has been created with a purpose

In one of my previous blogs I raised a point that western media often mislead. I have a strong feeling that like any third world country news are produced on the behest of lobbying firms. These lobbying firms often call their work ‘Policy Advocacy’. These entities work for protecting the interest of Fortune-50 and Fortune-500 companies and not the consumers or public at large.

My perception gets further strength when I go through the reports of mainstream media regarding the prevailing oil glut. These media companies paint a scenario that if oil price goes further down, the entire global economy would plunge in serious crisis. There would be many bankruptcies and for saving the oil and gas exploration and production companies crude price must be hiked.

These companies had made tons of money through connivance. This game was started by the US companies and Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries were trapped. They lived under the false impression that inflow of petro-dollars was on the rise and totally ignored the fact that one the US attains self sufficiency in oil production, it would gradually deprive all other oil countries from oil income.

Interestingly, the US has plunged oil prices to present lows to inflict material injury to all the oil producing countries, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Iran being the prime targets. It is stunning that Russia and Saudi Arabia are fighting a proxy war in Syria but have joined hands to convince OPEC and non-OPEC members that their survival was in cutting down production.

This brings to mind an old saving that enemy of an enemy can be made friend. Saudis very strongly believe that the US has betrayed them with regards to Syria and Iran. Russia has established its nuisance value in the Middle East and its policy makers strongly believe that by joining hands with Saudi Arabia they can achieve twin objectives, weakening the US influence on countries located in Arabia Peninsula and pushing many of the US oil producing companies out of business.

Ironic is the attitude of oil consuming countries, which feel helpless before these exploiters. They are also falling victim of the disinformation being spread by the western media.  These countries have been made to believe that economic downturn in the US would also affect their economies adversely.

Since I live in Pakistan and following this issue to some extent, the incumbent government has failed in passing the benefit of low oil prices to the masses. Following IMF mantra the government has increased percentage of tax on energy products to overcome budget deficit. I am sure Pakistan is not the only countries following IMF recipe blindly but all those countries that live on the crutches of IMF are following the same policy blindly.

Pakistan has failed in benefiting from the GSP plus status granted to the country by the European Union only because of prevailing energy crisis. I would say it very loudly that energy crisis in Pakistan is not due to the shortage of energy products but blatant theft, gross inefficiencies and above all massive corruption.

In the third world rulers are installed and toppled in the name of ‘regime change’. It is simple that once an agent becomes redundant it is eliminated, assassinations are common but portrayed as act of rebels or an act of God.

Explosion of aero plane of Pakistan’s President Ziaul Haq was not an accident but outright killing. Those who died along with Zia included the US Ambassador to Pakistan, a Brigadier General of the US Army and many generals of Pakistan Army, who had played key role in defeating USSR in Afghanistan.