Boosting Pakistan Iran Trade

A Trade delegation from Tehran Chamber of Commerce, Industries, Mines and Agriculture (TCCIMA) recently visited Pakistan to discuss strengthening trade ties between the two countries.

In a meeting with their Pakistani counterparts, the Iranian delegation expressed concerns over the low level of trade between the two countries and suggested taking measures like holding exhibitions, exchanging business delegations and the use of non-bank channels for money transfers, for boosting trade between the two nations.

The delegation, Led by TCCIMA Head Masoud Khansari also visited Federation of Pakistan Chambers of Commerce & Industry (FPCCI). Mian Anjum Nisar, President, FPCCI said the level of economic relations between the two countries was insufficient keeping in view the existing capacities and cultural closeness between the two sides.

“Although the two countries have signed a preferential trade agreement a few years ago, none of them has used this opportunity properly,” Nisar regretted.

There are growing realization that the US sanctions against Iran are a major part of the obstacles to the development of economic cooperation between the two countries, and both sides need to take serious measures to resolve this issue. 

During the visit to Pakistan, the Iranian delegation also met with Arif Ahmed Khan, Chief Executive, Trade Development Authority of Pakistan (TDAP) in Karachi.

In the meeting, the two sides emphasized the need to use solutions such as the preferential trade agreement, free trade agreement, and removing customs barriers for boosting trade relations between the two countries. 

Speaking on this occasion, the head of the Tehran chamber pointed out some of the obstacles in the development of economic cooperation between the two countries. Annual trade between Iran and Pakistan is as paltry as US$1.5 billion. 

Ahmad Khan noted that both Iranian and Pakistani authorities should realize that the development of trans-regional trade is subject to a boom in regional trade. Therefore, the two countries must take operational steps to improve trade relations.

Why is war in Iraq still going on, despite the massive economic costs?

The war in Iraq from the outset was very controversial in the United States and other Western countries.The opponents considered the cost of the war in Iraq as a heavy burden on the US taxpayers and wanted to prevent the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and have called for a halt to the war in Iraq repeatedly since its beginning.

Lately, various US groups and institutions have rallied to highlight this issue once again. “The Costs of War Project” is one of the research projects on the costs of the war in Iraq that begun its evaluation of the costs since 2011. The project is being observed and managed by Dr. Neta C. Crawford, Professor and Chair of Political Science at Boston University, examining the key features and effects of the Iraq War on the federal budget. 

According to the latest report says that even if the US administration decides to pull out all of its troops in Iraq immediately, the war has already cost US$1,922 billion to the US tax payers voters from 2003 to the end of 2019. This amount not only includes funding appropriated by the US Department of Defense (DoD) for the war, but also the costs of the care of Iraq War veterans and interests on debt incurred for the 16 years of the US military's involvement in the country. 

The DoD had allotted approximately US$838 billion for military operations in Iraq from the fiscal year 2003 to 2019, including operations fighting ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Aside from the Defense Department costs, the State Department added approximately US$59 billion to the total costs of the Iraq War for The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) on Iraq and Syria. Since 9/11 attacks, about US$4.1 billion has been spent on medical and disability care of war veterans and compensation. 

These costs came at the time when the Pentagon has been trying to cut its expenditures for the past decade after its annual US$140 billion funds for the Iraq War heightened in 2008. In some cases, Congress has appropriated funding required for the war in Iraq apart from previous approved plans.

It is worth mentioning that the EU budget with 27 member countries and a population of 446 million people was set at US$175 billion in 2018. Therefore, a question is being asked, why is the war in Iraq still going on, despite the massive economic costs?

Some experts consider the ideological orientation of US foreign policy to be one of the main reasons for the continued war in Iraq. From this point of view, Washington is trying to confront its ideological opponents rather than adopting short-term approach toward issues and the costs and benefits of the implementation of its policies.

On top of all Washington considers Islamic Republic of Iran as its most important ideological opponent, which has been openly defying the US policies. Therefore, White House leaders find it necessary to continue the war in Iraq to confront Iran.

Therefore, withdrawal of US troops from Iraq is being considered as a major defeat for the United States. That is the reason the US continues to insist on maintaining its presence and even expanding its military bases in Iraq, despite the massive financial costs and the Iraqi parliament’s resolution for expulsion of foreign troops. 

Washington knows it very well that the withdrawal of its troops from Iraq will be taken as a sign of its defeat. It also knows that this defeat will be the opposite of the "America First" populist slogan.

Need to end Saudi-Iran animosity

One completely fails to understand why even a thought of ending Saudi-Iranian animosity make the supporters of monarch jittery. If one could recollect lately Iraq made an attempt to ease tension between the two arc enemies, but turmoil was created in Iraq. Soon after two top military strategist, one each from Iran and Iraq were killed, the probability of war in the region increased manifold.

Recently, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, who traveled to Germany to attend the 2020 Munich Security Conference, said that after the martyrdom of commander Soleimani, we received a message from Saudi Arabia calling on talks with Iran. Zarif also reiterated that although he replied to the Saudis' response, he received no further messages.

Following the remarks by the Iranian foreign minister, Saudi Foreign Minister, Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud claimed that Riyadh had not sent any private messages to Tehran. On the issue of talks between Iran and Saudi Arabia, there seem divergent thoughts, which must be explored to end the enomsity.

First, it is being said that Saudi Arabia is trying to compare the dialogue between Riyadh and Tehran with the US-Iran negotiation and is constantly changing its stance on Iran. The nature of the negotiations between Iran and the US differs from that between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Iran has repeatedly stated that it is willing to hold talks with the Saudis without any preconditions, as the proximity of the two countries is in favor of stabilizing the region and reducing tensions.

Second, the Saudis have always set mostly general and vague preconditions for starting talks with Iran, such as the need for Iran to change its behavior in the region. The foreign policies of the countries are defined by their foreign interests, so Saudi Arabia expects to change all of Iran's behavior and policies in the region, which is totally inappropriate.

Third, Saudi officials have been at odds over developments in the region; on the one hand, they know that the US and the West cannot provide the country’s security forever, which led Riyadh to the dialogue with Tehran, and on the other hand, they are still looking forward U. support. The recent regional developments have led Saudi Arabia to face new developments in the region.

Fourth, remarks by Zarif indicate that the Saudis are deeply afraid of escalating tensions in the region. Whenever military tensions are heightened in the region the Saudis reduce their provocative actions against Iran, but once the situation is settled down they resume their actions. The most notable sample of this behavior is Saudi Arabia’s reaction to the assassination of General Qassem Soleimani, as it was trying to not take a provocative stance against Iran.

Fifth, Saudi Arabia needs to restore its ties with Iran to deal with the regional cases. The first issue is the attrition warfare in Yemen that began in March 2015 with the invasion of the Saudi-led coalition and has continued until now. There are clear thoughts a war that had nothing but destruction for the Yemeni people and defeats and lots of military costs for the Saudis.

In its recent actions toward Damascus, Saudi Arabia has shown that it is seeking to improve its relations with Syria, a country that has strong ties with Iran and is a part of the axis of resistance. In this regard, Syria’s permanent representative to the United Nations, Bashar Al-Jaafari, recently attended a special ceremony held in honor of the Saudi Minister of State in New York, Fahad Bin Abdullah Al Mubarak, which drew lots of controversy.

Diplomatic sources in New York said the Saudi delegate to the UN, Abdullah bin Yahya al-Muallami had intentionally met with Bashar al-Jaafari during the visit, which was unexpected for the attendees. During their celebration Saudi officials expressed their love for Syria and said that it remained in their hearts, adding that what had occurred between the two countries was nothing but a summer cloud that will inevitably pass.

Ankara has become a relentless rival to Riyadh in all aspects these days. This issue has been worsened following the Persian Gulf crisis, Saudi Arabia's cut of relations with Qatar and the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. Saudi Arabia needs to improve its relations with Iran to be able to prevent Turkish influence, especially in African countries and Libya.

Improving relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia can undoubtedly be helpful in settling the crisis between Saudi Arabia and Qatar, as Doha has gotten closer to Tehran and Ankara since the crisis.

 The point is that some parties will certainly be dissatisfied with the close relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia and will make every effort to obstruct it.

United States not likely to ever pull its troops from Afghanistan

I wrote a blog as back as in August 2012 exploring the probability of United States pulling its troops from Afghanistan. Despite being a novice at that time, my conclusion was that troops may never be pulled out. The history confirms my prediction was right.

My biggest argument was that the objective of sending troops to Afghanistan was not to liberate the Afghan from the control of USSR or Taliban, but to occupy it for economical and political gains. It must also be kept in mind that there was no justification for attacking Afghanistan as no Afghan was involved in 9/11, directly or indirectly.

One could find only two reasons for the continued occupation of Afghanistan by the US troops: 1) presence of valuable metals and other bounties and 2) use of the country as a military base against adjoining countries, i.e. Pakistan, Iran, China and India. The persistent state of war in Afghanistan will neither allow rest of the world to sell its goods to Central Asian countries nor buy crude oil and gas from the countries that were previously part of USSR.

Being the sole surviving super power, United States seems adamant at maintaining its military dominance by brining countries all around the world under its hegemony. Afghanistan has an important place in the US foreign policy due to common borders with Pakistan, Iran, China and many oil and gas rich Central Asian countries.

Since Islamic Revolution in Iran, United States has been projecting the country as the biggest threat to the world. Over the years, despite remaining under economic sanctions, Iran has emerged as one of the major challenger for the US hegemony in the region. It seems certain that United States is waiting for the right opportunity to attack Iran to destroy its nuclear assets. United States needs a military base near Iran and Afghanistan is the ideal option.  The two countries share long mountainous border, which is virtually impossible to monitor and defend.

Lately, China has also emerged as the second superpower and started challenging US hegemony. While United States has been controlling countries through its military might, China is using the other alternative, its economic supremacy. To contain China, United States has already created its outposts in Taiwan and South Korea, but Afghanistan offers the best option, a land route.

Afghanistan has remained a hostage of super powers since Cold War era. It is no secret that if USSR had used Afghanistan, US have been occupying patronized the country for the last two decades. Having failed in bringing regime change in Iran in last four decades, the super power is consolidating its position in Afghanistan.

The USSR believed that getting control over Afghanistan could give it a perfect foot hold in South Asia and the Middle East. There are no warm water ports in Afghanistan, but getting control over the Khyber Pass (located in Pakistan) an ancient trade route would bring it closer to Iran and Turkey on the West and Pakistan on the South, all with warm water ports.

The recent history proves that the United States has got too desperate in establishing its hegemony in South Asia and MENA. Afghanistan appears to be the most ideal outpost. Therefore, hoping that the United States will pull its troops from Afghanistan is hoping against the hopes.