US troops to stay in Afghanistan perpetually

I wrote a blog as back as in August 2012 posing a question; will the US pull its troops out of Afghanistan after 2014? While the overwhelming perception was it will pull the troops out, my conclusion was contrary. This seems true as the US troops are still there, with 2015 approaching an end.

Even at that time I had stated very clearly that the US attack was not to liberate Afghanistan from the control of USSR or Taliban but to occupy it for economical and political reasons. Neither presence of Taliban in Afghanistan not its involvement in attack on the world trade center was known to all.

Now, I can attribute occupation of Afghanistan to: 1) valuable metals in the country, 2) geopolitics and top of all 3) the huge quantity of poppy produced in the country. Being the super power the US keeps its troops in almost every region where it has some stake. Afghanistan has an important place in the US foreign policy due to common borders with Pakistan, Iran, China and proximity with many oil and gas rich Central Asian countries.

After the Islamic Revolution, Iran was projected as the biggest threat for the world, especially for Arab monarchs and also to the US and its 53^rd state, Israel. The US also had plans to send its troops to Iran to takeover country’s nuclear assets. It needs an outpost near Iran and Afghanistan is the ideal country.  The two countries share a long mountainous border, which is virtually impossible to monitor and defend.  

China is the second most powerful superpower, which is likely to surpass the gross domestic product of the US by 2020 and become world’s strongest economic superpower. The US already has outposts in Taiwan and South Korea and Afghanistan provides the third base in case any attack o China becomes the ultimate.

Taking Afghanistan as hostage was part of the US foreign policy and military strategy. The USSR believed that getting control over Afghanistan could give it a perfect foot hold in South Asia and the Middle East. The US also believes the Afghanistan is the gateway to central Asian countries.

Over the years China remained focused on its economy. When Russia tried to stretch its muscles sanctions were imposed on it. Now it is attacking ISIS bases in Syria and also trying to establish friendly relations with Pakistan and other strategically important countries

This does not bode well for the US, still adamant at maintaining its hegemony in South Asia and MENA. Therefore, probability of end to the US occupation of Afghanistan is hoping against the hopes.

 

US the worst dictator

The West owes Russia a lot, first a sincere apology and a welcome into Europe. Russia has been and is an extremely important nation and very unjustly denied its rightful place there. What doesn’t belong to Europe is the US, not in any way whatsoever, especially because being a dictatorship.

Why does America’s anti-Russia military club NATO still exist, after the Soviet Union’s equivalent Warsaw Pact disbanded in 1991 when the Soviet Union and its communism voluntarily ended? NATO is nothing but America’s anti-Russia military club, against Russia and against any nation that supports Russia.

The US killed Gaddafi of Libya because he supported Russia in international relations. The super power created a failed state and jihadist mayhem that has virtually destroyed the country. All was done in the name of change of regime and the assault was directly supervised by the US Ambassador in Libya.

The US overthrew Yanukovych in Ukraine only because he turned down the EU’s offer to Ukraine after learning that the price-tag for Ukrainians would be $160 billion if Ukraine were to comply with the EU’s demands. There are some credible evidences that the U.S. was already organizing the coup against him starting a year before the coup, and nine months before Yanukovych turned down the EU’s offer.

The US after failing in overthrowing Assad in Syria, facilitated ISIS to make an entry and now along with many other European countries supposedly attacking ISIS bases but virtually destroying Iraq and Syria. This created worst refugee problem and to close the door for these Paris was attached by ISIS.

The US was also the leader in initiating a war against Iran, after Islamic Revolution, with the help of Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. The sanctions are there for more than three decades. Now the efforts are to split Iraq in three states. Saudi Arabia is fighting a proxy war in Yemen.

This is dictatorship and totalitarianism of the US fully supported by the West, against Russia and any other nation that isn’t buckling to the U.S. aristocracy and its allied aristocracies in Europe.       

Let’s start with the results of a 2009 investigation by Germany’s Spiegel, or Mirror, magazine, which is a mainstream German news site, that’s a bit more honest than America’s equivalents. They headlined, very directly: “NATO’s Eastward Expansion: Did the West Break Its Promise to Moscow?”

They identified what that “promise” was, which Russia claims was violated, and which Spiegel was investigating: “that NATO’s expansion into Eastern Europe violated commitments made during the negotiations over German reunification.” The next sentence in Spiegel’s report states unequivocally their conclusion: “Newly discovered documents from Western archives support the Russian position.”

The question Spiegel’s article discusses isn’t whether NATO’s continued existence is an evil, but instead whether NATO should have extended eastward up to Russia’s own borders — whether, to make this matter quite clear now, if the USSR had won, and its Warsaw Pact and not NATO had continued (though neither should have continued), the Warsaw Pact should have extended itself all the way to including Mexico and/or Canada? 

One is inclined to conclude that the West lies about this history and only the few people with brains and open minds will get the important point:

When the then merely West Germany was negotiating reunification of Germany with the then merely Eastern half of Germany, is exactly in accord with what Russia’s allegations have been saying all along, and exactly the opposite of what West Germany’s Foreign Minister then, Hans Dietrich Genscher, has been asserting to have been the case.

Jack Matlock, the US ambassador in Moscow at the time, has said in the past that Moscow was given a “clear commitment.” Hans-Dietrich Genscher, the German foreign minister in 1990, says this was precisely not the case.

After speaking with many of those involved and examining previously classified British and German documents in detail, it can be concluded that there was no doubt that the West did everything it could to give the Soviets the impression that NATO membership was out of the question for countries like Poland, Hungary or Czechoslovakia.

Europe remained allied with the U.S. and continues participating in NATO, especially after having been instructed by America to lie, and to have deceived Gorbachev, who behaved honorably throughout and afterward, is Europe’s great shame.

The US is also Europe’s enemy — not merely Russia’s enemy. Not merely the truth’s enemy. Not merely democracy’s enemy.

World must oppose US assaults in Syria and Iraq

I have repeatedly stated in my blogs that a proxy war is being fought in Syria. The objective is not as stated by the US, ‘change in regime in Syria’ but to continuously keep the neighboring Muslim countries in state of war.

The engagement on one hand forces these countries to buy more of ‘Made in USA armaments’ and on the other hand make them ‘war maniacs’ usually termed militants by the western media. Bulk of petrodollars are being spent on purchase of arms rather than on the welfare of people,

Ironically, western media, which once enjoyed the honor of being independent, can at best be termed ‘propagators of policies of hawks’. In the past some of the icons questioned policies of the then US president towards Vietnam, which left him with no option, but to step down, as against Bush and Obama have thrived on wars.

It seems that kind of critics have vanished or have been replaced by the cronies, constantly playing war mantra. The latest addition to the long list is Secretary of Defense; Ashton Carter who recently appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee to outline a new US military strategy for the Middle East.

The Secretary admitted the failure of the US “train and equip” program for rebels in Syria, but instead of taking the appropriate lessons from that failure and get out of the “regime change” obsession, he announced the opposite.

According to the Secretary the US military would for the first time become directly and overtly involved in combat in Syria and Iraq. Under this program the US would begin supporting capable partners in opportunistic attacks against ISIS or conducting such missions directly, either by strikes from the air or direct action on the ground.

Direct action on the ground means US boots on the ground, even though President Obama had ruled out that possibility when he launched air strikes against Iraq and Syria last year. But promises are made and broken to achieve the vested interests; no one can deny this harsh reality.

The entire world needs to condemn the US decision at attack Syria in the strongest words, the ill-advised US military escalation in the Middle East. Whoever concluded that it was a good idea to send US troops into an area already being bombed by Russian military forces must be relieved of his duty on ‘medical grounds’ for being completely devoid of rationale thinking.

The fact is those who run US foreign policy don’t have the courage to accept their clear defeat in almost every war. They are so obsessed with their regime change plan in Syria that they are willing to risk the lives of US soldiers and initiate another mega war in the region — or even beyond.

These hawks insist that Russian strikes against ISIS and al-Qaeda must be resisted, because these are seen as helping the Assad government remain in power, and the US administration is determined that Assad must go. Why can’t the US just walk out of the Arabian Peninsula, which is no longer a source of cheap oil?

I believe building heat in MENA is just to divert attention of the world from South China Sea, where the US has already started minor encounters with China. I am forced to reiterate my words ‘US is the biggest warmonger’, I deliberately avoided using the term ‘terrorist’ often used by Iran.

Pakistan: Pulling PML-N out of disarray

Lately, I have noticed the sudden hike in traffic at my website, visitors particularly from outside Pakistan exploring various types of threats and possibility of ‘election engineering’. The highest numbers of visits are of course from USA followed by China, Russia, Germany and other European countries.

I have reasons to believe their eagerness because after the announcement of China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), foreign investors are actively exploring investment potentials in Pakistan. Some of the geopolitical analysts termed NA-122 election crucial because the PML-N defeat could have raised serious repercussions for its government.

The ongoing rift among PML-N ministers shows cracks in the party headed by Mian Nawaz Sharif, creating the history of becoming Prime minister of Pakistan for the third time. Allegations of corruption are also being leveled against three of the largest political parties ruling federal and provincial governments:  PML-N, PPP, and PTI. The worst criticism against PML-N is due to its failure in overcoming energy crisis.

The matter of the fact is that Sardar Ayaz Sadiq has once again emerged victorious. Does this prove the allegations of rigging/election engineering were incorrect? Interestingly it is also being said that Imran Khan suffering from illusion completely ignored the fact that Ayaz has repeatedly won from this constituency of National Assembly. Defeating him was not an easy task as PML-N has to ensure his victory at any cost to prove that it had not stolen the public mandate.

The outcome of recent elections in some of the constituencies of National and Provincial Assemblies show that PPP, PTI and even PML-N face disgruntled voters. While PTI was considered a bankable political party, its failure in KPK province has certainly disappointed many of its supporters.

Since 2013 elections were marred by killing of activists of select political parties, it was feared that the history may also be repeated. Barring some minor incidents the entire process completed peacefully. The only regret is that many of the television channels played partisan role and a fruitless debate is still going on.

Being a third world country, rigging and election engineering can’t be ruled out in Pakistan. Supporters and fund providers to political parties play a key role even in the most developed countries. In Pakistan election process is further marred due to poor literacy and active involvement of feudal lords and business tycoons.

Will Iran Accord bring peace to the region?

The accord reached between the P5+1 group and Iran seems to be unfolding like a jigsaw puzzle. Many people have not understood the underlining motives or their long-term implications. The brutal reality is that the regional power centre will shift from Saudi Arabia to Iran though it is difficult to foresee how the future will unfold and who will be the winners and losers. The bottom line is that those who are able to understand the dynamics in play will be better off and those who try to fly against the wind will soon exhaust their energies. It will be a marathon with no slot for a sprinter.

Those who believe that the accord was desired by the western powers as well as Iran may be right but one has to keep in mind that it is the outcome of imposition of stringent sanctions that has led to reconciliation. The span of these negotiations is spread over ten years, during which the world has changed a lot, friends have turned into foes and rivals have been made partners, involved in proxy wars in many countries. During this period a lot of dust was thrown up which made it difficult for the actual happenings to become visible even for those who were in close proximity.

Over the years, crude oil prices were kept high and touched a peak of more than US$147 a barrel. The largest oil producing countries were apparently benefiting but were hardly able to understand the ultimate motive. The shale oil boom in the U.S. catapulted the number of active rigs to beyond 1,600 but now only around 600 rigs are in operation. Most of the storage facilities in the U.S. are full but the country is still producing around 9 million barrels per day and has surpassed daily production of Saudi Arabia, which is the world’s largest oil producing country.

Is it just a coincidence or a paradigm shift? Two points were evident, during these years: 1) there were hectic diplomatic efforts to tame Iran and convince it to roll back its disputed nuclear program and 2) the number of working rigs in the U.S. broke all previous records.

The timing of final negotiations between the P5+1 group and Iran and the fall of crude oil prices also coincide. The plunging oil prices appear to exert pressure on Russia and Saudi Arabia and also to force Iran to kneel down. In fact, Iran had faced multifarious problems because it was allowed to export only a limited quantity of oil.

Hurdles were also created by blacklisting those banks that channeled payments to Iran and stopping insurance companies from underwriting oil and ships. During this period, China emerged as an important savior for Iran by becoming the biggest buyer of its oil; others joining the bandwagon were India, Japan and South Korea. China can be said to have played a pivotal role in concluding the accord. It is no secret that as a result of all this, China aspires to become a global economic and military force.

This evident in China’s "One Belt, One Road" initiative that aims to link the country with Eurasia and the Middle East. Sanctions-scarred Iran was in desperate need for a new infrastructure and was also keen to expand the flow of people and commerce across its borders. Nearly three decades of economic sanctions had made Iran the most attractive investment destination. Proximity to key energy shipping routes made China the biggest beneficiary of this accord. Since many of the foreign energy companies left Iran due to sanctions, Chinese energy giants seemed best placed to invest in Iranian oil and gas development.

Security cooperation between China and Iran is an important feature of Sino-Iran relationship. Both the countries are keen to stop ISIS from gaining a foothold in the neighborhood. If Iran is not ready to tolerate insurgents on its borders, China also wants to stop radicalism in its Xinjiang province. It has already pledged unprecedented security assistance to Afghanistan and has reportedly brokered peace talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban.

Sino-Iranian cooperation may also be based on anti western, especially anti-U.S. sentiments. Beijing seems to be boosting Iran's role in China-led multilateral institutions that do not include the US, especially the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.

One fear is that this cooperation can dent U.S. policy in the Middle East and beyond. An Iran that is overly dependent on China will bolster Beijing's efforts to create alternative political forums that exclude Washington. If the U.S. does not take a prominent role in Afghanistan's peaceful reconstruction and the development of Eurasia, it will cede influence in a pivotal region.

China's ties with Iran are also likely to impact future US-China relations. The best way to balance China-Iran relations would be to keep Sino-American interests in the Middle East constructive and not competitive. The US has to consider sending its own companies to Iran to engage in commercial diplomacy. Taking such steps would help the U.S. bring stability in the region and ensure that China and Iran both see their respective strategic relationships with the U.S. as being more important than the one they have with each other.

While the U.S. may be eager to establish a cordial relationship, the gesture will not be approved by its strongest allay of yesteryears, Saudi Arabia. Often voices are raised in the Kingdom and its peripheral states, to the effect that, “Iran is a bigger enemy as compared to Israel.” This has resulted in a change in the mindset in Saudi Arabia and Israel vis-a-vis. repairing the relationship of peaceful coexistence.
The Saudis seem more concerned about the threats from Iran and the ISIS than Israel. It is beginning to appear as if the Saudis support a decade-old peace offer to the Jewish state. Some analysts say the Arab-Israeli conflict is a minor historical hiccup compared to the ancient feuds between the Arabs and the Persians, spread over more than a thousand years.

There is also a change in the mindset of US citizens who believe that Iran can play a key role in bringing stability in the Persian Gulf, but apprehensions remain. The common perception is that the worst levels of extremism and terrorism in the past two decades were the outcome of funding and influence of Saudi Arabia. Those who considered Iran an enemy have started taking it more like a potential friend.

Iran and Saudi Arabia are engaged in a proxy war in Yemen. Iran does not approve of Saudi Arabia's approach of using pressure to resolve regional problems but many believe that Tehran-Riyadh relations should be turned into ordinary and acceptable levels. Both the countries should engage in constructive dialogue for fighting terrorism and extremism and bringing peace and security to the Middle East.

It is not an easy task because hardliners on both sides are most likely to resist any rapprochement; to the contrary, they fear that the US and the Saudis will become more distant. Those who are witness to the pre-revolution US-Iran relationship, consider Iran a natural ally, even if the coordination happens mainly behind the scenes. The Saudis are not ready to face the new reality as they want to tighten, not loosen, relations with the US.

As a result of this deal, the six major world powers (U.S., UK, France, Russia, China and Germany) want to secure the sanctity of the Strait of Hormuz to preserve a steady and cheap supply of oil from the Gulf. While Iran may have to wait for a longer period to reap benefits, the six major world powers are already benefiting from the lower oil prices.

There are two major opportunities for Pakistan in the deal. Firstly, it will be able to meet its energy demands by either getting gas directly from Iran or by increasing its oil purchases. Secondly, Pakistan will seek the help of Iran to improve its relationship with Afghanistan. This largely depends on whether Iran is now closer to Pakistan or India. That it may be closer to India is construction of the Chabahar Port at the mouth of the Gulf and the road and rail links to Central Asia that pass through Afghanistan are being financed by India.

After the sanctions on Iran are lifted, India will find itself in a better position than Pakistan to enhance and diversify its volume of trade with the Gulf power. This also means that the corresponding interests of both Iran and India in the future of Afghanistan may offer a challenge to Pakistan.

However, the major threat to the Pak-Iran future relationship is sectarianism, which is legacy of the socio-political developments of the 1980s when Pakistan was encouraged to keep aloof of Iran. To reap the benefits of Iran’s energy resources and trade potential, Pakistan must contain sectarian and militancy within its own borders.

This article was originally published in SOUTHASIA magazine http://www.southasia.com.pk/neighbor.html