Takeaways from Wilson Center Seminar

The withdrawal of US and coalition forces from Afghanistan, the rapid deterioration of the Afghan government and military, and the return of the Taliban will have profound implications for the future of South Asia. 

At Wilson Center in the latest event in its “Afghanistan: Hindsight Up Front” initiative participants discuss the future of the region with leading journalists, former diplomats, and thought leaders from India and Pakistan. Following are selected quotes:

David Hale

"I’d like to comment first on Afghanistan. Our leverage remains real…it’s limited. The Taliban, in my opinion, do not crave international legitimacy so much that they will compromise on their core principles or change their true colors. Their statements, the ones that we're hearing now, are to be expected, while their behavior, which we're seeing now, demonstrates that they've not really changed since 2001. And when they say governance will be guided by Sharia, they mean their version of the Sharia, which will make Saudi Arabia look a lot like the city of San Francisco."

"We must apply pressure, even if chances of it altering behavior are limited. We can build a coalition that will take the measures we have already taken, and more. I am speaking of freezing assets, stopping cash transfers, withholding diplomatic recognition, continuing UN sanctions, while of course communicating to the Taliban, how to ease these pressures, which would be on their part, suppressing ISIS and Al Qaeda, protecting human rights and humanitarian access, and allowing the processing of refugees, among other goals."

Maleeha Lohdi

"While there is no daylight between various members of the international community on what the expectation is of the Taliban. If you look at the Security Council statement, if you look at the OIC communiqué, you look at the Human Rights Council statement of two days ago. They all say the same thing, so do not underestimate the power of collective opinion, this is extremely important. I also think it's unprecedented. Never have I seen—I've served at the UN for five years—never have I seen so much solidarity, in terms of expectations. So, I don't think it would be correct to say that the Russians and the Chinese want something else, and the Americans everybody wants, top of the agenda, as David Hale says, top of the agenda for everyone, is combating terrorism, there is no question about that."

Nandan Unnikrishnan

"A stable Afghanistan, under Taliban rule—oppressive or not, I'm not getting into that—would distinctly increase China's role in the region. China's BRI would definitely then move ahead and Central Asia, West Asia, and of course, parts of South Asia, would come under increasing influence of the Chinese. From an Indian perspective, given our current relationship with China, it is not necessarily the best scenario. But, at the same time, as I said, it is probably better than the second scenario, where Afghanistan is unstable. I think Ambassador Lodhi has very eloquently described what happens to the region, not only us, but even, let's say, Central Asia and other areas….It is a danger, not just to Pakistan, it's a danger for everyone."

Huma Yusuf

"No, I think this does get at the point that I was trying to make right at the outset, which is that, I think a lot of this, this myth of Pakistan’s leverage, or so-called, control, or puppet mastery of the Taliban, this is outdated and inaccurate and is certainly not rooted in what's to come. A lot of that will have to do with the dispensation that does emerge in Afghanistan and the level of control that a Taliban-led regime based in Kabul would have over the rest of the country, and on the sort of numerous militant groups that are operating in that area, and the fact that, we know that there will never be that kind of neat, centralized control, and we also know that, as activities happen and fingers are pointed here and there, that all groups will constantly try and refer to this idea of plausible deniability, that actually what I see emerging is a scenario where there is more potential for two sovereign states, Pakistan and Afghanistan, to find themselves at odds, and so there's this notion that Pakistan will be the leverage, Pakistan will speak to the Taliban, on behalf of the rest of the world, I just think that that's an outdated notion."

Venkateswaran Lokanathan

"The other question that I think requires a fair deal of deliberation is whether the US will accept a more proactive role for Russia and China in Afghanistan and the region moving forward. Russia has already started playing a more active role in neighboring Central Asia. President Putin has expressed concerns over the spillover of radical Islam into the region. Simultaneously, the presence of certain groups like the ETIM, which is sympathetic to the UYGHER cause in Xinjiang, also raises concern for China, and hence China is also now becoming more actively involved.  It has already begun diplomatic engagement with Taliban, and President Xi, and President Putin, have also agreed to cooperate with developments in Afghanistan, and more importantly against foreign interference. "

Mark Green

"In 2020, Congress created a blue-ribbon panel of experts called the Afghanistan Study Group. Its purpose was to create new recommendations on Afghanistan for policymakers. I was a member of that study group. Our final report called “A Pathway for Peace,” concluded that the best American approach for Afghanistan, required a new overarching regional strategy. The report stated that Afghanistan lies in the middle of a region beset with rivalries and low levels of trust. It saw the potential for a fragile, but real regional consensus, behind a stable and neutral Afghanistan, that is neither a haven for terrorists, nor a fiefdom of the Taliban. We found that a stable Afghanistan would create the potential for regional economic cooperation that could benefit all countries in the region. But we also warned that an unstable Afghanistan risks destabilizing the region, to continue trade and illicit drugs, the attraction of extremist ideologies, and the possible exacerbation of the rivalry between India and Pakistan, two nuclear-armed powers."

Iranian tanker containing fuel for Lebanon approaching Suez Canal

The Lebanese Hezbollah vowed last week that Iran was sending fuel to Lebanon which is facing economic collapse and serious shortages of fuel for essential services. The first tanker has left now and must sail to the Suez Canal before reaching the Mediterranean.

Hezbollah leader Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah has threatened retaliation if anyone tries to interfere with the shipment and has said the tankers bringing fuel are considered Lebanese territory.

Nasrallah dropped a bombshell when he announced that an oil tanker carrying Iranian fuel oil was bound for Lebanon. Addressing a commemorative ceremony marking the Day of Ashura, Hezbollah’s chief announced that the first of several ships loaded with fuel would sail from Iran to Lebanon within hours, warning the United States and Israel against any sabotage.

“Our first ship has completed all arrangements and will sail within hours from Iran to Lebanon with the blessing of Imam Hussein (peace be upon him),” he said, noting, “This ship will be followed by other ships, but we gave priority to diesel oil on the first ship because it is a top priority and is linked to people’s lives.”

In a stark warning to Washington and Tel Aviv, which oppose any fuel trade between Tehran and Beirut, Nasrallah declared that the ship will be considered as a Lebanese property the moment it leaves Iran and that any aggression against it would be seen as an aggression against Lebanon.

“God willing, this ship and others will arrive safely; we don’t want confrontation with anyone. We are only after helping our people… We reject to be humiliated in any military, political or economic war. We refuse the humiliation of our people, let no one dare to challenge us,” he asserted.

The announcement made the US ambassador to Lebanon to scramble to find a way to prevent Lebanon from importing fuel from Iran. The ambassador, Dorothy Shea, rushed to speak with Lebanese President Michel Aoun hours after Nasrallah’s announcement. 

“President Aoun received a phone call from the US Ambassador to Lebanon, Dorothy Shea, informing him of the US administration’s decision to help Lebanon import electricity from Jordan through Syria through Egyptian gas,” the Lebanese presidency said on Twitter. It also quoted Shea as saying that “transfer of Egyptian gas will be facilitated through Jordan and Syria to northern Lebanon.”

Shea also told Aoun that negotiations are underway with the World Bank to secure financing for the cost of Egyptian gas, the repair and strengthening of electricity transmission lines, and the required maintenance of gas pipelines.

The US ambassador’s conversation marked the return of her anti-Hezbollah media activism. During the Trump administration, Shea had launched a propaganda campaign against Hezbollah in parallel with the Trump White House, tightening the noose on Hezbollah.

If Lebanon is now in an economic tailspin, it’s largely because of the US continued efforts to prevent any economic cooperation with Beirut under the pretext of combating Hezbollah's influence. Arab allies of the US in the region, who once helped Lebanon financially, have refrained from providing any aid to the religiously diverse Arab country. 

Then there was the Iranian helping hand. Iran has always offered to help the Lebanese people. But political factionalism and malign foreign influence in Beirut have stood in the way of Iranian help. 

Nasrallah announced the import of Iranian fuel only after the fuel crisis in Lebanon reached new heights with almost all Western countries and their Arab allies refusing to alleviate the crisis.

What is the reality of over the horizon military strike in Afghanistan?

Reportedly the United States has undertaken ‘an over the horizon’ military strike against an ISIS-K planner, which has been termed successful. The statement of over the horizon military strike has the lowest credibility. It is believed that a drone has been used and the next question to ponder is which airbase has been used in this strike?

The United States military conducted a military strike against an ISIS-K planner in what appeared to be a retaliatory attack for a suicide bombing at Kabul’s airport that killed 13 US service members and injured at least 100 Afghans. 

Capt. Bill Urban, a spokesman for US Central Command, said in a statement that military forces conducted an “over the horizon counterterrorism operation today against an ISIS-K planner” in the Nangahar Province of Afghanistan.

ISIS-K is based in the Nagarhar and Kunar provinces east of Kabul, according to NBC News.

“Initial indications are that we killed the target. We know of no civilian casualties,” Urban said.

ISIS-K militants claimed responsibility for Thursday’s attack, which occurred right outside of Abbey gate. Pentagon officials said earlier on Friday that a single attack was carried out by a suicide bomber, clarifying that a second attack had not occurred near a hotel adjacent to the airfield as was initially reported.

The drone strike, which took place early Saturday morning local time, comes after President Biden vowed on Thursday target ISIS-K facilities “at the place we choose, in a moment of our choosing.” 

 “We will not forgive. We will not forget. We will hunt you down and make you pay,” Biden said.

Earlier on Friday the US Embassy in Kabul warned the US citizens who are at the airport's Abbey gate, East gate, North gate or the New Ministry of Interior gate to “leave immediately” due to “security threats.” 

Bennett-Biden meeting postponed to Friday

On 25^th August 2021, I had posted a blog highlighting ill-timed visit of Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett to United States. I had also highlighted that he may not succeed in obtaining any favors from US President Joe Biden under the prevailing circumstances. The apprehensions came true with the blasts at Kabul airport.  

Bennett meeting with Biden was postponed to Friday in light of the suicide bombings in Afghanistan that killed at least 12 US Marines and soldiers.

“The President’s bilateral meeting with H.E. Naftali Bennett, Prime Minister of the State of Israel, has been rescheduled for tomorrow,” the White House announced Thursday evening.

The bombing took place an hour before the leaders were set to meet for the first time in the White House. Israeli journalists, who had already gathered in the Brady Press Room, were asked to leave the White House.

The meeting, which was expected to take place on Thursday at 6.00 pm, is now scheduled for Friday morning, according to Israeli media reports. However, a representative of the prime minister denied the report and said no new time had been set. The White House also denied the report.

Following the delay, Bennett and his delegation will remain in Washington until after Shabbat, likely departing on Saturday night or Sunday. Sunday’s cabinet meeting in Jerusalem was postponed.

Bennett’s visit to Washington was finalized days after the Afghanistan pullout crisis began. His staff and Biden administration officials said the timing was important due to developments on the Iranian nuclear front. However, the crisis in Kabul overshadowed the trip from its start on Tuesday.

Israeli media being sent back to our hotel! But Bennett staff insists meeting with Biden isn't canceled.

Two suicide bomb attacks killed and injuring dozens of people including the US Marines.

Is west ready to bargain with new Iranian president?

For years, Iranian moderates, such as former President Hassan Rouhani, tried but failed to reach an understanding with the West. Now, a hardliner is in charge. Does President Ebrahim Raisi’s election spell the end of what Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei once called Iran’s ‘heroic flexibility’ in dealing with the West? In the wake of the Taliban’s takeover of Afghanistan, the question now matters even more.

The answer is yes as well as no. Raisi is not going to take up the mantle of attempting to reconcile with the West. The ideological confrontation with the United States is central to the Islamic Republic of Iran’s fundamentalist identity.

Moreover, both moderates and radicals in Iran still view the strategy of building a proxy-supported Iranian ‘empire’ across the Middle East—advanced by the late military commander Qassem Suleimani, who was assassinated by the US last year—as vital to uphold and advance the Islamic Revolution’s purpose. No true rapprochement is possible between the West and Iran, especially now that hardliners are fully running the show.

It’s also worth noting that ‘heroic flexibility’ never applied to Iran’s dealings with Israel—another fundamental bugbear. Raisi’s administration will certainly maintain Iran’s shadow war with the ‘Zionist entity’.

Iran’s recent attack on an Israeli-managed cargo ship near Oman in the Arabian Sea has been viewed by some as a kind of strategic shift—or, at least, escalation—as it represented a blatant violation of freedom of navigation in international waters. But, in truth, it is merely a continuation of a war in which both Iran and Israel have never shown much regard for international norms.

Israel assumed that, by not using its own merchant fleet—99% of its foreign trade is handled by international ships, it could avoid such assaults. But just as Iran’s forces in Syria are vulnerable to Israeli attacks, Israeli-linked entities in the Arabian Sea, a theatre thousands of miles from the country’s coast, but close to Iran’s mainland are vulnerable to Iranian attacks.

Iran will not forgo the opportunities this represents, not only to impose direct costs on Israel, but also to undermine the Abraham Accords, which, by establishing diplomatic relations between Israel and four Arab states, are viewed by Iran as a strategic setback. Already, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia are reaching out to Iran, out of concern that US President Joe Biden’s foreign policy in the region won’t protect their interests.

But none of this means that Iran is gearing up for a direct confrontation with the West. Raisi has inherited an economy on life support. The Covid-19 pandemic and Western sanctions have cost Iran about 1.5 million jobs. Moreover, oil and gas export revenues have plummeted; annual inflation has reached almost 50%, with the cost of basic foods soaring by nearly 60%.

Clearly, Khamenei’s 2011 vision of a self-reliant Iranian ‘resistance economy’ hasn’t been realized. Furthermore, now that Raisi is President, Iran’s hardliners can no longer blame pro-Western moderates for Iran’s economic woes. To stave off potential unrest, Iran’s government must stem the economy’s decline by persuading the international community to ease sanctions, which will require it to reach some sort of understanding with the US over its nuclear program.

Russia and China are Iran’s more natural allies, but neither country will give Iran the resources it needs to sustain its costly proxy wars or reverse its economic decline. China, in particular, views Iran as a pawn in its broader chess match with the US, one that it would willingly sacrifice for, say, an agreement on vital trade issues.

An Iranian empire in the Middle East is simply not a strategic priority for China. At the same time, Iranian fundamentalists can’t be too happy with their Chinese ally’s brutal crackdown on its Muslim Uyghur population. The bilateral relationship thus does not represent a way out of Iran’s current predicament.

A new nuclear agreement is an existential imperative for Iran. And, as much as he dislikes the idea of striking a deal with the US, Khamenei understands this. Remaining on the threshold of nuclear breakout, a position it attained following America’s withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2018, without actually crossing it may be Iran’s current bargaining position. This is what Raisi might have meant when, prior to his election, he upheld Iran’s need to return to the JCPOA in exchange for the lifting of sanctions.

But the real bone of contention lies not in whether the parties are willing to go back to the old JCPOA, but the terms on which Iran would accept the US demand for a new, long-term deal once the JCPOA expires. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has unrealistically called for a ‘longer and stronger’ accord, one that stops Iran from amassing nuclear material for generations, halts its missile tests and ends its support of terrorist groups.

What is clear is that Washington should do all it can to encourage Iran’s ‘heroic flexibility’. After America’s disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, the last thing the US needs is even more chaos in the Middle East. Likewise, the victory in Afghanistan of the Sunni Taliban, staunch ideological enemies of Shia Iran, should strengthen Iran’s commitment to avoid stoking conflict with the West. Now might be as good an opportunity as the US is going to get to reach a lasting nuclear agreement with Iran.

Bennett exposes his anti peace policy

Palestinians on Wednesday strongly denounced Naftali Bennett for his statements on the eve of his visit to the US and said they do not expect anything to come out of the first meeting between an Israeli Prime Minister and President Joe Biden.

Bennett’s statements show that there is no real difference between him and his predecessor, Benjamin Netanyahu, according to Palestinian officials, who accused the prime minister of “sabotaging” efforts to revive the stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

Bennett, in an interview with The New York Times, said there would not be resolution of the conflict with the Palestinians for the foreseeable future. He said that his government will neither annex any part of the West Bank nor establish a Palestinian state.

Peace talks will not happen, partly because the Palestinian leadership is fractured and rudderless, he said.

“This government is a government that will make dramatic breakthroughs in the economy. Its claim to fame will not be solving the 130-year-old conflict here in Israel,” he said.

Bennett said the government will continue the standard policy of “natural growth” in the settlements, adding that “Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. It’s not the capital of other nations.”

In response, the Palestinian Authority Foreign Ministry said that Bennett has “clearly and frankly exposed his anti-peace positions” on the eve of his meeting with Biden.

The ministry pointed out that Bennett affirmed ahead of his visit to Washington his opposition to a Palestinian state and his support for settlement “expansion,” as well as his refusal to hold peace talks with the Palestinians.

 “These statements constitute redlines and preconditions ahead of Bennett’s meeting with Biden,” the ministry said in a statement. “This is an attempt to stave off pressure or advice from the Biden administration regarding Israeli-Palestinian relations, settlements, or any American effort to pave the way for the resumption of the peace process.”

The PA ministry accused Bennett of “disregarding” the Biden administration and international resolutions pertaining to the Israeli-Arab conflict.

It also accused him of “sabotaging” Arab and American efforts to “create a positive atmosphere for relaunching meaningful negotiations” between Israel and the Palestinians.

“It’s clear that Bennett is trying to create confusion in order to influence the priorities of US foreign policy with the purpose of marginalizing the Palestinian issue,” the ministry charged.

It claimed that the prime minister was trying to hide his “extremist right-wing” positions by offering the Palestinians a number of gestures as part of confidence-building measures between the two sides. The gestures he is talking about are already part of Israel’s obligations as an “occupying power,” the ministry argued.

“Bennett departed to the US, leaving behind occupation bulldozers that are devouring Palestinian lands for building and expanding settlements,” it said.

AZZAM AL-AHMAD, a senior official with the ruling Fatah faction headed by PA President Mahmoud Abbas, said the Palestinians were not pinning any hopes on the Bennett-Biden talks. The visit will not produce anything meaningful for the peace process, Al-Ahmad said.

He called on the Arab countries and European Union members to pressure the Biden administration to clarify its policies toward the Middle East, specifically the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Another senior Palestinian official in Ramallah said the Palestinians were ready to return to the negotiating table with Israel, “but only under the umbrella of the United Nations and the international community.”

The Palestinians, however, do not believe that the Bennett government is interested in resuming peace talks with the Palestinians, “because it includes far-right parties and politicians who are strongly opposed to the two-state solution,” the official said.

“Bennett’s remarks on the eve of his visit to the US are a clear indication that the Biden administration is wasting its time by talking about the revival of the peace process and its support for the two-state solution.”

Commenting on Bennett’s statements, Hussein al-Sheikh, head of the PA’s General Authority of Civil Affairs, said that “Jerusalem is the capital of the State of Palestine, regardless of whoever admits it. Occupation and apartheid will not remain. The establishment of the Palestinian state does not require the permission of the occupation.”

Fatah Central Committee secretary-general Jibril Rajoub said the Palestinians were not surprised by Bennett’s statements, which came as a “blow” to the US administration and the international community.

“Those who should be surprised are the Biden administration and the international community, because these statements are a clear challenge to international resolutions,” Rajoub told the PA’s Voice of Palestine radio station.

Dimitri Diliani, spokesman for the Democratic Reform Current headed by ousted Fatah leader Mohammad Dahlan, said that as far as the Palestinians are concerned, Bennett’s visit to Washington bears “no political significance,” because of the “weakness of the official Palestinian diplomatic apparatus.”

Diliani accused the PA of failing to keep the Palestinian issue at the top of the US administration’s list of priorities.

He said that Bennett’s remarks on the eve of his arrival in Washington exposed his “extremist right-wing agenda that is hostile to peace and stability.”

Diliani also said he does not expect the Bennett-Biden summit to produce anything good for the Palestinians, especially regarding the peace process with Israel.

Ill-timed visit of Bennett to United States

I may not be an admirer of Israeli Prime Minister, Natfali Bennett, but certainly dismayed at the bad timing of his visit to the United States. He has gone there with ambitious plan, but may not succeed in getting even sympathetic hearing.

His visit must have been scheduled, when no one had thought Taliban would be taking control of the entire Afghanistan. Now, the US president and his team are up to neck in Afghan due to very tight evacuation schedule and likely fallout, in case they fail in meeting 31st August 2021 deadline.

Despite hating it, the US is too eager in avoiding any bloody encounters at this juncture, resulting in accepting some of the conditions of Taliban. It is on record that Afghanistan has resumed buying petroleum products from Iran, despite the US sanctions in place.

Similarly, Iran-backed Hezbollah of Lebanon has announced to buy petroleum products from Iran. It has also warned all the foes not to make any attempt to stop movement of ships carrying Iranian products. Israel has expressed its dismay on the decision and it was feared that some mysterious actions may be taken to disrupt supply.

Naftali Bennett landed early Wednesday in the United States, kicking off his first state visit overseas since taking office.The trip comes in the midst of heightened tensions with Jerusalem’s regional enemy Iran, and as Israel grapples with a gradual resurgence of hostilities on its southern border with the Gaza Strip.

Bennett, who landed at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland, was scheduled to meet Wednesday with senior US administration officials, including Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, and on Thursday with President Biden.

In a statement released by the Prime Minister’s Office before his departure, Bennett said the top priority in his conversation with Biden would be Iran, “especially the leapfrogging in the past two to three years in the Iranian nuclear program.”

He said other issues would also be discussed, including preserving Israel’s qualitative military edge in the Middle East, confronting the coronavirus pandemic and economic matters.

Bennett has spoken out against the possibility of a new nuclear accord between Iran and world powers, and says that any agreement must also put the brakes on Iran’s regional aggression.

Earlier this week, Bennett told the cabinet that he would tell the American president “that now is the time to halt the Iranians, to stop this thing,” and not to reenter “a nuclear deal that has already expired and is not relevant, even to those who thought it was once relevant.”

Bennett repeated that stance Tuesday in a Zoom call with US congressmen.

 “There’s a new government in the US and a new government in Israel, and I bring with me from Jerusalem a new spirit of cooperation, and this rests on the special and long relationship between the two countries,” Bennett said before takeoff.

Bennett took office two months ago after cobbling together a ruling coalition of eight disparate political parties — ranging from right-wing parties to the Islamist Ra’am faction — that ousted longtime leader Benjamin Netanyahu from office following the country’s fourth consecutive parliamentary election in two years.

Ahead of his US trip, Bennett told The New York Times in an interview published Tuesday that he would neither annex West Bank territory nor allow it to become a Palestinian state, since the left-to-right composition of his coalition government meant that drastic diplomatic moves in either direction were off the table for now.