No need to blame Bennett, whatever he got is Irony of fate

Prime Minister Naftali Bennett failed to stand up to pressure from US President Joe Biden on the Iranian issue, opposition representative Tzachi Hanegbi (Likud) said Tuesday in a special session of the Knesset during its summer recess.

Hanegbi, who is one of the longest-serving MKs, recounted the history of Israeli prime ministers resisting pressure from US presidents, from Menachem Begin to Benjamin Netanyahu. He said Bennett had failed to follow in their footsteps, but he should have learned from Netanyahu’s controversial 2015 speech to Congress on the Iran deal, which Hanegbi attended.

“It wasn’t easy or comfortable for them, but our prime ministers are not elected to receive compliments in the White House,” Hanegbi said. “Bennett collapsed when he should have said, “Mr. President, I respect your view that the Iran deal should be resumed, but we will not be obligated by the agreement, and we will not let Iran gain the power to wipe us off the map. We don’t need permission to defend ourselves.” That is what was not said in the White House, and because it

Religious Services Minister Matan Kahana (Yamina), a close confidant of Bennett, responded on his behalf that the government had inherited the situation with Iran from Netanyahu and was not party to the Iran deal.

“Israel reserves the right to decide for itself on the Iran issue,” he said. “On the Iranian issue, the opposition should give its support and not make it a tool for politics.”

Defense Minister Benny Gantz had asked on Monday to speak on the government’s behalf but was turned down by Bennett’s associates, who were angry at him for meeting with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

Opposition MKs mocked Bennett for sending the religious services minister to speak on Iran instead of the defense minister.

“I guess on the Iran issue, like other security matters, all we can do is pray, so they sent us the religious services minister to deal with that,” Religious Zionist Party MK Simcha Rothman said.

Bennett’s associates and right-wing ministers in the government continued to criticize Gantz on Tuesday for the meeting with Abbas. Gantz’s No. 2 in his Blue and White Party, Aliyah and Integration Minister Pnina Tamano-Shata, defended him.

“The cowards criticizing Defense Minister Gantz are narrow-minded politicians who are jealous of his leadership,” she told Army Radio. “They are jealous because he has earned the public’s trust on security issues and the fight against coronavirus.”

Ten lessons from the lost US war in Afghanistan

I feel privileged in sharing an article by Andrew Korybko. He has rightly concluded everything that went wrong was entirely foreseeable and many even warned about what was happening but their concerns were dismissed. 

The truth finally came out and now everyone knows that the entire war was built upon a mountain of lies and easily avoidable mistakes. The US reputation is ruined and it's no longer regarded as a superpower.

Tens of thousands of lives were lost and over US$2 trillion were wasted only for the situation to revert back to how it was almost exactly twenty years ago. Now it is the time for the decision-makers, strategists, media, and civil society to somberly find out what went wrong and to plan nothing like this ever happens again. Here are the ten lessons to be learned:

Legitimate anti-terrorist actions mustn't be exploited for ulterior motives

The US attacked Afghanistan on the pretext that it had the right to militarily respond against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan in self-defense after it concluded that the terrorist group's leader there was responsible for planning the 9/11 terrorist attacks, but its greatest mistake was exploiting this as the pretext to engage in so-called “nation-building”. 

Nation-building will never succeed

It's impossible to sustainably support the cause of so-called “nation-building” whereby a foreign country aggressively imposes its completely different way of life onto a targeted state's inhabitants who historically organized their society on the basis of other morals, ethics, principles, and values. 

Local allies must be held to account

After regrettably getting caught up in the Afghan quagmire, America had the responsibility to hold its allies there to account instead of letting them steal from their people, enrich themselves from the drug trade and other forms of organized crime, and carry out extrajudicial killings on the pretext of targeting the Taliban.

International coalition doesn't have impunity

America and its international coalition allies arrogantly thought that they could commit crimes against the Afghan people with impunity, but that was impossible since the rest of the world inevitably found out about their killings and other such unsavory acts even if justice isn't yet served to the culprits. 

Winning hearts and minds is more important than winning territory

Strategically speaking, the war was lost shortly after it began once the US and its allies started abusing the Afghan people in terrible ways and therefore turned their hearts and minds towards the Taliban, which therefore made it impossible for the government to hold its ground despite being backed by the US military. 

Western mainstream media always lies

The dramatic developments of the past two weeks during the Taliban's lightning-fast conquest of the country shattered the countless lies spread by the Western mainstream media about the true state of affairs there, proving that they can't ever be trusted about anything, whether it's Afghanistan, China, or whatever else. 

Inevitable military withdrawals must be carried out responsibly

The US inevitable withdrawal wasn't carried out responsibly since America should have ensured that it didn't leave any military equipment behind, established tripwires for deterring Taliban attacks until it already left the country, and compelled former President Ghani to politically compromise towards a transitional government. 

Political proxies sometimes defy their patrons

Part of the problem with the US withdrawal was that its political proxy, former President Ghani, refused to make any meaningful compromises towards a transitional government that could have facilitated a smoother transfer of power and prevented America from being humiliated even more than it already was in recent days. 

Local allies must be rescued during the withdrawal

The US shamefully abandoned tens of thousands of its Afghan allies who fear for their futures after their American-backed government just fell, which shows how unreliable the US is as an ally that it would leave its local allies to fend for themselves under such uncertain conditions instead of letting them relocate to America.

Andrew Korybko is a political analyst, journalist and regular contributor to several online journals. He is a member of the expert council for the Institute of Strategic Studies and Predictions at the People’s Friendship University of Russia. He has published various works in the field of Hybrid Wars, including “Hybrid Wars: The Indirect Adaptive Approach to Regime Change” and “The Law of Hybrid War: Eastern Hemisphere”.

Longest war in the history of United States comes to an end

The longest war in the history of United States has come to an end with the departure of the last American military flight out of Afghanistan almost 20 years after troops first landed in the country. American planes took off from the Kabul airport shortly before midnight local time, US Central Command head Marine Corps Gen. Frank McKenzie told reporters on Tuesday.

The last C-17 left the Hamid Karzai International Airport clearing Afghanistan's airspace just under the Biden administration’s 31st August 2021 deadline to remove all US forces from the country, McKenzie said.

"I’m here to announce the completion of our withdrawal from Afghanistan and the end of the mission to evacuate American citizens, third-country nationals and vulnerable Afghans," McKenzie said.

"Every single US service member is now out of Afghanistan," he later added.

The Pentagon later released a photo of the last American soldier to board the flight, identifying him as Maj. Gen. Chris Donahue.

McKenzie could not say how many people were aboard the aircraft or where it was headed, as it was still in flight, but he confirmed that 82nd Airborne Division head Maj. Gen. Christopher Donahue and Ambassador Ross Wilson were on board and “were in fact the last people to stand on the ground, step on the airplane.”

The flight also carried the last remaining US troops and the core diplomatic staff of the US Embassy in Kabul.

But there are still several hundred Americans in Afghanistan who were unable to reach the airport, along with thousands of Afghans who assisted the US military during the war effort.

McKenzie said no American civilians were on the last five flights to leave.

“We maintained the ability to bring them in up until immediately before departure, but we were not able to bring any Americans out. That activity ended probably about 12 hours before our exit. ...  None of them made it to the airport,” he added. 

But he maintained that even if the Biden administration had extended the deadline, “we wouldn’t have gotten everybody out that we wanted to get out and there still would’ve been people who would’ve been disappointed with that. It’s a tough situation.”

McKenzie also said the United States will continue the diplomatic evacuation mission to recover those Americans and vulnerable Afghans.

“I want to emphasize again that simply because we have left that doesn’t mean the opportunities for both Americans that are in Afghanistan who want to leave and Afghans who want to leave. They will not be denied that opportunity,” McKenzie added.

McKenzie also said the United States will continue the diplomatic evacuation mission to recover those Americans and vulnerable Afghans.

“While the military evacuation is complete, the diplomatic mission to ensure additional US citizens and eligible Afghans who want to leave continues,” he said.

“Tonight's withdrawal signifies both the end of the military component of the evacuation but also the end of the nearly 20-year mission that began in Afghanistan shortly after 11th September 2001. It was a mission that brought Osama bin Laden to a just end, along with many of his al Qaeda co-conspirators," McKenzie added.

"And it was not a cheap mission. The cost was 2,461 US service members and civilians killed and more than 20,000 who were injured. Sadly, that includes 13 service members who were killed last week by an ISIS-K suicide bomber. We honor their sacrifice today as we remember their heroic accomplishments,” he said.

McKenzie said the final days of the withdrawal, beginning from 1th August 2021, was the “largest non-combatant evacuation” in the US military’s history.

In those 18 days, American forces evacuated 79,000 civilians from the airport, including 6,000 Americans and more than 73,000 Special Immigrant Visa holders, consular staff, at-risk Afghans and their families, McKenzie said. Since the end of July, more than 123,000 civilians have been evacuated.

McKenzie laid out the final hours US troops were in the country, noting that the military destroyed or removed remaining equipment.

Forces kept a counter rocket, artillery, and mortar (C-RAM) system in place “up until the very last minute” to protect against any rocket attacks before they “demilitarized those systems so that they’ll never be used again.”

In addition, troops made unusable up to 70 Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, 27 Humvees and 73 aircraft.

McKenzie said the Taliban were “very pragmatic and very businesslike” during the withdrawal and that Donahue spoke to the Taliban commander before leaving to coordinate “but there was no discussion” of turning over the airfield. 

 

Israeli Defense Minister meets Palestinian President

According to an Associated Press report, Israeli Defense Minister held talks with Palestinian President in Ramallah, the first high-level meeting between the two sides in years. 

The meeting between Benny Gantz and Mahmoud Abbas signaled a possible shift of direction after the near-complete breakdown of communication between Abbas and Israeli leaders in recent years.

It came two days after President Joe Biden urged Israeli Prime Minister, Naftali Bennett during a White House meeting to take steps toward improving the lives of Palestinians.

Gantz’s office said he told Abbas that Israel will take new measures to strengthen the Palestinian economy. It said they also discussed security issues and agreed to remain in touch. It was believed to be the highest level public meeting between the sides since 2014.

A Palestinian official said Gantz and Abbas discussed possible steps toward improving the atmosphere. He said this included Palestinian demands for a halt in Israeli military operations in Palestinian areas of the occupied West Bank, allowing unification of families with relatives inside Israel and allowing more Palestinian workers into Israel. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the late-night meeting.

Bennett is a hard-liner who opposes Palestinian independence, as do key partners in his diverse, ruling coalition. But Bennett has said he supports building up the Palestinian economy and expanding autonomy for Palestinians. He also is interested in bolstering Abbas in his rivalry with the ruling Hama  in Gaza.

While Biden supports a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians, his administration is focused on interim confidence-building measures. Israel’s former Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, pursued a hard-line policy toward the Palestinians, backed by former President Donald Trump.

The Trump administration took a number of steps, including moving the US Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to contested Jerusalem. Abbas halted most contacts with the US and Israel in return.

Netanyahu had repeatedly claimed Abbas was not a reliable partner for negotiating a peace deal, a portrayal dismissed by Netanyahu critics as a pretext for avoiding making concessions.

Hussein Sheikh, a top Abbas aide, confirmed the meeting in a statement on Twitter. It took place on Sunday night in Ramallah in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, where Abbas maintains his headquarters.

Iran announces new regional policy

From the beginning, the new Iranian government of Ayatollah Seyed Ebrahim Raisi made it clear that change in the executive branch would bring about a shift in foreign policy. 

The new Iranian foreign minister, Hossein Amir Abdollahian, indicated how this shift would play out under Ayatollah Raisi.

In his speech at the Baghdad summit, Abdollahian reiterated what his predecessor often underlined in such regional platforms that Iran wants closer cooperation with the countries of the region, especially Iran’s neighbors. 

But at the same time, he was keen to let it be known that this cooperation should be done in a new spirit, one that would respect the legitimate interests of Iran and refrain from pursuing a zero-sum game. In addition, the top Iranian diplomat made it clear that no one should seek to change the balance of power in the region by relying on outside forces. 

Underlining Iran’s support for the Iraqi efforts to create areas for cooperation and interaction among the countries of the region, Abdollahian noted, “Our region has all the religious, cultural and civilizational characteristics as well as material and spiritual capacities for regional cooperation and convergence, but unfortunately, due to foreign interventions and the dominance of security-oriented ideas, it has many problems, including war, instability and insecurity.”

In pointing to a foreign role in the region, the Iranian foreign minister put the focus on the main thrust of the Baghdad summit. The Iraqi government put much energy and effort into holding this summit to bring closer the views of stakeholders of a region suffering from political divergence and polarization. 

The Iraqis portrayed the summit as a unique platform to foster intra-regional cooperation and partnership. From their point of view, bringing together officials from rival countries would make Iraq more secure and spare it the prospect of being collateral damage for regional rivalry. 

In addition, the Iraqi government was eager to convey the message that they want, and are able, to work with all countries of the region regardless of their political standing.
 
Iran welcomed the Iraqi efforts and underlined the need to strengthen regional security through dialogue among the players in the region. “What we need today more than ever before is "sustainable regional security" with the participation of regional countries. Regional security will materialize depending on the use of economic resources to build a coalition for peace and development,” Abdollahian told the summit. 

He added, “The Islamic Republic of Iran expresses its support for the Iraqi government and people and its internal decisions including the withdrawal of foreign troops and holding early elections, and it welcomes Iraq’s constructive role in promoting a culture of dialogue and regional cooperation. Iran considers cooperation within the region as the basis for establishing stability and peace in this way. The Islamic Republic of Iran, emphasizing the important role of other countries in the region, declares its readiness to advance these goals.”

At the end of his speech, the top Iranian diplomat underlined that Iran is adopting a new approach toward the region under Ayatollah Raisi, who has reiterated more than once that Iran’s foreign policy should focus on regional cooperation particularly in economic arenas.

Abdollahian pointed to this new pivot and said, “With great pleasure, I declare, at the inauguration of Iran’s new government that our foreign policy, being ‘balanced, active and smart’, emphasizes the priority of relations with neighbors and other countries in the region, and we warmly shake hands with all neighboring and regional nations.”

Whether this new approach would lead to the normalization of ties with regional heavyweights such as Saudi Arabia remains to be seen. But it seems that there is still a long road ahead until relations are fully normalized. 

Two things happened at the Baghdad summit that dampened hopes for closer regional cooperation. First, Syria was not invited to the summit despite being a major neighbor of Iraq. Some press reports suggested the exclusion of Syria was due to foreign pressure on the Iraqi government. 

Iran objected to this exclusion both before and during the summit. “We believe that Syria, as one of Iraq’s important neighboring countries, should have been invited to this meeting, too,” said Abdollahian before leaving Tehran for Baghdad.

During the summit, Abdollahian once again alluded to Syria’s absence. “I would like to emphasize the role and support of regional nations in stabilizing and resorting security to Iraq including the friendly and brotherly country of the Syrian Arab Republic. I would like to express regret that Syria is not attending this summit,” he said. 

Second, there were no reports of a meeting between Abdollahian and his Saudi Arabian counterpart Faisal bin Farhan in Baghdad. This is while many important meetings were held on the sidelines of the summit. One such meeting was between the Emir of Qatar and the president of Egypt. Another meeting was between the Emir and the governor of Dubai, who also met with Abdollahian.

US strikes vehicle loaded with explosives heading towards Kabul airport

A drone strike by the US on Sunday targeted a vehicle in Kabul loaded with explosives that officials said posed an imminent threat to the airport amid the final days of a massive military evacuation effort of Americans and allies from Afghanistan.

US Navy Capt. Bill Urban said in a statement that the airstrike eliminated "an imminent ISIS-K threat” to the Hamid Karzai International Airport, referring to the Islamic State faction in Afghanistan.

Urban called the strike an act of “self-defense” and said military officials were still assessing the possibility of any civilian casualties. 

“We are confident we successfully hit the target,” Urban said. “Significant secondary explosions from the vehicle indicated the presence of a substantial amount of explosive material.”

The Associated Press reported earlier Sunday that "multiple suicide bombers" had been targeted in a vehicle that was headed to the airport.

It was the second US military strike in Afghanistan since a suicide bomber killed 13 US service members and dozens of Afghans on Thursday at an airport gate, which officials blamed on ISIS-K.

On Saturday, officials said two ISIS-K members were killed in a US airstrike in the Nangarhar province.

A rocket attack that killed a child was also reported early Sunday in a neighborhood northwest of the airport, according to an Afghan police chief.

 

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."