Monday, 6 September 2021

Taliban complete conquest of Afghanistan by seizing Panjshir control

Taliban completed its military conquest of Afghanistan by taking in control the mountainous province of Panjshir after seven days of heavy fighting. The fall of Panjshir puts the Taliban in full control of the country and eliminates the final vestige of organized resistance to its rule.

Taliban began its assault on Panjshir on 30th August 2021, the day the US military withdrew its last forces from Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul. Taliban seized control of Afghan capital of Kabul and 32 of the country’s 34 provinces on by 16th August, after a three and a half month long offensive that began on 1st May 2021.

After the fall of Kabul, the National Resistance Front, led by former Vice President and National Directorate of Security chief Amrullah Saleh, and Panjshiri warlord Ahmad Massoud, organized inside Panjshir and several neighboring districts in Parwan and Baghlan province. Saleh and Massaoud announced their opposition to the Taliban. Saleh organized thousands of members of the now-defunct Afghan National Defense and Security Forces, including Commandos, Special Forces and other units, and attempted to expand control beyond the Panjshir Valley. However, Saleh’s forays outside of Panjshir may have overextended his forces that would have been better used to defend the province and establish a secure base.

Taliban attacked Panjshir, a mountainous fortress with few entrances and narrow passes, from multiple directions, and was initially repelled by the resistance forces. But they continued assault and were able to punch through the resistance’s defenses at the main pass in the south near the town of Gulbahar, and the pass at Khawak in the east.

Taliban quickly advanced up the narrow road and took control of Bazarak, the provincial capital on 5th September. Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid, announced on 6th September that Panjshir province “was completely conquered.”

Ahmad Massoud, whose father led the Northern Alliance against Taliban in the 1990s and was assassinated by Al Qaeda just two days prior to 9/11, vowed to continue the fight against the Taliban and called on all Afghans to continue its resistance. Without his base in Panjshir, Massoud’s promise to effectively continue the fight against the Taliban is a difficult proposition. Massoud’s forces may be able to launch guerrilla attacks from the mountains, but its ability to challenge Taliban rule will be limited.

Taliban had nearly all of the advantages in its favor, including numbers, equipment, and the quality of its fighting force. Taliban’s military has been forged in 20 years of war against the US military, NATO, and Afghan forces, while Massoud’s forces were safe in Panjshir and Saleh’s remnants were demoralized during the final Taliban offensive. Taliban was able to mobilize its forces from across Afghanistan, while the resistance’s numbers were limited. Additionally, Taliban was flush with weapons, munitions and gear that it seized from the Afghan military.

The National Resistance Front’s only advantage was terrain, but it was no match for Taliban’s will to take the province and end the final challenge to dominating the country and establishing the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.

What is delaying formation of Taliban Government in Afghanistan?

Delays in the formation Taliban Government is linked with the problem of Panjshir, which will be resolved in a couple of days, Mohammad Akbar Agha, a Taliban field commander and now the leader of Afghanistan’s High Council of Salvation, told TASS on Sunday.

"The only problem hampering the formation of a government in Afghanistan is the problem of Panjshir," he said, adding that the new government "will be announced in a couple of days."

The northern province of Panjshir is the only pocket of resistance for Taliban. It is led by Ahmad Massoud, a son of Ahmad Shah Massoud, a once influential leader of Afghanistan’s Tajik community who fought against the Taliban back in the 1990s.

"No doubts that people in the future government should be Afghans. It doesn’t matter for us which ethnic or social group they belong to," he said.

Taliban have postponed formation of the government for the second time after they took control of Afghanistan last month. Taliban spokesperson Zabiullah Mujahid on Saturday said that the announcement about the new government and Cabinet members will now be made next week, without providing the reason behind the postponement.

Taliban were expected to announce the government formation on Friday in Kabul, with the group’s co-founder Mulla Abdul Ghani Baradar as its head. The reports, however, suggest that the insurgents have been struggling to shape an inclusive administration acceptable to the international community.

It is believed that Taliban can form the government at their own but they are now focusing to have an administration in which all parties, groups and sections of the society have proper representation.

Khalil Haqqani, responsible for the security of Kabul, revealed that former Afghanistan’s Prime Minister Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Hashmat Ghani Ahmadzai, brother of ousted Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, will be given representation in the government. Hashmat Ghani had recently indicated that he’ll support a Taliban-led government.

On Friday, US secretary of state Antony Blinken reiterated the expectations from a Taliban-led government, including the formation of an inclusive government, rejecting reprisals and upholding the basic rights of Afghans. The top US diplomat was responding to the reports of Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar getting the charge of the new government.

Sunday, 5 September 2021

Israeli President meets King Abdullah of Jordan

Reportedly, Israeli President, Isaac Herzog has met King Abdullah at his palace in Amman. The Herzog-Abdullah meeting took place on the sidelines of a trilateral meeting held in Cairo on Thursday between the Jordan, Egypt, and the Palestinian Authority. 

At present, Israel is trying to mend its frayed relationship with the Hashemite Kingdom.

“Jordan is a very important country. I have immense respect for King Abdullah, a great leader, and a highly significant regional actor,” Herzog said on Saturday after he revealed details of the visit.

It comes amid a slate of high-level meetings about the frozen peace process as well as regional and bilateral relations between Israel and its neighbors.

Prime Minister Naftali Bennett also met with Abdullah in July. Bennett has not spoken publicly about his Jordan trip, but Abdullah has made comments twice that appeared to reference it.

Both Abdullah and Bennett visited United States to meet President Joe Biden in Washington this summer. The Jordanian monarch also had an audience with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow.

Herzog noted that Abdullah had “recently met extremely important leaders, including President Biden, President Putin, President al-Sisi, and Mahmoud Abbas.

“In our meeting, among the things we discussed were the core issues in the dialogue between our states,” Herzog said.

Israeli-Jordan relationship had been in crisis during the latter part of former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s tenure.

Bennett had immediately sought to make overtures to Jordan, with a major water and trade deal.

Herzog said that he spoke with Abdullah about additional steps that could assist Jordan. This included an “agreement to import agricultural produce during the shmita (agricultural sabbatical) year, energy issues, sustainability, and solutions to the climate crisis that we can advance together,” Herzog said.

In discussing the visit, Herzog also spoke of the importance of Israel’s expanding relations in the region.

He referenced the Abraham Accords by which Israel normalized ties with four Arab countries last year: the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan.

“There is a sense in the region of a desire to make progress, a desire to speak. We are currently marking one year since the signing of the Abraham Accords,” Herzog said.

“These accords created an important regional infrastructure. They are highly important agreements, which are transforming our region and the dialogue within it,” explained Herzog.

“I was happy to inaugurate the United Arab Emirates’ embassy in Tel Aviv at the start of my term, and I intend to speak with and meet other heads of state in the region.

“I speak with many leaders from all around the world, almost every day, in full coordination with the Government of Israel. I think that it is very important for the State of Israel’s strategic and diplomatic interests to engage everyone in dialogue,” Herzog said.

His office added that the king had invited Herzog to visit and that the two men had discussed bilateral and regional strategic issues.

The visit was coordinated between Bennett and Foreign Minister Yair Lapid.

It comes in advance of an anticipated meeting between Bennett and Egyptian leaders, although no date has been set for the trip.

Bennett, however, has dismissed the possibility of meeting with Abbas or even speaking with him on the phone. The peace process between Israelis and Palestinians has been frozen since 2014 and conversations between Netanyahu and Abbas were rare.

In an unusual move, Defense Minister Benny Gantz met with Abbas last week to discuss security matters and economic gestures.

Herzog spoke with Abbas after taking office. He told Channel 13 that he thought it was correct to speak with the Palestinians, particularly on the matter of security.

The absence of talks with the Palestinians will not contribute to Israel’s security, Herzog said.

Overall, he told Channel 13, when it comes to dialogue between Israel and Arab leaders there is a window of goodwill that Israel should make use of wisely.

Mastung a site of frequent deadly killing

This morning (Sunday) around 8.30am, I received a message from Syed Tauqeer Hussain Zaidi, a journalist stationed at D. I. Khan about an attack on security personnel, informing that at least three security personnel were martyred and 20 injured in a suicide attack near a Frontier Corps check post on Mastung Road near Quetta in Baluchistan province of Pakistan. 

Later, the banned Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) claimed responsibility for the attack.

The attack came in less than two weeks after three Levies personnel were martyred and as many injured when their vehicle hit a landmine in Ziarat district.

Situated at a distance of 54km southeast of Quetta, Mastung has been a frequent site of deadly bombings targeting civilians.

According to various reports, in July 2018, At least 128 people, including politician Nawabzada Siraj Raisani, were martyred and more than 200 injured in a deadly suicide blast in Mastung.

The militant Islamic State claimed responsibility for the attack through its Amaq news agency. The attack is the deadliest since the 2014 carnage at Peshawar's Army Public School.

In May 2017, 28 people were killed and over 40 others injured in an explosion near a local seminary in Mastung, which targeted the convoy of then deputy chairman Senate Abdul Ghafoor Haideri.

In 2014, more than two dozen people were killed and several injured when a powerful explosion ripped through a bus carrying Shia pilgrims.

In 2012, 19 people were killed and 25 others injured after three passenger buses were struck by an explosion in Mastung's Dringarh area. A remotely-triggered bomb had hit a convoy of three buses and set one of them ablaze.

Saturday, 4 September 2021

Kabul airport reopens

Ariana Afghan Airlines resumed some flights in Afghanistan between Kabul and three major provincial cities on Saturday, the carrier said, after a technical team from Qatar reopened the capital's airport for aid and domestic services.

Flights between Kabul and the western city of Herat, Mazar-i Sharif in northern Afghanistan and Kandahar in the south have started, the airline said in a statement.

"Ariana Afghan Airlines is proud to resume its domestic flights," it said.

Earlier, Qatar's ambassador to Afghanistan said a technical team was able to reopen Kabul airport to receive aid, according to Qatar's Al Jazeera news channel.

The airport's runway has been repaired in cooperation with authorities in Afghanistan, the ambassador said, according to Al Jazeera, in a further small step towards a return to relative normality after the turmoil of the past three weeks.

Reopening the airport, a vital lifeline with both the outside world and across Afghanistan's mountainous territory has been a high priority for the Taliban as they seek to restore order after their lightning seizure of Kabul on 15th August 2021.

Kabul airport had been closed since the end of the massive US-led airlift of its citizens, other Western nationals and Afghans who helped Western countries. The end of that evacuation of tens of thousands of people marked the withdrawal of the last US forces from Afghanistan after 20 years of war.

Thousands of people wanting to leave Afghanistan, fearful of life under Taliban rule, were left behind when the evacuation operation ended at the end of August.

The Taliban, the West's adversary in the two-decade war that followed the 11th September 2001 attacks on the United States, have promised safe passage for those wanting to leave.

 

Bennett urged to meet Abbas at the earliest

I am inclined to refer to an editorial of The Jerusalem Post. It says, “A strong Palestine Authority (PA) is in Israel’s interest, Bennett needs to keep that in mind.” The concluding line also resolves the mystery why Israeli Defense Minister, Benny Gantz met Mahmoud Abbas, President Palestine Authority (PA) in Ramallah recently.

The newspaper writes, “The signals from Prime Minister Naftali Bennett that he has no plans to meet Abbas do not augur well. It is in Israel’s strategic interest that Bennett put politics aside and invite Abbas for talks as soon as possible, not only to establish a high-level dialogue to discuss issues of bilateral interest and provide hope for future peace negotiations but also – if necessary – to stand together to prevent war and violence.”

Bennett’s spokesman dismissed reports on Wednesday that the prime minister would attend a summit in Cairo with Abbas, Egyptian President Abdul Fattah al-Sisi and Jordanian King Abdullah.

The London-based Arabic newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat had reported that Bennett had been “disinvited” from what would have been a quadrilateral meeting in Egypt. The spokesman clarified that while Bennett is scheduled to travel soon to Cairo to meet Sisi, no date has been set yet for the meeting.

Abbas traveled to Cairo on Wednesday for the trilateral meeting with Sisi and King Abdullah. Palestinian official Azzam al-Ahmed said that the three Arab leaders would discuss coordinated positions ahead of Abbas’s address to the UN General Assembly later this month.

Contacts were also under way to hold an Arab summit to discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he added.

The Cairo summit took place days after Defense Minister Benny Gantz met Abbas in Ramallah. It was the first high-level meeting between the sides in close to a decade, and Gantz promised that Israel would make a series of goodwill gestures to the PA, including a NIS 500 million loan.

The summit also came a week after Bennett had his first meeting with President Joe Biden in Washington, where he made clear that he had no intention of meeting with Abbas or engaging in peace negotiations on a future Palestinian state.

“There is no diplomatic process with the Palestinians, nor will there be one,” a source close to Bennett insisted after the Abbas-Gantz meeting, for which he had to give his approval.

This statement is unwise and offensive to the ears of the US and the international community. Why would an Israeli prime minister oppose a diplomatic process with the Palestinians?

Bennett does not have to support a Palestinian state, but there are other important issues to address for the sake of both Israelis and Palestinians.

For example, what if Hamas decides to launch a new war from Gaza? Shouldn’t the Israeli and Palestinian leaders establish a direct channel of communications, and join forces against any aggression that threatens people of these countries, peace and stability?

What if Hamas were to make a move to establish control over the West Bank, or to once again fan the flames of violence and unrest inside Israel or the West Bank, as it did in May during the last IDF operation in the Gaza Strip?

Wouldn’t it be beneficial for Israel’s prime minister to be able to talk directly to the leader of the Palestinian Authority?

The US has been the main broker for past Israeli-Palestinian talks, the last round of which came in 2014. But so far Biden has not shown any interest in kick-starting a new process.

In a Zoom talk to the Nizami Ganjavi International Center on Tuesday, PA Prime Minister Mohammed Shtayyeh declared “Washington does not have a peace initiative at all.”

The new Israeli government, he said, “has no political platform and no initiative to end the conflict with us. It seems to me that all it cares for is to maintain the status quo, and all of us know that the status quo is unsustainable,” adding that this “political vacuum… is very dangerous.”

Shtayyeh concluded that the vacuum “needs to be filled with some initiative. The US does not have an initiative, Europe does not have an initiative, the Israelis have no idea how to end the conflict with us… and Arab countries are going in a totally different direction.”

Unfortunately, Shtayyeh is right. We urge the prime minister to pick up the phone and schedule a meeting with Abbas at his earliest convenience.

Friday, 3 September 2021

Escalating tension between Algeria and Morocco

On 24th August 2021, Algeria broke off its already minimal bilateral relations with Morocco, declaring this was due to the kingdom’s “hostile actions” and accusing it of involvement in the wildfires that struck the Kabylia region earlier that month. 

The heightened tension between the two countries brings into focus regional uncertainty and may spell the end of their limited collaboration in the energy sector.

The two countries have a long history of tense relations, behind which lie issues of political ideology, border demarcation, and competition for regional influence. Morocco and Algeria fought a short border war after the latter’s independence from France in the fall of 1963, and Algeria has long supported the Polisario Front in its struggle against Morocco for control of the Western Sahara.

The land border between the two countries has officially been closed since 1994; a decision Algeria made unilaterally following Moroccan accusations that the Algerian military was behind a terrorist attack in Marrakesh in 1994. The Moroccan leadership, including King Mohammed VI, has repeatedly called for re-opening the border, something Algerian leaders have consistently rejected. Still, the two countries have managed to find limited avenues for cooperation around a gas pipeline that transports Algerian gas through Morocco and on to Spain and other European markets, although the future of this arrangement is now in doubt.

Lately, tensions between Algeria and Morocco reached a level unseen in past, though an all-out military confrontation remains unlikely. Both governments have increased their military presence along the border, and while the prospects of armed conflict remain low, the growing tension provides each enough fodder to distract from more serious domestic issues. Indeed, the biggest challenge for Algeria’s military leadership has remained how to convince an inwardly focused population that Morocco is a greater threat to their well-being than internal economic, political, and security challenges.

The Algerian military and ruling elite’s dislike and suspicion of Morocco runs deep and goes back to the border conflict of the 1960s and Cold War-era ideological tensions. Old Algerian fears of Rabat’s designs for a “Greater Morocco” are no longer realistic — if they ever were — but nonetheless hawkish views of Morocco and concerns over its expansionist plans persist among Algeria’s military top brass. Morocco’s growing ambitions to increase its regional political and economic influence therefore remain alarming to some in Algeria’s military.

Recent domestic, regional, and global events have added to this ongoing suspicion and tension between the two neighbors. The US recognition of Moroccan sovereignty over the Western Sahara dealt a blow to Algerian efforts to keep Morocco isolated on the issue. Although the conflict is by no means resolved, US recognition is a major win for Morocco — and therefore, in this zero-sum game, a loss for the Polisario.

Algeria is also extremely wary of growing Moroccan-Israeli cooperation. The two countries normalized relations as part of the deal struck with the Trump administration that granted Morocco US recognition over its Western Sahara claims. Algeria remains a staunch ideological supporter of the Palestinian cause, and was extremely critical of Morocco’s decision to normalize relations.

Adding to Algeria’s outrage, Morocco’s alleged involvement in the Pegasus spyware scandal prompted condemnations and accusations of spying on Algerian officials and top military brass. Algerian Foreign Minister Ramtane Lamamra’s fiery back and forth with Morocco’s ambassador to the UN, Omar Hilal, in July regarding the Western Sahara further amplified tensions. In response to Lamamra’s reaffirmation of Algeria’s support for self-determination, Hilal, as he has provocatively done before, called on Algeria to adopt the same support for self-determination for its own long-restive Kabylia region.

Despite their sharp jabs against Algeria, the Moroccan leadership blames Algeria for the escalation and interprets it as a way for the Algerian leadership to save face while shunning King Mohammed VI’s recent calls for the reopening of the border and improved relations.

In August, as wildfires swept through the Kabylia region, Morocco offered Algeria two of its firefighting Canadair aircraft. Algeria, despite having no firefighting fleet of its own, rejected the offer.

As tensions escalate, one of the key uncertainties with broader implications is the future of the Maghreb-Europe Gas (MEG) pipeline that began operations in November 1996 to export gas to the Spanish and Portuguese markets. The pipeline crosses through Morocco and in return Morocco receives 7% of the gas transported, which it uses for domestic consumption. The agreement has weathered previous diplomatic crises. However, this time, its future is more uncertain.

In addition to the MEG pipeline, Algeria also currently exports through Medgaz, an underwater pipeline that bypasses Morocco and is under expansion to handle higher flows. MEG pushes through 13.5 billion cubic meters (bcm) of Algerian gas yearly, while Medgaz has capacity for 8 bcm a year. Medgaz has announced plans to boost its export capacity to 10 bcm a year, but the expansion will not be operational until the end of the year at the earliest. The MEG transit agreement between the two states is up for renewal in October.

For Morocco, if the deal falls through, this would deprive it of a key source of energy. Gas accounts for 10% of its domestic energy consumption, and the loss of access to Algerian gas would particularly impact two power plants located in northern Morocco — south of Tangier and south of Jerrada respectively — both of which rely on imported gas.

Over the past couple of years, with the pipeline agreement coming up for renewal, Morocco has signaled its intention to strike a more advantageous deal with Algeria, bolstered by the fact that the full ownership of the pipeline will pass from the Spanish company Naturgy to the Moroccan government as of 1st November 2021. Morocco wants to boost its own access to gas as an important energy source, despite ongoing domestic efforts to diversify its energy mix and increase the share of renewables.

If the two countries fail to reach an agreement, Morocco could face energy shortages that it might struggle to make up in the short to medium term, while Algeria would deprive itself of an important income source. For their part, Spain and Portugal would likewise have to make up energy shortages from a different supplier. If Morocco and Algeria take a hard-nosed approach, Algeria could deprive Morocco of a key bargaining chip, but it would be at the expense of its own domestic economic considerations.

Algeria cannot afford to lose this access, particularly considering the crippling economic losses the country has faced in recent years. Although Morocco has promised to keep the pipeline open, it could risk being seen as blocking access to gas for European markets. Coming on top of its recent woes with European partners over migration, spying allegations, the Western Sahara, and the upcoming European ruling on the fisheries agreement, this could seriously damage Morocco’s ties with the EU.

As the three partners — Algeria, Morocco, and Spain — continue negotiations on this agreement that they all need, geopolitical considerations are not to be overlooked. Algeria is growing more anxious to reassert itself as a regional power following two years of turmoil at home and a longer-standing retrenchment from regional affairs.

Cutting ties with Morocco, even at the risk of potentially jeopardizing its critical energy exports, is about drawing a line in the sand, a total unwillingness to allow Morocco any leverage, as well as an effort to draw the attention of domestic audiences away from problems at home and rally against an external enemy.

For Morocco, these old conflicts and tensions that it wishes to leave behind create a challenge to its domestic and foreign ambitions. They stand as a reminder that the country is vulnerable, and that its regional and local stability are not to be taken for granted — something Algeria is keen to emphasize as it seeks to restore its wider regional role.