Rising Militancy in South Asia and MENA

Probing a little deeper suggests that the South Asia, Middle East and North Africa are rich in agriculture, minerals and the oldest route for on-land as well as sea trade. That was the prime reason these areas were occupies as colonies. 

The strategy of occupiers was ‘divide and rule’ and the occupation was driven by underlined objectives of crusades, attempting at getting control on trade, particularly maritime trade. 

The living examples are construction of Suez and Panama Canals, occupation of areas on the coastal lines and fueling of conflicts on the basis of religions and sects.

The old and most deadly are the encounters between the followers of three religions, Jews, Christians and Muslims. Often Jews and Christians joined hands against Muslims because of Quaran, which declared the previous Holy Books null and void, as these had been tempered very badly. This divide continues till today and the most contentious issue remains occupation of Jerusalem by Israel. The city has the highest spiritual attachments for Jews, Christians and Muslims.

Most of the present day sovereign states located on the coastal line have remained subservient to super powers. With the discovery of oil and gas in the region the first effort was to get control on production and transportation of crude oil and then on its refining facilities. Though, Saudi Arabia is often said to be the largest producer of oil, its production and logistics are virtually controlled by the aliens. Oil facilities of Iraq and other countries have also been virtually taken over by the United States under the disguise of NATO forces. Efforts have been going on to get control over Iranian oil but the country has survived under the worst sanctions for nearly thirty two years.

Getting control over movement of ships in the Indian Ocean are also centuries old. In modern days it is evident that pirates are fully funded and supported by the contenders aiming at controlling movement of ships, especially carrying crude oil. Historically, the joint navy of some European countries has been overseeing the movement of ships but lately United States controls the strings. The other contenders are China and India, which are very active evident from construction of Gwadar port in Pakistan by China and Chabahar port in Iran by India. Construction of both the ports is aimed at developing the shortest and most cost efficient route to Central Asian countries, which are also rich in oil and gas.

Sabotaging Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) and promoting Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) is also the brainchild of diabolic thinking of the United States. One of the prime concerns of India was safety of pipeline passing through Balochistan but it has hardly expressed its apprehension about Afghanistan, under constant state of war since USSR attack, for almost four decades. Some experts say that the uprising in Balochistan is funded by the external forces, which want to get control over the area.

Tough, the West has been behind rising militancy in the region; it is becoming growingly evident that the militants get funds, arsenal and training from those who wish to intensify the conflict to achieve their ulterior motives. Some cynics go to the extent of saying that if Taliban was the brainchild of CIA, many such factions are operatives under different names in almost all the Muslim countries. They also say that CIA often uses these mercenaries to achieve its own objectives.

 Courtesy The Financial Daily

Fragmenting Muslim Ummah

Soon after the departure of Holy Prophet, cracks started developing among Muslim Ummah and now the position is that it is divided into dozens of sects, the most prominent being Sunni and Shia.

They are divided on the basis of geographical location and languages they speak. However, they could be split into two distinct groups, one that is subservient to the sole surviving super power and the other that is often termed anti United States.

The situation has prevailed because the countries that are rich don’t wish to offend the mighty and those who have nothing are depended on the US for food, aid, loans and even arms to continue to fight among them. While there have been violent anti US demonstration in many countries lately, many Muslim countries are not raising the voice else the masters are offended.

Organization like OIC, believed to be the voice of Muslim Ummah are proving ‘spineless’. Muslim countries buying goods, including arsenal from the United States are not willing to boycott products made in anti Muslim countries. They will not die if the US goods are not consumed.

The most regrettable has been the role of oil rich countries. They may be earning billions of dollars from export oil at fabulous price but most of these are spent on buying arms from the United States. Major buyers of arms are Saudi Arabia and UAE, which face the least threat of attack from any country.

Arabs are fully supporting the United Sates in crushing Iran. They had supported and financed Iraq in waging 10-years war on Iran. They are assuring the world if oil export from Iran is stopped, the world will not face any shortage of oil. 

Chris Stevens a diplomat or spy

Killing of Christopher Stevens, US Ambassador in Libya and his portrayal as friend of ‘freedom’ fighters raises a question, was he a diplomat or an ace CIA operator? In the recent past many countries have been alleging that spies have become an integral part of the US diplomatic core.

His death has been termed the first death of a US ambassador in the line of duty since 1979. Stevens, 52 and single, served as a special envoy to the Libyan Transitional National Council last year from March to November. During his 21 years in the Foreign Service he also served in Jerusalem, Damascus, Cairo and Saudi Arabia.

President Barack Obama rushed 50 Marines to Libya to safeguard American personnel and critical facilities there, and ordered a worldwide review of security at diplomatic posts. The moves were made amid escalating worries that a deadly attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi stemmed from a carefully planned extremist plot, not a spontaneous riot.

Killing of Stevens can be termed a fall out of operating in the countries the United States wishes to keep its hold. Presence of CIA operators in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait and even Iran has a history spread on decades. New found territories are those falling in ‘uprising in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA).

It has been reported in media, “Stevens, whose diplomatic foothold were a couple of battered tables, was on literally on the rebels' side while the revolution was at its most vulnerable and in danger of being crushed by troops loyal to Moammar Gadhafi.”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, “Stevens will be remembered as a hero by many nations. He risked his life to stop a tyrant then gave his life trying to help build a better Libya. The world needs more Chris Stevenses."

Hannah Draper, who is in the US on leave from the embassy said, “He loved Libya and Libyan people and died doing what he believed in." Draper said the ambassador was "legendary" in Libya because he stayed in the country through the revolution, "Liaising with the rebels and leading a skeleton crew of Americans on the ground to support humanitarian efforts and meeting up-and-coming political leaders."

US Proxy War in Syria

From the early days analysts have been saying that the United States is fighting a proxy war in Syria. It is not an attempt to dislodge Assad but to prove that the super power enjoys complete control in Middle East and North Africa (MENA). An article recently written by David Ignatius for The Washing Post gives more credence to this belief.

According to David the United States and its allies are moving in Syria toward a program of covert support for the rebels that look very much like what super power and its friends did in Afghanistan in the 1980s. In Syria, as in Afghanistan, CIA officers are operating at the borders, helping Sunni insurgents improve their command and control and engaging in other activities. Weapons are coming from third parties.

He even goes to the extent of saying that major financier for both insurgencies have been Saudi Arabia. In his view Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who as Saudi ambassador to Washington in the 1980s worked to finance and support the CIA in Afghanistan and who now, as chief of Saudi intelligence, is encouraging operations in Syria.

As the proxy war in Syria is gaining momentum it is necessary to understand similarities/dissimilarities between Afghanistan and Syria. Afghan mujahedeen won their war and eventually ousted the Russian-backed government. CIA-backed victory opened the way for decades of chaos and jihadist extremism that are still menacing Afghanistan and its neighbors, especially Pakistan and Iran.

Therefore, before entering into any adventurism it is necessary to ask a question, will the intervention yield any result in case of Syria? The reply is evident if one keeps in mind the strategy of the covert war against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

The Saudis understandably would prefer that Sunnis who oppose autocratic rule should wage their fight far from the kingdom; Damascus is a far safer venue than Riyadh.

But there are hazards of fueling Sunni-Shiite dynamic in Syria, though rage against Shiites and their Iranian patrons has been a useful prop for the United States and Israel in mobilizing Sunni opposition against Assad, who as an Alawite is seen as part of the Shiite crescent.

But this is the most lethal and potentially ruinous sectarian battle, the kind that nearly destroyed Iraq and Lebanon and is now plunging Syria into the inferno. The Saudis want to fight Shiites but away from their Kingdom.

United States is also using the tribal card, which may be as crucial in Syria as it was in Iraq. The leaders of many Syrian tribes have been supported to wage war against Assad. It may be said that the engine of this insurgency in Syria is rural, conservative and Sunni.

David’s conclusion is thought provoking. He cautions the rebels fighting Assad deserve limited US support, just as the anti-Soviet mujahedeen did. The intervention will cause chaos and extremism that can take a generation to undo if the United States and its allies aren’t prudent.

United States biggest arms seller

Over the years it is being said that the United Sates creates most of the conflicts around the world but very few people are able to understand the underlying motive. It is the lust to keep its arsenal factories running at highest capacity utilization.

My second blog posted on 26th June highlighted this aspect. One of the latest reports by Reuters provides the latest numbers, though these pertain to 2011 and a lot has changed lately.

The report says that during 2011 the US arms sales touched record level US$66.3 billion, mainly because of $33.4 billion sales to Saudi Arabia alone. Other key buyers included United Arab Emirates and India.

The US sales were nearly 78 per cent of the global arms sales, which rose to $85.3 billion during 2011. The previous US record sales of $38.2 billion were achieved during 2008.

While Washington remained the world’s leading arms seller, nearly all other major suppliers, except France, recorded decline in sales during 2011. France signed arms sales valued at $4.4 billion in 2011, up from $1.8 billion a year earlier.

Russia, the world’s number two arms dealer, saw its sales nearly halved to $4.8 billion in 2011. The four major European suppliers — France, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy — saw their collective market share drop to 7.2 per cent in 2011 from 12.2 per cent a year earlier.

Saudi Arabia emerged the biggest arms buyer among developing countries, concluding $33.7 billion weapons deals in 2011, followed by India with purchases of $6.9 billion and the United Arab Emirates with $4.5 billion. A point worth laughing is ‘Iran is fueling arms sales especially to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates’.

The three major beneficiaries of the arms sales were Boeing, United Technologies and Lockheed Martin. The sale of $33.4 billion to Saudi Arabia comprised of 84 Boeing F-15 fighters, dozens of helicopters built by Boeing and Sikorsky Aircraft, a unit of United Technologies Corp.

The sale of $3.49 billion to the United Arab Emirates comprised of Lockheed Martin Corp’s Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, an advanced missile shield and $940 million for 16 Chinook helicopters built by Boeing.

The United States seems to be following a unique strategy whereby extreme volatile situation in created in the Middle East and imposition of economic sanctions on Iran. This helps in keeping crude oil price high. However, all these petrodollars are bagged by selling arms to oil rich countries.

The only point of concern is that the arms sales are on the rise due to growing animosity among the Muslim countries, especially Arabs vs. Iran. In the past Iraq assaulted Iran and the war continued for a decade.

During this war Saudi Arabia and Kuwait gave billions of dollars to Iraq to wipeout Iran from the global map. The stage is being prepared once again for a better coordinated assault on Iran but all remain shy of the nuclear capabilities of Iran. Though, Israel keeps on talking about attacking Iran, threat of nuclear war makes all jittery.

US waging war against Iran

While the countries living under the influence of United States have been imposing newer and tougher sanctions on Iran, Israel has been threatening to take unilateral action against the country irrespective of the outcome of 5+1 negotiations. 

However, cursory look at the chronology of decisions made against Iran support the perception that the United States has been waging war against the country for more than three decades.

Many observers say that the war against Iran is already underway. A vicious media campaign, regular war threats, assassinations and acts of sabotage all testify that Iran is the target of an all out war. 

While all sorts of aggression and belligerence are taking place, an intensive campaign against Iran is being run in the mainstream media.  Hawkish, pro-Israeli think tanks in the United States are portraying a biased and distorted image of Iran to their people with the aim of preparing ground for a possible military attack.

Iran’s enemies say that they have a problem with Iran's nuclear program because they fear it may one day develop nuclear weapons and use it against Israel. They are also preaching Iran poses a threat to global peace and security. All this in incorrect as the reality is Iran refuses to be a slave to the Zionists financial and political interests. One may not be amused if one day it is announced that Iran is financing international terrorism through the export and sale of pistachio nuts.

Washington's animosity is neither new nor related to Iran's nuclear program. Soon after the Islamic Revolution of 1979 and dethroning of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the US initiated hostility and enmity.  Under President Jimmy Carter, the US imposed a set of sanctions on Iran's oil sector and then blocked US$12 billion of Iranian government's assets in Washington.

After the deadly 1983 Beirut barracks bombing in which 241 US marines were killed, the US government renewed its sanctions, under the orders of President Ronald Reagan. The Bill Clinton administration toughened the sanctions in 1996 when US Congress unanimously passed the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act that penalizing the foreign companies investing in Iran's oil sector.

On September 30, 2006 the act was renamed to Iran Sanctions Act as Libya was excluded. The George W. Bush administration, also antagonistic toward Iran imposed several rounds of sanctions against its oil, gas, insurance, agriculture and aviation industries. He also signed a law the Iran Freedom and Support Act on September 30, 2006 which allocated $10 million for anti Iran groups.

Barack Obama instead of finding a sustainable solution to end the nuclear standoff, assumed an aggressive position, intensified the sanctions, banned transactions with the Central Bank of Iran and even created hurdles for Iran to receive the payments for its oil exports.

It seems the sanctions have been imposed to bring Iran to its knees and undermine its position as a regional superpower. The Obama administration has vehemently pursued a policy of running covert operations in Iran through training, funding and assisting anti Iranian organizations such as MKO and Jundallah with the objective of spreading fear, sabotaging its security and also impeding its nuclear program.

Damaging Iran's nuclear program through sophisticated computer worms and malwares such as Stuxnet was another attempt by the US and Israel aimed at causing major blow to Iran. The Stuxnet worm was coded to sabotage computers operating at Iran's Bushehr nuclear facilities.

Will US pull troops out of Afghanistan?

A question is often asked by the citizens of countries directly or indirectly affected by the Proxy War in Afghanistan; will United States pull out its troops occupying the country after 2014? 

The overwhelming perception is, it will not. To understand this it is necessary to explore reasons why the country is being occupied under the disguise of Nato and ISEAF.

One point is very clear that the objective was not to liberate Afghanistan from the control of USSR or Taliban but to occupy it for economical and political reasons. Presence of Al-Qaeda was not an excuse for attack. Iraq was also not attacked because of Al-Qaeda but oil. Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq had attack the world trade center.

One could find two possible reasons for occupying Afghanistan; valuable metals and geopolitics. Studies conducted by USSR showed that trillions of dollars worth precious and rare metals are present in Afghanistan.

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

After the Islamic Revolution Iran is being projected the biggest threat for the world, especially Arab monarchies and more recently for its nuclear program denouncing US hegemony. United States is planning for the ultimate day when troops will be deployed in Iran to takeover its 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 fully monitor and defend.  

China is the second most powerful superpower, which is likely to surpass the gross domestic product of the United States by 2020 and become world’s strongest economic superpower.  United States already has outposts in Taiwan and South Korea, Afghanistan gives them a third root of attack should it be necessary.

Afghanistan was a hostage of the Cold War. The United States supported Pakistan and the USSR patronized Afghanistan and India against Pakistan. After Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979 the Soviet leadership anticipated that in order to compensate its defeat in Iran the United States might seek to expand its influence in Afghanistan.

The USSR believed that getting control over Afghanistan could give it a perfect foot hold in South Asia and the Middle East. It would have access to a new ocean and proximity to the vast oil riches of the Middle East. There are no warm water ports in Afghanistan, but getting control over the Khyber Pass, an ancient trade route to China on the East and one step closer to Iran and Turkey on the West and Pakistan on the South, all with warm water ports.

With the disintegration of USSR, despite having tons of lethal arsenals and China focusing on its economy, the sole surviving super power seems too ambitious in establishing its hegemony in South Asia and MENA and Afghanistan appears to be the most ideal outpost. Therefore, probability of end to the US occupation of Afghanistan is hoping against the hopes.