Obama and Israel, Into the Abyss

What I dubbed the Obama administration’s “rapid and harsh turn against Israel” has had three quick, predictable, and counter-productive results. These point to further difficulties ahead. Read more

The Strategic Debate Over Afghanistan

By George Friedman

After U.S. airstrikes killed scores of civilians in western Afghanistan this past week, White House National Security Adviser Gen. James L. Jones said the United States would continue with the airstrikes and would not tie the hands of U.S. generals fighting in Afghanistan. At the same time, U.S. Central Command chief Gen. David Petraeus has cautioned against using tactics that undermine strategic U.S. goals in Afghanistan — raising the question of what exactly are the U.S. strategic goals in Afghanistan. A debate inside the U.S. camp has emerged over this very question, the outcome of which is likely to determine the future of the region.

On one side are President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and a substantial amount of the U.S. Army leadership. On the other side are Petraeus — the architect of U.S. strategy in Iraq after 2006 — and his staff and supporters. An Army general — even one with four stars — is unlikely to overcome a president and a defense secretary; even the five-star Gen. Douglas MacArthur couldn’t pull that off. But the Afghan debate is important, and it provides us with a sense of future U.S. strategy in the region. Read more

New Government’s Iran dilemma

General Elections in India are in last leg and next week people’s verdict will be wide open. In wake of an anticipated fractured verdict the deadlock for the formation of new government could extend for few weeks but it seems quite clear that it would be either Congress led government or BJP led government at the centre. South Asia forum has specific information that two national parties has  agreed upon to this point that regional satraps would not be allowed to lead the coalition and they will be forced to support either of one in national parties. Read more

Netanyahu to Obama: Stop Iran—Or I Will

by Jeffrey Goldberg

In an interview conducted shortly before he was sworn in  as prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu laid down a challenge for Barack Obama. The American president, he said, must stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons—and quickly—or an imperiled Israel may be forced to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities itself.

“The Obama presidency has two great missions: fixing the economy, and preventing Iran from gaining nuclear weapons,” Netanyahu told me. He said the Iranian nuclear challenge represents a “hinge of history” and added that “Western civilization” will have failed if Iran is allowed to develop nuclear weapons.

In unusually blunt language, Netanyahu said of the Iranian leadership, “You don’t want a messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs. When the wide-eyed believer gets hold of the reins of power and the weapons of mass death, then the entire world should start worrying, and that is what is happening in Iran.”

History teaches Jews that threats against their collective existence should be taken seriously, and, if possible, preempted, he suggested. In recent years, the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has regularly called for Israel to be “wiped off the map,” and the supreme Iranian leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, this month called Israel a “cancerous tumor.”

But Netanyahu also said that Iran threatens many other countries apart from Israel, and so his mission over the next several months is to convince the world of the broad danger posed by Iran. One of his chief security advisers, Moshe Ya’alon, told me that a nuclear Iran could mean the end of American influence in the Middle East. “This is an existential threat for Israel, but it will be a blow for American interests, especially on the energy front. Who will dominate the oil in the region—Washington or Tehran?”

Netanyahu said he would support President Obama’s decision to engage Iran, so long as negotiations brought about a quick end to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. “How you achieve this goal is less important than achieving it,” he said, but he added that he was skeptical that Iran would respond positively to Obama’s appeals. In an hour-long conversation, held in the Knesset, Netanyahu tempered his aggressive rhetoric with an acknowledgement that nonmilitary pressure could yet work. “I think the Iranian economy is very weak, which makes Iran susceptible to sanctions that can be ratcheted up by a variety of means.” When I suggested that this statement contradicted his assertion that Iran, by its fanatic nature, is immune to pressure, Netanyahu smiled thinly and said, “Iran is a composite leadership, but in that composite leadership there are elements of wide-eyed fanaticism that do not exist right now in any other would-be nuclear power in the world. That’s what makes them so dangerous.”

He went on, “Since the dawn of the nuclear age, we have not had a fanatic regime that might put its zealotry above its self-interest. People say that they’ll behave like any other nuclear power. Can you take the risk? Can you assume that?”

Read More…

Obama Afgh-Pak Policy Already Unraveling

Delhi, India. United States President Barack Hussein Obama unveiled his much awaited South Asian strategy in a globally televised speech last night (Indian time). Today many Indians told me, as one put it, that Obama “lived up to his middle name by showing the face of a pro-Pakistan US policy,” a critical component of which that policy is to find “moderate Taliban” with whom the United States and its allies can negotiate a peace. Imagine if in 1942, Franklin Roosevelt said the US was going to look for moderate Nazis who could negotiate peace. Americans would have been outraged then, and history would show the policy to have been a calamitous mistake. Fortunately, we do not have to wait for the passage of history since those moderate Taliban have already provided evidence that the policy is terribly flawed. Read more

Clinton Puts US Head in Pakistani Sand

Rudrapur, India. If Americans (or anyone else) needed proof that our government is hopelessly lost in South Asia, this morning’s Indian papers provide all the confirmation they need. The article in question featured a beaming Secretary of State Hillary Clinton praising the Pakistanis for “themselves resolving [their] difficulties.” Now, to be sure, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari and his political rival Nawaz Sharif did resolve their internecine spat, but only because the military “convinced” Zardari that it would be in his best interests to give into to Sharif and re-appoint sacked judges loyal to the latter. Some accomplishment.

But Clinton’s belief that this deal can “stabilize civilian democracy and the rule of law” in Pakistan would be laughable were it not so tragic. Before their falling out, Zardari and Sharif appeared to be allies in the wake of last year’s Pakistani elections that ended the one-man rule of former president and military strongman Pervez Musharraf. The coalition of the hopeful hailed that election as a new democratic era in Pakistan. This recent events showed us first that the military is still in charge in Pakistan and second, that the Obama administration along with the European Union are willing to sacrifice the freedom and very lives of others so they can claim victory for their misguided South Asian policies. Read more

Indians love Obama, but call him naive on Pakistan

NEW DELHI: On my first day of a visit to India, the media here was pre-occupied with an event they kept describing in horror as “shocking” and “audacious.” It was a terrorist attack in Lahore, Pakistan on the Sri Lankan cricket team that left eight players with minor injuries.

The story dominated every one of the broadcast media and for hours seemed to be the only story they were covering. All day long, at times with a dizzying speed, anchors would interrupt their anxiety-laced presentations to cut to an expert explaining what the “cowardly act of terrorism” meant, to a Pakistani official vowing “we will get the bastards,” to comments from Indian sports celebrities saying how smart their team was not to go to Lahore.

CNN’s sports reporter called the event “an atrocity,” a term his station has never used to describe any of the horrific and fatal attacks against Israel. Nor did his station hesitate for a moment to label the attackers “terrorists,” never once militants. To an outsider, the level of horror seemed out of proportion to the attack and casualties, especially in a region that sees far worse on a numbingly regular basis.

The reality, however, is that it was not.For the former British colonies and especially the nations of South Asia, cricket is treated almost reverentially; as a sanctuary from always tense India-Pakistan relations and the region’s growing political violence. Read more

Obama, the Middle East and Islam – An Initial Assessment

Why, just two weeks into a 209-week term, assess a new American president’s record on so esoteric a subject as the Middle East and Islam? In Barack Obama’s case, because of:

(1) A contradictory record: His background brims over with wild-eyed anti-Zionist radicals such as Ali Abunimah, Rashid Khalidi, and Edward Said, with Islamists, the Nation of Islam, and the Saddam Hussein regime; but since being elected he has made predominantly center-left appointments and his statements resemble those of his Oval Office predecessors.

(2) The outsized role of the Middle East and Islam: His first fortnight in office witnessed an inaugural address that mentioned them prominently, a first diplomatic telephone call to Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority, the appointment of two high-profile envoys, and the first interview granted to Al-Arabiya television channel.
Read more

Afghanistan could be Obama’s Vietnam

LONDON, Feb 11: Unless the insurgents’ advance is halted, Afghanistan will become President Barack Obama’s Vietnam, fears Col John Nagl, a consultant.

A Daily Telegraph report (War against Taliban ‘will be lost by autumn’ unless strategy changes) datelined Washington and published on Wednesday quoted Col Nagl, an Iraq veteran who helped devise the strategy, as saying that gains made by the Taliban needed to be reversed by the end of the fighting season, around late September or early October, or else the Taliban would establish a durable base that would make a sustained Western military presence futile.

“Counter-insurgency campaigns have momentum, like a football game when the crowd senses something before it happens. Right now the Taliban has that momentum,” said Col Nagl.

In his campaign Mr Obama committed to sending extra resources to Afghanistan and was bullish about the chances of success. But at a press conference this week, he played down expectations of ushering in a Western-style democracy and instead set a goal of preventing the country from becoming a haven for terrorists.

The president’s spokesman on Tuesday announced that he had asked Bruce Riedel, a former CIA agent and academic, to head an inter-agency review that would include civilian and military affairs in Afghanistan and the region, indicating that the so-called ‘surge’ might not be ordered by the president.

The leaking of Col Nagl’s assessment report to the media at this juncture is regarded by some diplomatic circles here as a desperate attempt by the supporters of the ‘surge’ idea in Pentagon to force President Obama’s hand.

The Telegraph report cleverly juxtaposed Col Nagl’s assessment with a statement by Adm Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in which he had said that he expected to announce the deployment of a further 30,000 US troops soon, even though President Obama’s administration was waiting to evaluate the reviews.

Read More…

They will burn their fingers

They will burn their fingers this was first spontaneous reaction I found from an analyst having some academic stake in Middle Eastern affairs about the possibility of success for the mission of George Mitchell special envoy appointed for Middle East from newly elected American president. This reaction was very much in consonance with me as I don’t see much difference in situation after much hyped Mitchell mission is started.

Here I have picked the issue of Mitchell because new administration in America has promised some new initiatives and breakthrough in troubled regions Middle East along with South Asia has prominent place in them. Decision of appointment of George Mitchell as an envoy for Middle East was very much anticipated and the same thing was true with envoy of South Asian region Richard Holbrook. But million dollar question is still unanswered how much success they would have in their mission and above all what new they have in stock. Since oath of office of new administration in America Obamamania is gradually evaporated with some new ground realities and a wonderful orator has to deliver from his action rather than his glorious words. Read more

Next Page »