Skip to main content

The need for a strategic shift

By

A week back steamy headlines made it to the front pages and Security News Alerts: Iran may act as negotiator with Assad, Syrian President. It is no secret that Rouhani’s government has been deemed friendly, forward looking, and less fanatical than its predecessors. So must Iran with a freshly signed nuclear deal, our new member on the bandwagon for global peace, play a role in convincing Syria’s Assad to hop aboard too? Possibly yes. But will the Arab League, Turkey and Washington’s other allies allow for such bold acceptance of the pariah state?
While Putin was able to pen his plea for caution in ‘The’ New York Times; and Wikileaks, Bradley Manning, and the latest NSA spying scandal courtesy Edward Snowden had raised question marks in blindly trusting audience; the Syrian imbroglio remains perturbed and unchecked. Ticking like a time bomb, with dozens killed on a weekly basis, the state of war in Syria needs to be addressed. Then who must step in?
So far the Iranian government has said No to this proposition. Perhaps retaining their individuality on the global front is a far more vital pursuit. However it’s rare that Washington and Tehran are on the same wavelength with respect to the al-Qaeda affiliated jihadists who have been leading a mutiny in parts of Iraq and Syria. Both countries said they would support Iraqi authorities faced with an insurrection led in large part by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), a group of al Qaeda-affiliated jihadists.
Iran and the US are central sources of support for the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who is preparing a major counterattack against the jihadist group in Fallujah. At the same time this support for the Iraqi Prime Minister may fuel anti-government sentiment among the Sunnis, who say they are discriminated against and marginalized by the Shiite authorities in power both in Iraq and Iran. Sunni anger could benefit the jihadists, who capitalize on anti-government sentiment and divergences between tribes in order to recruit new members.
Syria, still a war-zone, the hotbed of conflict, steals the spotlight. And even though Rouhani’s diplomatically suave government enjoys Assad’s trust, this alliance has received harsh criticism of other stakeholders who expect more prudence from the United States. Over the objections of the Arab League, Turkey among others, Washington is blocking Iran’s participation in the Geneva II conference. Set to begin in Montreux, Switzerland on January 22, the UN sponsored, Russia-US co-chaired conference is charged with reaching a “political settlement” to the nearly three-year-old Syrian conflict.
Lacking popular support, the US-sponsored anti-Assad insurgency has been thrown on the defensive and is becoming increasingly dependent on Sunni Islamists, including scores of foreign fighters. The sectarian atrocities committed by Islamist forces including Al Qaeda-linked groups have only further discredited and isolated the insurgents among the Syrian people. What started as a hate-Assad campaign has become a royal mess lacking both direction and purpose.
The grave reality that the US has to address is the ‘Islamist’ nature of Assad’s opposition. The Syrian rebels the West attempted to empower remain on the fringes, sidelined by much stronger forces that pose a threat to US friendly governments in the region, like Iraq. The failure of secular transition from dictatorships has been observed in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya. With Iran on the negotiating table and in the process of forming a potentially healthy alliance, perhaps the US must reconsider her Middle East strategy.
It is obvious that Tehran, fearing an explosion of working-class protest over unemployment and inflation, is anxious to reach an accommodation with Washington, as the US and its allies seek to bully it into making ever larger concessions. Iranian President spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin, about “the situation in Syria in the context of preparations for the Geneva II conference, and implementation of agreements on the Iranian nuclear program.”
Iran, understandably so, reacted angrily to its exclusion from the Geneva II conference, viewing US Secretary of State John Kerry’s statement that Tehran could perhaps “help” on the conference sidelines as an insult. However, its leaders continue to insist they are ready to assist in “stabilizing” the Middle East. Empowering a non-existent ‘secular’ force has failed in the recent past. Watching Shia governments fall is beneficial to the regional Wahabi stakeholders whose sectarian rivalries have dictated alliances in the Middle East for decades and getting into this petty sectarian conflict may lead to no desirable ends for the US.


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Pakistan can never be Madina E Saani

By
By Nadeem Sajjad. Pakistan is a land loved by many and lived in by millions. It has been witnessed in the past --and somewhat in the present age – that the origin of the name (word) “Pakistan” has had many different accounts of its creators/inventors. Known to be the most accurate of all accounts, is the one of the much respected Chaudhry Rehmat Ali. Others have the concept that the word “Pakistan” was given to the Muslims of India, after the success of Lahore resolution in 1940, by the Hindus of the subcontinent and was then used by Quaid e Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah in his presidential address to the All India Muslim League annual session at Delhi on 24 April 1943. Whatever may be the origin, the Muslims got their own land to practice their religion Islam, and to maintain their traditions. The thing that should be emphasized upon is that the country was created in the name of Islam.  Knowing the origin is one thing, but naming the country or the name itself to something els...
2 comments
Read more

Waging war on ourselves

By
BY  ETHAN CASEY A couple of years ago, giving a talk at a church in Seattle, I was conveying as best I could the anger Pakistanis feel toward the US about drone attacks, when a woman raised her hand and asked, “What’s a drone attack?” I give her credit for asking, but I was astounded nonetheless. Ever since then I’ve kept that woman in my mind, and often cited her to audiences, as an example of the ignorance of ordinary Americans about things that are happening – I should say things we’re doing to other people – beyond our shores. My mentor  Clyde Edwin Pettit  used to say that we’re all ignorant, only about different things. That can be a helpful working assumption when trying to achieve common understanding, but it’s also true that some of us are closer than others to the coal face of hard experience. For example, the novelist  John Grisham recently pointed out  that support for the death penalty is “still very much the consensus among white people i...
Post a Comment
Read more

Pakistani Pilots in Arab Israel War

By
45 years after the 1967 war: How the Arabs lost Jerusalem War is normally measured by its final outcome, but many individual heroes gave up their lives for the Arab side during the 1967 Six-Day War. (Image courtesy AP)   By  ALI YOUNES   SPECIAL TO AL ARABIYA This past June marked the 45th anniversary of the Arab defeat of the 1967 war. War is normally measured by its final outcome, but many individual heroes faithfully gave up their lives for the Arab side, defending the honor of their nations. The actions of those men deserve to be highlighted and explained, especially the contributions of the Pakistani pilot Saiful Azam and the brave Jordanian soldiers of the battle of Ammunition Hill in Jerusalem. At 12:48 p.m. on June 5, four Israeli jets were descending on Jordan’s Mafraq air base to smash the country’s tiny air force, shortly after the entire Egyptian air force had been reduced to rubble.  To intercept the incoming attack, ...
2 comments
Read more