After Paris Attacks: Will Middle East again burn Western hands?

Nov 21, 2015, South Asia Monitor/ Indian Defence Review 

By Divya Kumar Soti

 

As the horrors and plot of 13/11 Paris Attack unfold, its comparison with 26/11 Mumbai carnage becomes unavoidable given the striking similarities in the nature of soft targets chosen by the plotters. But there are stark distinguishing features too. 26/11 Mumbai attacks were basically a Foreign Intelligence Service sponsored act of proxy war against India where terrorists were directed at every step by their Pakistan-based handlers to carry-out prolonged scenes of horror through arson and firing occurring after short intervals. 26/11 was a hit and sit operation, but where terrorists were ultimately neutralized by the Indian Security forces. 13/11 Paris attacks were based on the strategy of quick massacre where terrorists either blew themselves up or absconded. From what we know now, leaving one, most of the attackers blew themselves up as soon as they came into contact with French Security Forces and two of them fled the sight only to be apprehended and killed in a raid a few days after this deadly November night.

 

While 9/11 attacks changed the geopolitics of the world, 26/11 did not. From the western viewpoint, Pakistan continues to be a useful, rather indispensable, rogue state which was to be financed to manage Afghanistan, Jihadism and its nukes were to be saved from any material punishment which may be inflicted by India in retaliation of its war by means of terror. The aftermath of 26/11 in which the West continued to maintain its double-standard on terrorism has some lessons, foremost being that international community’s response to terrorism is guided by hardcore geopolitics and not by the gravity of human tragedy. What takes place matters, but where these tragedies unfold matters more.

 

Terror threat to Europe emanates from the upturning of Middle-Eastern order which the European colonial powers themselves began indulging in after the dissolution of Ottoman Empire at the end of First World War, giving it final shape during the Cold War. This order or system in the Middle East compartmentalized and forced a hand on the forces of Islamist Imperialism which throughout the history have always tried to burst out of this region, and placed dictatorial regimes as air tight lids over these compartments. Another feature of this system was that it was rooted in the imbalance of power between Sunnis and Shias. In that it somehow tried to preserve the historical Sunni hegemony over Middle East. During its tenure, this order ensured stability for the outside world as Islamist threat to Europe and Africa remained distant. 

 

Now, this order stands destroyed due to various geopolitical events: 2003 Iraq invasion, Arab Spring and re-emergence of the Shia Power led by Iran. Islamic State, al-Nusra and lot of other such groups are basically projections of proxy reaction by Sunni monarchies to the rise of Shia Power in Iraq and Syria. While this new “Shia Arc” could have envisaged a new order rooted in the balance of Shia-Sunni Power in the Middle East, it remains unacceptable to Sunni Islamists in Arab world as such a balance never existed since medieval times and does not merit their contemplation. But the rise of Shia Power is a reality now and more likely an irreversible phenomenon.

 

Then there is a Russian twist to the whole saga. In the last few years, Putin’s Russia has made formidable strategic gains in Eurasia and after consolidating itself in Ukraine has emerged as a strong power arbitrator in Syria and Iraq. Seen from NATO’s point of view, after deploying Area-Denial-Weapon-Systems, turning East European skies into a vulnerable space for NATO Aircrafts, Russia has burst out of Eurasian heartland expanding its naval presence the Eastern Mediterranean and now its air power stands deployed in Syria encircling the NATO Missile Defense Batteries deployed in Turkey.

 

Entry of Russia into the Syrian Conflict in support of Shia Assad has created a policy dilemma for US as well as Europe. The approach of US and its European allies had been to declare Assad and Islamic state equally bad while leaving out some other militant groups terming them as moderates. Ironically, some US and European commentators took this narrative to such a high pitch that groups like Al-Qaeda affiliate Al-Nusra Front started to look moderate in comparison to IS.

 

Putin figured out this absurdity and took a leap into the Syrian Conflict. Russia’s stance has been to club IS and many other Islamist groups in the elimination category as it plans to sustain the Assad regime. Before 13/11 Paris attacks, traditional specter of Russian strategic expansion loomed large on European capitals and Islamic State suddenly looked like a by-the-way enemy. Recently, the French Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian had criticized the Russian intervention in Syria in unequivocal terms saying the Russian intervention was only aimed at saving Assad and is not going after the IS.

 

But now the carnage on Paris streets has pushed the traditional fear of Russian advance to the backburner. President Putin, who had to cut short his visit during the last year’s G-20 summit in Brisbane as he found himself cornered, was setting the narrative on Middle East and Global War on Terror at this year’s G-20 gathering which happened in the immediate aftermath of Paris attacks.

 

While the G-20 meeting progressed, marking a complete policy shift, President Hollande told the French Parliament: “In Syria, we’re looking for the political solution to the problem, which is not Bashar Assad. Our enemy in Syria is ISIL.” Prior to that in Vienna where foreign ministers of 20 stakeholder nations met a day after Paris attacks to discuss Syrian Peace Process, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov sounded assertive about Russia proposed transition plan and classification Syrian Islamist Groups. He said that there is “no justification for us not doing much more to defeat ISIS and al Nusra and the like”. 

 

He was unequivocal in identifying the problem in Syrian conflict which according to him is not about Assad and that ISIS is the enemy, a view which now stands echoed in the new French policy. On the other hand, Secretary Kerry sounded ambiguous and confused on the classification of the groups fighting in Syria and their motivations: “It can’t end as long as Bashar Assad is there. That’s the perception of the people waging the War.”

 

Whatever may be the outcome of this proposed transition process, Shia power in both Iraq and Syria stands rescued from succumbing to the all round onslaught which means that Sunni monarchies will continue to finance jihadist groups in these countries and that terrorism may continue to spill out of this region particularly to Europe, North and West Africa.

 

While all this happens, the debate in US continues to be focused on stopping Russia. The US wants to go back into its classic isolationist mode but circumstances do not permit it this comfort. Steering through this confusion, it hopes to direct the events in Middle East through calculative use of air power and financing the proxies. Further, Washington is reeling under pressure from the Sunni Arab Allies like Saudi Arabia as well as Israel on the other hand to check Iran. As G-20 leaders in Turkey brainstormed over stabilizing the Middle East, the US cleared the sale of more than $1 billion worth of smart air ammunition to Saudis which they will probably use against Houthi Shias in Yemen.

 

In such circumstances, where the distinction between ‘good and bad terrorists’ may no longer catch the global interest, the classification of ‘useful’ terrorists vis-à-vis those that are not so useful will continue to be employed on the Syrian battlefront.

 

Afghan peace process: Marred by short-sightedness (South Asia Monitor: March 12, 2015)

"The new peace process conceived by President Ashraf Ghani ultimately aims at reaching a power sharing deal with the Afghan Taliban. This latest peace process is as superficial as the previous ones because it does not demand an ideological course correction from Taliban. The Afghan Taliban remains committed to ultra-radical version of Deobandi Islam and had championed a barbaric medieval theocratic state in Afghanistan during its days in power where public flogging, stoning, beheadings and iconoclasm were perpetrated by the state machinery. Today the Islamic State is repeating just that in Iraq and Syria."

"The importance of such an ideological declaration is evident from the experience of Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood. Though the Muslim Brotherhood had renounced the use of violent means to achieve political ends as early as 1949 and was a key participant in the Tahrir Square agitation against the Hosni Mubarak regime, when it came to power after participating in the 2012 presidential elections it was soon found trying to impose an Islamist Constitution and its members were found to be indulging in attacks on Christians and other minorities. Leading Middle East expert Yasmine El Rashidi described this as an “Islamist Coup”. Soon Egypt’s powerful military had to intervene to save the country from plunging into utter chaos. All this happened because despite giving up violence and participating in the electoral process, the Muslim Brotherhood remained ideologically committed to the cause of establishing a theocratic Islamist State." Read Full Article Here

Iraq burns again: Unravelling of secret colonial pacts (South Asia Monitor:Jun 30, 2014)

I wrote in South Asia Monitor analyzing falling apart of Sykes-Picot plan of 1916 and rise of Sunni Caliphate in Iraq and Syria and what it means for Middle-East, South Asia, North Africa and Europe. Interestingly, the present shape of Kurd and IS holdings conform to Project for New Middle-East Map published by US Armed Forces Journal in 2006. Read More:

 South Asia Monitor: http://southasiamonitor.org/detail.php?type=sl&nid=8436
 Eurasia Review:  http://www.eurasiareview.com/30062014-iraq-burns-unravelling-secret-colonial-pacts-analysis/

Battle of Samarra: Crucial Milestone in Shia-Sunni Conflict

As heavy fighting razes in and around Iraqi historical city of Samarra, we are gauging at an event which may prove to be a turning point in historical Shia-Sunni conflict and can carry its intensity to limits unknown to the modern world. The city houses one of the most important Shia pilgrimage site with which ISIL wants to do something of the kind Taliban did with Bamiyan Buddha.

Some reports from Arab TV channels say that ISIL fighters are already inside Samarra and controlling major portion of city. Samara's theological importance to Shias is huge. Samarra's Al-Askari mosque houses shrines of 10th and 11th Imams. It is also the place where last Shia Imam went into occultation and as per theological beliefs will return at appointed time (the belief is similar to that of Seventh Day Adventists about Jesus Christ). Al-Qaeda has targeted the mosque two times in 2006 and 2007 which had led to major ethnic clashes across Iraq. But falling of Samarra to Sunni Islamists is another thing. Anticipating the ISIL intentions in advance,three days back, Shia leader Muqtada al-Sadr had called upon Shia fighters to rush to Samarra and Karbala to save the shrines. Now, highest ranking Shia cleric in Iraq has also called upon his followers to take up arms against Sunni Islmists and save the nation.

Western Media continues to report that thousands of Shia voulnteer fighters are moving towards Samarra and Iranain Quds forces are also inside Iran. We may see Muqtatad al-Sadr's Mahdi Army soming to life again in next few days which had given Americans very hard time in past. In another important development, Saudi Daily Al Watan reported that Iran has asked Hezbollah to sent its fighters to Syria so that Iraqi Shia fighters may return home to take on Sunni Islamists.

Iran's President Rouhani has spent lot of political capital on peace process with Americans. He cannot afford to be soft on Iraqi situation and Tehran would got to any limit to save the situation in Iraq. Attacks on Shias have been increasing on Iran's eastern border with Pakistan. With Taliban all set to get stronger in Afghanistan after US withdrawal, Tehran seems to be in no mood to get hemmed in between Sunni extremists from both sides. Moreover, Iran also has to sustain the Assad regime in Syria and importance of that mission has increased in light of current situation in Iraq.

A Twist in the Middle-East Tale

By talking over phone President Obama and Iran’s newly elected President Rouhani may have started to spell the new equations which have the potential of simplifying the extremely complicated geo-politics of middle-east. This historic rapprochement between West and the Iran will have long-term soothing effect on highly volatile situation in post-Arab spring era.

An acrimonious relationship with Iran makes US devote much of its energy in Middle-East to futile activities which do not help any of its long-term strategic goals nor do in any way contribute to global security scenario. George Bush’s inclusion of Iran to “axis of evil” phraseology only complicated and delayed US war efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

As US invaded Afghanistan in 2001 and thereafter Iraq in 2003, a hemmed Iran naturally found itself vulnerable. Washington’s hostile attitude further worsened the situation and allowed radicals in Iran to rise to power.

Iran had a stake in toppling of Taliban regime in Afghanistan which was extremely hostile to Iranian interests. When Taliban came to power in Kabul in 1996, it made all attempts to curtail Iranian influence in Afghanistan. Large scale selective killings of Shias were organized by the Taliban government. Iranian consulate in Mazar-e-Sharif was attacked and ten Iranian diplomats were killed. Iran had to amass 300,000 troops on its border with Afghanistan threatening to punish the Taliban regime.

However, Bush’s axis of evil rhetoric forced Iran to covertly help the Taliban after post-9/11 invasion of Afghanistan by US so as to keep US military engaged and stretched. Similar things also transpired in Iraq. Saddam Hussein was Iran’s sworn enemy but after fall of Saddam regime Iran had to initially work at cross-purposes to US to keep US forces at bay. Things stabilized in Iraq only after Washington realized that a head on approach against Iranian clients will not be helpful. Ultimately Iranian covert co-operation in quelling the violence allowed US to withdraw its troops from Iraq.

Withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan which is scheduled next year will bring back things to per-9/11 era. There will be no substantial US military presence either in Iraq or Afghanistan. On the other hand, Iran will be faced with a resurgent Al- Qaeda on its west in Iraq which aims to push that nation into civil war and a hostile Taliban which will try to destabilize Afghanistan staking claims to power in Kabul to its East. All this has serious implications for Iranian interests in the region.

A glimpse of approaching turbulence is already visible. Pakistan’s tribal areas witnessed some of the most ghastly attacks mounted on Shias ever. At the same time, a terrorist group named Jundullah founded by Abdul Malik Rigi, who was a former Taliban commander and operates from Pakistani territory sprung into action after many years and killed sixteen Iranian border guards. In Iraq, Al-Qaeda’s activities are recording an exponential increase.

After UN sponsored chemical weapons deal with Assad regime, Iranian and US priorities are changing fast bringing them into cohesion. Going forward Washington will be increasingly focused on checking resurgence of Al-Qaeda and allied groups in the Islamic world. Similarly, these groups are emerging as greater threats to Iranian interests in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan than the West.

Emergence of Qatar as Track Two Player and India's Afghanistan Policy

From hosting Doha talks between US and Taliban to covertly supporting rebels in Libya and Syria, Qatar has been trying to increase its clout in Islamic world by leveraging its strategic importance in Middle-East. Qatar houses US CENCOM and has world's third largest natural gas reserves. Though Washington has often came to war of words with Doha on Al-Zazeera, Qatar continues to be a country of increasing importance in its Middle-East policy.

Due to the efforts of Qatar's erstwhile emir ,who was described by a recent BBC report as "Middle-East's Kissinger", Doha has become a hub of track two diplomacy in Middle-East. Even in military terms, Qatar's importance has been increasing ever since Bush administration decided to vacate Saudi bases.

Ironically, Qatar gains wherever Saudis loose. Saudi relations with Taliban have been progressively deteriorating since 1998, when Mullah Omar went back on his promises of handing over Bin Laden to Saudis. Saudi attempts to broker peace in Afghanistan failed badly in 2008-09 because many Northern Alliance leaders as well as Taliban factions were not ready to accept Saudi mediation. All this helped Qatar to become Taliban's diplomatic patron and many Taliban representatives are now permanently stationed in Doha.

Qatar also backed Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt which has a history of bad relations with Riyadh. Saudi Royals have always seen Brotherhood as a potent political threat to their regime. Though with the toppling of Morsi government by Egyptian Army, Saudis are back in game, nevertheless, Qatar remains a key player in Egypt as at some point political rapprochement with Muslim Brotherhood is unavoidable for the new Egyptian regime and there are already voices from inside the new government criticising the Egyptian Army's high handedness in dealing with Brotherhood protests.  Furthermore, there are fears of Salafists and Al-Qaeda taking advantage of current situation in Egypt and echos are starting to come out of Washington with Senator McCain describing the toppling of Morsi regime as a "coup".

Though many analysts saw happenings in Egypt as an endgame for tiny Qatar's participation in heavyweight diplomacy, the above noted developments suggest otherwise. It is true that overthrowing of Morsi government by Egyptian Army was bit of a setback for Qatar which was in power transition mode, but Qatar's new Emir is smartly trying to salvage the situation by trying rapprochement with Riyadh.

After backing rebels in Libya, Qatar has also emerged as a key player in Syrian conflict and have been shrugging off US and Saudi concerns about shipping shoulder fired heat seeking missiles to Syrian rebels.

Qatar continues to have close contacts with other side of Islamic world and with its strategic location and petrodollars, it is likely to remain a track two hub in foreseeable future.

India has a strategic partnership with Qatar. Two countries had signed Defence Co-operation Agreement in 2008 which provides for close military co-operation and joint defence production. This partnership is important for Qatar as it seeks to diversify its dependence on US in military terms. New Delhi should try to revitalize its relations with Doha. India needs to come to terms with the prospective ground situation in Afghanistan after US troop withdrawal in 2014 and thus, shall keep open some sort of back channel with Taliban. What makes this track two channel even more necessary is the perception that India may have to face typical security situations in Afghanistan. The new Nawaz Sharif Government has close relations with Saudis and Saudis are also likely to play on Pakistani line as due to their unacceptability in Afghanistan they are left with little room for having independent choices. This situation may be utilized by India for its advantage in Afghanistan.