Monday, July 30, 2012
The Aim of the West Strategy in the Middle East: A Historical Review
Looking back to the chain of events in the Middle East region in the past decade, we can realize a trend of an important strategy which has been adopted by the West and especially the United States. The events of September 11th, 2001 created a turning point in the U.S foreign and strategic policies in the world. Waging two main wars against Afghanistan and Iraq were the first signs of this policy. Attacking Iraq and presenting the plan of "Greater Middle East Initiative" to re-socialize the Muslim people of the region through democratization and cultural reform, were of the main elements of George W. Bush's agenda for the region. The final aim of the plan was so-called eradication of terrorism's roots form the Middle East.
After Hamas' victory in 2006 Palestinian election, the U.S incumbent administration understood that pursuing democracy cannot reach them to their interests in the region because democratically elected officials in the region are not their clients. Another important issue occurred in Iraq. Toppling Saddam and shaping new government in Iraq by the Shia majority was not good news for the United States regarding especial relations between new Iraqi elites and Iran. Even the United States managed to influence Iraq parliamentary election and bring to power pro-American elites in Iraq, but it was not successful.
Trying to manage these situations, the United States and its allies tried to curb Iran’s sphere of influence through changing the balance of power in the region. Their targets were Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria. In this regard the West put more pressure on Hezbollah and Syria after Rafik Hariri assassination. They wanted to disarm Hezbollah and evacuate Lebanon from Syrian army. In June 2006 Israel attacked Lebanon and waged a 33-day war against Hezbollah, aiming to destroy its infrastructures and dismantle Hezbollah. But they suffered a crushing defeat in the imposed war to Lebanon. The Zionist regime later in December 2008 attacked Gaza to save its face but it met with no success again through 22-day war.
Using hard power could not reach the West to their goals. So they decided to try soft power against Iran and the axis of resistance in the region. The West wanted to destabilize Iran after presidential election 2009 and supported the opposition groups by all means at its disposal against Iranian government but finally it could not succeed in this regard.
Another turning point occurred during the Arab awakening process in the region. It was really shocking for the West because they were witnessing collapsing their allies one after another. The Islamic awakening put the West interests in the region at stake. The great event was toppling Mubarak regime in Egypt. The West wanted to manage the events after the Arab revolutions in different ways. In some countries it supported the dictators to suppress the people like Bahrain. In some countries the West tried to manage the result of elections according to its interests. In some states the West accepted some changes within the ruling parties superficially.
Changing strategic situation in the region because of Islamic awakening, the West tried to alter its role from reactionist –defensive to offensive one. In this regard, Syria was the good place to put pressure on Iran and its allies to improve the West position. The U.S policy is a new kind of "Dual Containment" of Iran and Syria. The Unites States and its regional partners such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey and other Arab micro-states are supporting opposition groups in Syria and attempting to collapse Syrian government. It is remarkable to note that the aim of this policy is to tighten the Screws on Iran. The temperature between the West and Iran has increased dramatically and we're on the eve of an historical moment which can determine the strategic map of the region for decades. All the Iranian –West disputes such as nuclear issue are part of this broad image. The West has been doing its best in all aspects to put pressure on Iran and the axis of resistance which are against the West hegemony.
Bearing in mind this chain of event, we can conclude that the West's problem is the ideas of Iranian Islamic Revolution which has been extended throughout region and caused Islamic awakening in a way that the West's interests in the region endangered. So the main goal of the West is to contain these pure Islamic thoughts and all kinds of the West accusation against resistance axis are excuses to justify its policies.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
The West’s miscalculations on Iran
On the brink of new nuclear talks between Iran and the 5+1 group (the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China, and Germany), U.S. and Israeli officials have escalated their rhetoric about Iran’s intentions for its nuclear program.
U.S. President Barack Obama says his threat to attack Iran if it does not back down in the nuclear dispute is not a bluff, and the Israelis are talking about acting “unilaterally” if necessary.
Over the past few months, the West has increased the pressure on Iran by imposing tougher sanctions on the country, with the goal of convincing Iran to change its stance on the nuclear issue. The West has targeted the Iranian people through the so-called “crippling” sanctions in order to make Iranian citizens dissatisfied with their government and to discourage them from supporting their government. But the Westerners received a clear message from the Iranian people in the recent parliamentary election.
The high turnout of over 64 percent in the March 2 election proved that the Iranian people support their government. The Iranian people disappointed the United States and put a big question mark over the West’s calculations on Iran. However, despite this clear signal from the Iranian people, U.S. and Israeli officials repeated the same old accusations against Iran at the recent conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
So, why are such remarks being made and what is the purpose of this anti-Iran rhetoric?
First of all, the United States is now in a very weak position because of the Islamic Awakening and the fact that it has lost some of its military bases in Iraq and will definitely be compelled to hand over other bases in Afghanistan and other countries in the future.
The United States is stepping up the pressure on Iran in order to reduce Iran’s sphere of influence and to divert attention from the fact that the U.S. is facing defeat on a number of political fronts. Israel is in the same situation. And that is why the two countries are using such rhetoric.
The West is using every means at its disposal, including sanctions, to undermine Iran, but despite the talk about “all options being on the table,” they are not in a position to launch a military attack against Iran.
The Westerners have run out of options, and they are only stepping up their anti-Iran rhetoric in a futile attempt to strengthen their hand for the upcoming nuclear talks.
They are also trying to show they mean business with their bellicose language, although most of the world views their remarks as empty threats.
It’s clear that the unilateral sanctions imposed on the Central Bank of Iran and other Iranian institutions and the call for a boycott of Iranian oil were the last cards that the West had left to play before the negotiations with Iran. In this situation, Iran has the upper hand in the nuclear talks and can put diplomatic pressure on the West. And if the upcoming nuclear negotiations fail, the big losers will be the Western camp not Iran.
The Westerners must understand that they will get nowhere with their double-track policy toward Iran. The “speak softly and carry a big stick” policy became obsolete a century ago.
Iran is a strong state in the Middle East that is challenging the efforts of the United States and its Western allies to dominate the region.
The Muslim people of the Middle East and North Africa region are currently making efforts to depose the West’s puppets, who have been ruling their countries, and want to establish governments based on the teachings of Islam.
The ideas of Iran’s Islamic Revolution have spread throughout the Middle East and North Africa region, and this has bolstered Iran’s soft power. The West is afraid of this development and is seeking to quash the Islamic uprising. However, ignoring the elements of Iran’s power will lead the West to a dead end.
(the original article published in TehranTimes:
http://www.tehrantimes.com/opinion/96387-the-wests-miscalculations-on-iran-
U.S. President Barack Obama says his threat to attack Iran if it does not back down in the nuclear dispute is not a bluff, and the Israelis are talking about acting “unilaterally” if necessary.
Over the past few months, the West has increased the pressure on Iran by imposing tougher sanctions on the country, with the goal of convincing Iran to change its stance on the nuclear issue. The West has targeted the Iranian people through the so-called “crippling” sanctions in order to make Iranian citizens dissatisfied with their government and to discourage them from supporting their government. But the Westerners received a clear message from the Iranian people in the recent parliamentary election.
The high turnout of over 64 percent in the March 2 election proved that the Iranian people support their government. The Iranian people disappointed the United States and put a big question mark over the West’s calculations on Iran. However, despite this clear signal from the Iranian people, U.S. and Israeli officials repeated the same old accusations against Iran at the recent conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
So, why are such remarks being made and what is the purpose of this anti-Iran rhetoric?
First of all, the United States is now in a very weak position because of the Islamic Awakening and the fact that it has lost some of its military bases in Iraq and will definitely be compelled to hand over other bases in Afghanistan and other countries in the future.
The United States is stepping up the pressure on Iran in order to reduce Iran’s sphere of influence and to divert attention from the fact that the U.S. is facing defeat on a number of political fronts. Israel is in the same situation. And that is why the two countries are using such rhetoric.
The West is using every means at its disposal, including sanctions, to undermine Iran, but despite the talk about “all options being on the table,” they are not in a position to launch a military attack against Iran.
The Westerners have run out of options, and they are only stepping up their anti-Iran rhetoric in a futile attempt to strengthen their hand for the upcoming nuclear talks.
They are also trying to show they mean business with their bellicose language, although most of the world views their remarks as empty threats.
It’s clear that the unilateral sanctions imposed on the Central Bank of Iran and other Iranian institutions and the call for a boycott of Iranian oil were the last cards that the West had left to play before the negotiations with Iran. In this situation, Iran has the upper hand in the nuclear talks and can put diplomatic pressure on the West. And if the upcoming nuclear negotiations fail, the big losers will be the Western camp not Iran.
The Westerners must understand that they will get nowhere with their double-track policy toward Iran. The “speak softly and carry a big stick” policy became obsolete a century ago.
Iran is a strong state in the Middle East that is challenging the efforts of the United States and its Western allies to dominate the region.
The Muslim people of the Middle East and North Africa region are currently making efforts to depose the West’s puppets, who have been ruling their countries, and want to establish governments based on the teachings of Islam.
The ideas of Iran’s Islamic Revolution have spread throughout the Middle East and North Africa region, and this has bolstered Iran’s soft power. The West is afraid of this development and is seeking to quash the Islamic uprising. However, ignoring the elements of Iran’s power will lead the West to a dead end.
(the original article published in TehranTimes:
http://www.tehrantimes.com/opinion/96387-the-wests-miscalculations-on-iran-
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Entering British Embassy by Iranian Students: Lessons for the West
After Iranian parliament approved on Sunday the bill concerning downgrading Iran-UK relations and expelling the British ambassador, thousands of Iranian people and students, protested the latest British sanctions imposed on the Islamic Republic, demanded Tehran break relations with London completely. It was the greatest Iranian people protest against the British policies against Iran which led to closure of Iranian embassy in London and expelling British diplomatic staff from Tehran.
The main question relating to these developments is “What the expelling of British diplomats from Tehran tells the west?”
First of all, it proved that Iranian government would not come to negotiation table by toughening sanction against it. Putting more pressure on Iran to convince this country to change its behavior is a wrong old irrational policy which has not been succeeded during more than 30 years of Iranian revolution.
Second, putting more sanction on Iran may force Iran to take stricter approaches on different issues rather to soften its position on them.
Third, the west will lose any kind of Iranian people sympathy in this situation. Iranian nationalism is a great element which if arise could not be stopped by any action and in this case the west cannot find any supporter within Iran to pursue its policies. The Iranian students’ reaction to UK polices was a single simple response to that policies which must be taken seriously from the west.
Forth, the Iranian people protest against UK was a response to British policies during long time of history since their presence in the Persian Gulf and the region since 17th century. It was not only a response to sanction which recently has been adopted by the UK on Iranian central bank. So the west cannot simply interpret the students’ entering in British embassy as a response to increasing sanctions. The sanction was only a catalyst to do so.
Fifth, continuing diplomatic and political relations with the west while they are gathering everyday to put more sanction against Iran and even threat Iran to military attack, is meaningless. They cannot use political relations with Iran as leverage to increase pressure on the country.
Last not the least; Iranian people have proved that they do not consider the diplomatic limitations of relations between countries. While the Iranian government and parliament have some kind of conservatism in their polices, the Iranian people do not have these kinds of restrictions. This indicates that Iranian people not only do not fear economic isolation, but also do not fear political isolation too.
The main question relating to these developments is “What the expelling of British diplomats from Tehran tells the west?”
First of all, it proved that Iranian government would not come to negotiation table by toughening sanction against it. Putting more pressure on Iran to convince this country to change its behavior is a wrong old irrational policy which has not been succeeded during more than 30 years of Iranian revolution.
Second, putting more sanction on Iran may force Iran to take stricter approaches on different issues rather to soften its position on them.
Third, the west will lose any kind of Iranian people sympathy in this situation. Iranian nationalism is a great element which if arise could not be stopped by any action and in this case the west cannot find any supporter within Iran to pursue its policies. The Iranian students’ reaction to UK polices was a single simple response to that policies which must be taken seriously from the west.
Forth, the Iranian people protest against UK was a response to British policies during long time of history since their presence in the Persian Gulf and the region since 17th century. It was not only a response to sanction which recently has been adopted by the UK on Iranian central bank. So the west cannot simply interpret the students’ entering in British embassy as a response to increasing sanctions. The sanction was only a catalyst to do so.
Fifth, continuing diplomatic and political relations with the west while they are gathering everyday to put more sanction against Iran and even threat Iran to military attack, is meaningless. They cannot use political relations with Iran as leverage to increase pressure on the country.
Last not the least; Iranian people have proved that they do not consider the diplomatic limitations of relations between countries. While the Iranian government and parliament have some kind of conservatism in their polices, the Iranian people do not have these kinds of restrictions. This indicates that Iranian people not only do not fear economic isolation, but also do not fear political isolation too.
Saturday, October 29, 2011
World Uprisings: a Paradigm Shift in Political Sciences?
World Uprisings: a Paradigm Shift in Political Sciences?
We are witnessing general revolutions and many movements all over the world from the Middle East to Athens, Madrid and even in the US streets. Regardless of their causes, motives and even their effects on the real world, I think these movements have great influences on the political sciences and even in international relations as scientific disciplines in two ways. First, these uprisings are the people’s revolt against their governments and the structure of power of the states within which they are living. In Hobbesian words, people learned that their man-made leviathan- government- is not that horrific and can be toppled or altered in a way that their interest be achieved. In better words, the new world requires the new structure of government and that’s why even in developed European and American countries such protests have been occurring. Second, borrowing Joseph Nye’s theme in IR, we can discuss that advances in technology- especially in information technology- have helped people compete on a national level with their governments, leading to a “diffusion of power” in which the new source of power relations emerged. Consequently, we're on the brink of a fascinating experiment of changing relation between people and governments. In this case the science of explaining, theorizing etc of these relations –politics- should be changed.
We are witnessing general revolutions and many movements all over the world from the Middle East to Athens, Madrid and even in the US streets. Regardless of their causes, motives and even their effects on the real world, I think these movements have great influences on the political sciences and even in international relations as scientific disciplines in two ways. First, these uprisings are the people’s revolt against their governments and the structure of power of the states within which they are living. In Hobbesian words, people learned that their man-made leviathan- government- is not that horrific and can be toppled or altered in a way that their interest be achieved. In better words, the new world requires the new structure of government and that’s why even in developed European and American countries such protests have been occurring. Second, borrowing Joseph Nye’s theme in IR, we can discuss that advances in technology- especially in information technology- have helped people compete on a national level with their governments, leading to a “diffusion of power” in which the new source of power relations emerged. Consequently, we're on the brink of a fascinating experiment of changing relation between people and governments. In this case the science of explaining, theorizing etc of these relations –politics- should be changed.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Right Track in Afghanistan?
Right Track in Afghanistan?
President Obama declared the Afghanistan War Strategy Review in a press conference on Thursday. To assess this Review I summarize the main points of it in the following pattern:
1. According to president Obama the U.S is on the right track to achieve its goals.
2. Al Qaeda and Taliban’s leadership is in its weakest situation since 2001. They possess very limited areas in Afghanistan than before.
3. To improve the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan it is necessary to promote the political and economic conditions in these countries.
4. The U.S should bridge the gap between Pakistan and Afghanistan.
5. Pakistan must do more to dismantle terrorist havens and to shut down the terrorist connection with its tribal areas.
6. U.S insists on reconciliation with those Taliban individuals who are not affiliated to al Qaeda.
7. The U.S is committed to NATO’s Lisbon summit agreement on withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2014 and handing over the security to the afghan forces.
8. The U.S progress in Afghanistan is fragile and reversible.
To sum up, the U.S president called his strategy on Afghanistan as successful but he was very cautious on his words. Because he knows that there are too many variables which should come together to fulfill his pledges on Afghanistan. I just refer to the above-mentioned points of the Review.
Beginning with the first point, we have been witnessing during two recent years that the U.S administration does not have clear-cut policy toward Afghanistan. The different opinion within Obama administration and especially among the U.S Generals on the ground caused a non-coherent strategy in US administration on Afghanistan. The main difference appeared on adopting the counter-insurgency or counter-terrorism strategy to combat Taliban and al-Qaida.
The second point comes from this wrong analysis that Taliban and al-Qaida fight for land and territory. Of course it would be good for them to achieve land but now they fight to force the foreigners to withdraw from Afghanistan and then in a proper time come back and take control of the situation.
The third point is a long run strategy which can help to eradicate terrorism. But as I mentioned the U.S administration cannot resort to it as a short term strategy and would not work in one or two following years.
The fourth and fifth points which relate to Pakistan, have been the main U.S crisis in the region for several years. Pakistan’s dual policies towards the U.S and Al-Qaida exacerbate the situation for U.S strategies in the region which does not have clear prospect in the future.
The sixth point refers to this fact that the U.S administration differentiates between good Taliban and bad Taliban. This is a grave mistake and as the recent failures prove that cannot be achieved. The identity of Taliban and al-Qaida is interconnected and it is not possible to differentiate them. So this policy won’t help Obama to improve the condition in Afghanistan.
NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2014 and before that, U.S pullout from the country in July 2011 is a crucial moment for coalition troops and specially the United States in Afghanistan. Afghanistan war is Obama’s war. He vowed to pullout U.S troops in 2011. This can grant the vital momentum to Taliban an al-Qaida to accomplish their missions in the country. So this policy is paradoxical in its nature. Not to withdraw from Afghanistan according to the timetable can damage the Obama’s prestige in the verge of us presidential election and on the other hand doing so, can bolster the enemy’s condition in Afghanistan.
The last not the least, is a confession which I think is the crux of the matter. The U.S progress in Afghanistan is fragile and reversible. The 2010 was the bloodiest year for the coalition forces in the country. The negotiation with Taliban has not clear results. Nation and state building in Afghanistan has not any progress. The corruption indexes in the country are high. There is gap between Afghanistan and Pakistan which is getting widening. The afghan officials criticize publicly the U.S policies in Afghanistan etc. These are not good signals to the U.S administration and the day still young to talk about “right track” in Afghanistan.
President Obama declared the Afghanistan War Strategy Review in a press conference on Thursday. To assess this Review I summarize the main points of it in the following pattern:
1. According to president Obama the U.S is on the right track to achieve its goals.
2. Al Qaeda and Taliban’s leadership is in its weakest situation since 2001. They possess very limited areas in Afghanistan than before.
3. To improve the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan it is necessary to promote the political and economic conditions in these countries.
4. The U.S should bridge the gap between Pakistan and Afghanistan.
5. Pakistan must do more to dismantle terrorist havens and to shut down the terrorist connection with its tribal areas.
6. U.S insists on reconciliation with those Taliban individuals who are not affiliated to al Qaeda.
7. The U.S is committed to NATO’s Lisbon summit agreement on withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2014 and handing over the security to the afghan forces.
8. The U.S progress in Afghanistan is fragile and reversible.
To sum up, the U.S president called his strategy on Afghanistan as successful but he was very cautious on his words. Because he knows that there are too many variables which should come together to fulfill his pledges on Afghanistan. I just refer to the above-mentioned points of the Review.
Beginning with the first point, we have been witnessing during two recent years that the U.S administration does not have clear-cut policy toward Afghanistan. The different opinion within Obama administration and especially among the U.S Generals on the ground caused a non-coherent strategy in US administration on Afghanistan. The main difference appeared on adopting the counter-insurgency or counter-terrorism strategy to combat Taliban and al-Qaida.
The second point comes from this wrong analysis that Taliban and al-Qaida fight for land and territory. Of course it would be good for them to achieve land but now they fight to force the foreigners to withdraw from Afghanistan and then in a proper time come back and take control of the situation.
The third point is a long run strategy which can help to eradicate terrorism. But as I mentioned the U.S administration cannot resort to it as a short term strategy and would not work in one or two following years.
The fourth and fifth points which relate to Pakistan, have been the main U.S crisis in the region for several years. Pakistan’s dual policies towards the U.S and Al-Qaida exacerbate the situation for U.S strategies in the region which does not have clear prospect in the future.
The sixth point refers to this fact that the U.S administration differentiates between good Taliban and bad Taliban. This is a grave mistake and as the recent failures prove that cannot be achieved. The identity of Taliban and al-Qaida is interconnected and it is not possible to differentiate them. So this policy won’t help Obama to improve the condition in Afghanistan.
NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2014 and before that, U.S pullout from the country in July 2011 is a crucial moment for coalition troops and specially the United States in Afghanistan. Afghanistan war is Obama’s war. He vowed to pullout U.S troops in 2011. This can grant the vital momentum to Taliban an al-Qaida to accomplish their missions in the country. So this policy is paradoxical in its nature. Not to withdraw from Afghanistan according to the timetable can damage the Obama’s prestige in the verge of us presidential election and on the other hand doing so, can bolster the enemy’s condition in Afghanistan.
The last not the least, is a confession which I think is the crux of the matter. The U.S progress in Afghanistan is fragile and reversible. The 2010 was the bloodiest year for the coalition forces in the country. The negotiation with Taliban has not clear results. Nation and state building in Afghanistan has not any progress. The corruption indexes in the country are high. There is gap between Afghanistan and Pakistan which is getting widening. The afghan officials criticize publicly the U.S policies in Afghanistan etc. These are not good signals to the U.S administration and the day still young to talk about “right track” in Afghanistan.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Iranian Islamic Revolution's Triumph in Lebanon
Iranian Islamic Revolution's Triumph in Lebanon
President Ahmadinejad's visit to Lebanon was really the show off of Iranian power in the region. The importance of the visit is much more when we take into account that the Iranian president repeated his anti- zionist literature close to Israeli borders- most of them mentioned less than five kilometers away from enemy's border in Bint Jbeil.
Through the realists' framework of analysis Iran-Lebanon relations can be justified as an alliance against a common enemy. In other words Iran sees Lebanon at the frontline of a probable Israeli-Iranian conflict and that's why Iran is backing Lebanon and Hezbollah. The realists believe that Iran's policy toward Hezbollah is absolutely rational and it does not related to their common ideology. In this kind of analysis Hezbollah and Lebanon is just a scapegoat for Iran's foreign and strategic policies. I am not going to explain the shortcomings of realists view on this matter but we cannot ignore their mere materialistic point of view. What really happened in Lebanon during Ahmadinejad's visit was the demonstration of Lebanese people's ties to the Iran's revolutionary ideas and discourse which translated and reflected fully in Lebanese society ironically to some extent more than Iranian society. Lebanese people do believe to the Imam Khomeini and ayatollah Khamenie's attitudes and goals. The attendance of tens of thousands of all Lebanese groups in meetings was not the victory of Ahmadinejad himself. He was the representative of Iranian ideology- although we cannot neglect the importance of his anti-Zionist rhetoric. The bottom line is that the Iran's relation to Lebanon cannot be understood through state-centric, materialistic viewpoints. The Iranian-Lebanese relation is rooted in strong common belief in Islamic Republic revolutionary ideas. Of course it can be justified through realistic approaches but that’s not the whole story.
http://stratfor.blogspot.com/
President Ahmadinejad's visit to Lebanon was really the show off of Iranian power in the region. The importance of the visit is much more when we take into account that the Iranian president repeated his anti- zionist literature close to Israeli borders- most of them mentioned less than five kilometers away from enemy's border in Bint Jbeil.
Through the realists' framework of analysis Iran-Lebanon relations can be justified as an alliance against a common enemy. In other words Iran sees Lebanon at the frontline of a probable Israeli-Iranian conflict and that's why Iran is backing Lebanon and Hezbollah. The realists believe that Iran's policy toward Hezbollah is absolutely rational and it does not related to their common ideology. In this kind of analysis Hezbollah and Lebanon is just a scapegoat for Iran's foreign and strategic policies. I am not going to explain the shortcomings of realists view on this matter but we cannot ignore their mere materialistic point of view. What really happened in Lebanon during Ahmadinejad's visit was the demonstration of Lebanese people's ties to the Iran's revolutionary ideas and discourse which translated and reflected fully in Lebanese society ironically to some extent more than Iranian society. Lebanese people do believe to the Imam Khomeini and ayatollah Khamenie's attitudes and goals. The attendance of tens of thousands of all Lebanese groups in meetings was not the victory of Ahmadinejad himself. He was the representative of Iranian ideology- although we cannot neglect the importance of his anti-Zionist rhetoric. The bottom line is that the Iran's relation to Lebanon cannot be understood through state-centric, materialistic viewpoints. The Iranian-Lebanese relation is rooted in strong common belief in Islamic Republic revolutionary ideas. Of course it can be justified through realistic approaches but that’s not the whole story.
http://stratfor.blogspot.com/
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Does Really Mission Accomplished in Iraq?
Does Really Mission Accomplished in Iraq?
After a seven and a half year of US invasion on Iraq the US president declared the “end of combat mission” in this country. Nonetheless it is not a complete US forces withdrawal from Iraq because near the 50000 troops including six brigades with combat capabilities will remain first to train Iraqi troops and second to support Iraqi forces especially by the air force. On the other hand while the 82 percent of US military bases are closed or transferred into Iraqi government, 4500 US Special Forces stayed there for counter-terrorism missions. In addition let’s not forget that the US government spent nearly one trillion dollar in Iraq war.
The main question is now that does really the mission accomplished in Iraq. My answer is clearly NOT. Iraq’s supposed to be an ideal type of democracy for the Arab world but it does not have even embassy in several Arab states now. As I wrote in earlier post about Iraq democracy, because of lack of democratic experiences in Iraq the new political system would not work properly; the main evidence is that Iraqi politicians have not formed a government since March parliamentary election which it means a 6 month political deadlock in the country. On the other hand the violence in recent months has escalated and hundreds of Iraqi people have been slaughtered in explosions. This means that terrorism is not curbed in Iraq as well.
I believe we should find the main reason of the security handover in Iraq in US domestic affairs and especially upcoming congressional election. President Obama during the presidential election campaign pledged to fulfill several polices including ending the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, closing the Guantanamo prison and improving the social security and health insurance internally and creating more jobs during the global economic crisis. But he did nothing to the US people. That’s why the GOP is criticizing the Obama administration and calling him as one term president. Obama’s foreign and security policies put the democrats in jeopardy and as Joe Biden said in Iraq “this war divided Americans”. This can cause the democrats lose the majority in both chambers which it means making Obama’s policies’ performance sluggish in the rest of his term in office.
At this crucial moment Obama must has done something to rescue his party. The easiest thing to do was the handover the security command to Iraqi government. So this is a policy for domestic market while nothing important has been achieved. I think the US administration has a lot to do from now on to achieve its goal in Iraq as the US vice president, Joe Biden, during the “change of command ceremony” in Iraq said “ US engagement will continue in Iraq” and he announced that “operation Iraqi freedom is over but operation New Dawn has begun”. He did not mention what kind of policy it is but we can assume that the US government alongside its military presence desires to deepen its economic ties with Iraq in different area of reconstructions, oil sector etc. so it’s not a real withdrawal but changing in US role in Iraq. We should know that this is not a strategic change in US policy. There are many challenges on the way ahead for Iraqi people and the US policies in Iraq still regarded with great doubt. Suffice it to say that Iraq issue from the US viewpoint has several subjects from high politics to low one which cannot be solved easily and because of existence of lots of domestic, regional and international variables declaring the end of war does not have any sense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)