US’s Iranian Obsession

By S.P.SETH

The storming of the British embassy in Iran, and the retaliatory measures by Britain and other Western countries to curtail diplomatic ties with that country, has escalated their cold war (so far) to a dangerous level. At its root is the perceived Iranian ambition to acquire nuclear weapons.

Why are the US and its allies so obsessed with Iran? Surely, even if it were to become a nuclear power (which is not the case, as things stand), it cannot become such a horrible threat to the world. The superior nuclear arsenal of the United States, Israel and others will annihilate Iran if it were to use its (presently non-existent) nuclear weapons against any other country. This is not to suggest that Iran should become a nuclear power. Indeed, for a credible nuclear free world, all existing nuclear countries should shed their nuclear weapons. Until then, they have no moral authority to enforce their will on others. Because as long as nuclear status is a power symbol as well as the weapon of last resort, it will continue to tempt nations able to go that way.

To understand Iran’s pariah status, one has to go back to its Islamic revolution in 1979. The overthrow of the Shah of Iran in 1979, a loyal US ally, was a terrible blow to the United States for reasons of geopolitics, strategy, and the control of oil supplies from the Middle East, of which Iran was a major producer. Iran was the first chink in the US’ strategy of controlling the Middle East, and could set a precedent for other countries in the region. On top of it, the new Islamic Iran was not only contemptuous of US power; it even had the temerity to humiliate the United States by holding hostage its embassy staff. Since then, on both sides, there is a continuing war of nerves.

In 1980, the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein invaded Iran, with US encouragement and support, to assert Iraq’s sovereignty over the vital Shatt-al-Arab waterway. The resultant war between the two countries lasted eight years, with an estimated million dead and wounded--- perhaps even more. Iran suffered the most in human lives lost, with the war ending in a stalemate and a UN ceasefire. But it wobbled the Iranian regime and set back its political agenda of promoting the Islamic revolution through its example. And that was not an inconsiderable gain for the United States and its Middle Eastern allies comprising the region’s dictators and kings. These countries, like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and others, were feeling uncomfortable and insecure from Iran’s Islamic revolution.

The irony of it is that Saddam Hussein’s Iran adventure set the stage for his destruction at the hands of his benefactors, the United States and its allies. An important reason for Saddam’s invasion and occupation of Iraq (illegal as it was) was his country’s large financial debts incurred through borrowings from neighbors like Kuwait. At the time they were only happy to lend all that Saddam wanted because he was fighting for all of them against the dreaded new Islamic regime of Iran. And when he was virtually defeated (because Iran was ready to fight on), Kuwait asked for its money back, which Saddam had no way of paying. In that desperate situation, he decided to annex Kuwait and solve all his financial problems and more by taking over the country’s oil wealth. He had reportedly mentioned his plans of annexing Kuwait to the US ambassador in his country who, the story goes, didn’t raise any objection. Which Saddam took as clearance from the United States, with their close relationship forged during the Iran-Iraq war.

As we know, Saddam’s Kuwait invasion led to the first Gulf war in which the United States defeated Iraqi forces and Kuwait was restored to its ruling dynasty with Iraq required to pay reparations. It was also subjected to a harsh regime of UN sanctions, impacting its population, especially women and children. The United States just stopped short of overthrowing the Saddam regime, which task was subsequently completed by President George Bush senior’s son after he became President in 2001. The second Gulf war was unleashed on Iraq because of Saddam regime’s alleged links with the terrorists as well as its weapons of mass destruction (WMD). And that was a lie. But he had to go any way, as he had outlived his usefulness against Iran and was too difficult--- among other things. However, initially, the speed with which the US forces advanced made Iraq’s neighbors, like Iran and Syria, nervous lest it might be their turn next. They became keen to cooperate with the US to hunt down terrorists in their own backyards and to generally improve relations with the United States. But, at the time, the US was in a celebratory mode, with President Bush declaring the “mission accomplished” on the decks of a US warship.

The US was on a mission to bring about democracy and freedom in the region under its control and supervision and to have uninterrupted access to oil supplies. At the same time, the demonstrative effect of strong and successful US action was supposed to have salutary effect on groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Palestinians in occupied territories. In other words, it will not only reassert firmly the US control and dominance but also solve Israel’s security situation in a volatile region. This was the time when there was so much talk of reintroducing benign imperialism and to make the United States’ dominant role in the world clear cut both in words and deeds. The point of recalling all this is to note that Iran’s clerical regime is still around, though it has multiple problems and challenges at home, as we shall analyze later.

An important, if not determining factor, in the US obsession with Iran is the role Israel and the powerful Jewish lobby plays in the formulation of its foreign and strategic policies in the region, with Iran perceived as a serious threat. Iran has been dismissive of Israel and a strong proponent of the Palestinian cause. President Ahmadinejad has made provocative statements denying that the Holocaust ever happened. Similarly, he doesn’t accept the legitimacy of the Israeli state, promising to eliminate it. Against this backdrop, Israel sees an existential threat from Iran’s nuclear program. And wants to bomb its nuclear plants to preempt it. Obviously, it would prefer the US to do it, as Iran is seen as a global threat. If not, it would like to have comprehensive US backing.

Lately, the United States and its allies have ratcheted up the pressure on Iran, following an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report pointing to “credible” evidence suggesting Iran is working towards developing nuclear weapons. But there is nothing really new in this because Iran has been accused of doing this for a number of years now, even though the US intelligence suggested it otherwise not so long ago. Indeed, there is no hard evidence that Iran is working to acquire a nuclear arsenal. But the IAEA report is convenient to launch another concerted campaign and to impose another layer of sanctions on Iran.

The upshot of the new sanctions is to put a total economic embargo on Iran by the US and its allies. At the same time, Iran is being told that the US is keeping all its options open to force it to forgo its nuclear program. Which obviously means that the US is not ruling out military means including, presumably, bombing Iranian nuclear facilities. At the same time, Israel is letting it be known that it is studying plans to bomb Iranian nuclear plants. To emphasize the urgency of the situation, Israel’s defense minister, Ehud Barak, has reportedly said that his country has less than a year to act.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s credibility recently took a serious hit when a conversation between President Sarkozy of France and President Obama was picked up while talking about Netanyahu at the G-20 summit. During their tête-à-tête, when a mike was still on, Sarkozy said: “I cannot stand him. He’s is a liar.” To which Obama replied, “You are fed up with him? I have to deal with him everyday.” Now Israeli publicists are trying to make out an argument that Netanyahu’s image should not distract from the view that he is the authentic voice of his country on the question of Iranian nuclear threat to Israel and the need for a preemptive strike.

In a recent newspaper article David Landau, a former editor-in-chief of the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, wrote: “Israel was created from the ashes of Auschwitz. Its primary mission is ‘never again.’” He added, “The world needs to recognize that Netanyahu authentically articulates that perspective and that reality.” But if Israel were to unilaterally bomb Iranian nuclear plants, it would not only face a massive Iranian counter-attack but is also likely to create a major crisis in the Middle East with Israel at the receiving end of it which might, for once, transcend the Shia-Sunni divide to face a common Israeli threat to the region.

Landau doesn’t under-rate the dangers of bombing Iran on its own. He reflects the calculation of many in Israel, including its government, when he writes: “Against all that [the dangers and consequences for Israel] is the calculation, carefully unspoken but present nevertheless, that a unilateral Israeli strike would trigger massive American intervention against Iran’s nuclear program…because Washington would have an overwhelming interest in ‘finishing the job’ that Israel began.” Is Landau the medium to openly convey the message of his government? It certainly seems like when he finishes his article with a warning of sorts: “The bluffer [Netanyahu] isn’t bluffing. Let’s hope Obama, Sarkozy and the rest are hearing him loud and clear.”

Even as this kind of drum beating is going on, Iran’s detractors hope that, “The regime in Tehran is deeply unpopular and may yet implode.” That may be so but there is no better way to rally Iranians around the regime when the country is in grave danger of facing a foreign attack.

It is true that the clerical regime in Iran is beset with serious internal problems. The presidential elections in 2009, and the brutal crackdown on the opposition, dented the regime’s legitimacy. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s return to presidency was very controversial, with some regarding it as a cruel farce. Having made it to the presidency second time with the support of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Ahmadinejad is not comfortable with the over-riding political authority of his mentor. He seems keen to set up his own power base to challenge Khamenei. In this connection, an interesting article published in a recent issue of the New York Review of Books, written by an “anonymous” Iran expert, is quite significant. It says the rupture between Khamenei and Ahmadinejad was provoked by “Esfandiyar Rahim Mashaei, President Ahmadinejad’s chief of staff and close advisor [two of them are also related, with Mashaei’s daughter married to the President’s son]…” Mashaei is “reputed to be in contact with the Twelfth Imam--- a messianic figure…” believed to be in hiding since the tenth century.”

Ahmadinejad has resisted attempts by the Supreme leader to have Mashaei removed, but his efforts to have him groomed as his successor (when he leaves the presidency) seems doomed. Seeking to set up a higher political and religious authority than Khameini in the person of Mashaei, as a medium with the Twelfth Imam, is like making the Supreme leader irrelevant. It doesn’t look like this will work because, for one, Mashaei, with some of President’s other cronies, is involved in an embezzlement/banking scandal. And, second, Ahmadinejad’s regime has been quite incompetent in managing the country’s economy. The unemployment is high, inflation is raging and Iran’s middles class is unhappy with the country’s state of affairs. And with a tighter Western regime of sanctions, things are going to get worse for the mass of people. However, any foreign attack on Iranian nuclear installations, and the consequent series of events, will become the glue that holds the country together under the existing regime.

Note: This article was first published in the Daily Times

Iran: US’s Perpetual Bad Boy

By S P SETH

As if the world were not in enough trouble already, another crisis is brewing with considerable destructive potential. This relates to the US allegation of Iran’s involvement in a plot to kill the Saudi ambassador in the United States. This was allegedly hatched with two Iranian front men, one of them a US citizen, who hired a Mexican drug mafia to do the killing in a restaurant frequented by the Saudi ambassador for a fee of $1.5 million. The plot was discovered and foiled in an FBI sting operation.

The US aired these allegations at a high level, with the country’s attorney general and FBI chief, fronting the press. More importantly still, President Obama also raised the issue at a press conference. The seriousness of the charge against Iran is apparent with Obama demanding answers, emphasizing that all options were now open, including possibly military measures. In the meantime, the US will work to further tighten international sanctions against Iran on top of a layer of them already in place.

Not surprisingly, Iran has denied the charge calling it a political fabrication.. Its supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, defiantly warned that Iran would deliver an “unforgettable response” to any “improper actions” from the United States over the alleged assassination plot.

This is a serious charge. But even in the US, there is skepticism about Iran’s alleged involvement. Mansour Arbabsiar, a used car salesman who is charged with the plot, is not the kind of guy with the skills and organizational ability to be involved in such a complex and dangerous task. According to a former business partner, “He was pretty disorganized, always losing things like keys, titles, probably a thousand cell phones…” In other words, he was kind of scatterbrain. At the same time, he “never spoke ill of the United States”, liked his whisky and wasn’t religious at all.

“He couldn’t even pray, doesn’t know how to fast. He used to drink, smoke pot, go with prostitutes.” These are some of the descriptions about Arbabsiar from friends and business associates who have known him for decades. On this portrayal, he is hardly the person who will have the passion and conviction of a religious fanatic or arch nationalist.

If Arbabsiar is the fall guy in an international power game, so much the worst for him. The question then is: what is this game? As far as one can see, it has different facets. At this time the politics of the coming US presidential election is an important factor. President Obama doesn’t want to end up as a one-term President. He is rating poorly in almost all opinion polls. Therefore, there is great need for one or more issues to distract the people’s attention from the country’s economy that is weighing him down. In the absence of any overriding domestic issue(s) to trump economy, an external mischief/danger from a known enemy, like Iran, might work. Whether or not it will is another matter. Iran is already a nuclear villain, perceived as posing a threat to the United States and its allies, most notably Israel.

Israel has been pressing the United States for some time now (starting with the Bush administration) to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities or else let it do the job with its support and help. Indeed, the then vice-president Dick Cheney was understanding and supportive of Israel undertaking this task in the interest of its security. But with the United States already bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq, Bush had stopped listening to Cheney.

There is no suggestion here that the US might let loose Israel on Iran, but this talk of keeping all options open is suspiciously reminiscent of the Bush-Cheney era. Any military action against Iran will have dangerous and unpredictable consequences for regional and global politics. With or without any military action against Iran, Obama’s tough talk against Teheran will go well with the Jewish lobby in the United States and garner electoral support for Obama in his race for re-election. Even though the Jewish population of the US is small, they are politically very powerful, being the United States’ richest and most successful minority. They are also part of a close political alliance with the country’s Christian right and support for them cuts across political divide between the Democrats and the Republicans.

Another explanation is the Saudi factor. Ever since the Arab Spring blossomed, the relations between the United States and Saudi Arabia have been strained, particularly, because after sitting on the fence, the US abandoned its old and reliable ally, Hosni Mubarak. Hosni Mubarak’s overthrow, with the US apparently doing very little to save him, even from subsequent public humiliation of a caged trial, hasn’t gone well with the Saudi royal family. It is not a good look for the Saudi royals.

Through its moral support for the Arab Spring (though belated), the US has lost important regional allies in Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and Zine El Abidine Ben Ali of Tunisia, without any concrete gains—apart from Libya where Gaddafi has been eliminated. In this situation of diminished strategic assets, the US is keen to maintain and nurture its strategic relationship with Saudi Arabia. Which not only is its major oil supplier but also the dominant voice in the Gulf Cooperation Council. It is, therefore, keen to mollify the bruised Saudi kingdom.

For Saudi Arabia, there are two major concerns. First, of course, is the Arab Spring, being a threat to the kingdom’s stability and even its monarchy. For the present, though, it seems to have bought off most of its citizens with a bit more share in the country’s oil wealth. Second: Riyadh is terribly worried about Iran’s regional designs. The Saudis believe that Iran is creating trouble in Bahrain, Yemen, where there is a Shiite separatist movement, and in Saudi Arabia’s oil rich eastern province with its Shiite majority.

Riyadh has canvassed the United States to further toughen its policy against Iran. As WikiLeaks revealed, the Saudis, like Israelis (but for their different strategic reasons), pressured the US to bomb Iranian nuclear installations. Since the nuclear issue hasn’t so far galvanized the world into anti-Iranian frenzy, and Iran is managing to live with multiple sanctions, a new issue has emerged by way of the alleged Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador in the United States. Washington is demanding answers from Iran, is further tightening already tight sanctions and has put all options on the table to deal with Iran.

This should mollify Saudi Arabia, and might even, at some point, divert the focus from popular revolts in Arab countries with Iran emerging as a regional and global threat with its nuclear ambitions. Whether or not it works is another question, but it should satisfy Riyadh that the US, at the very least, is responding to Saudi concerns.

Similarly, Israel is keen to shift the focus from the Arab Spring and the Palestinian issue to the much more pressing issue, for them, of the Iranian threat. Rekindling the Iranian issue in a Saudi context tends to give it an Arab texture to revive the emotively charged issue of Sunni-Shia divide with Iran perceived as seeking to dominate the Arab world.

As things stand, it doesn’t look like that an Iranian threat will overshadow the popular movements in the Middle East. But to the extent that Iran has become a fresh issue in US politics allegedly plotting to kill the Saudi ambassador, this might encourage Israel to create further diversion by bombing Iranian nuclear installations with US understanding, the way Dick Cheney saw it in terms of Israeli security. If so, it might open a dangerous new front in an already charged region.

Note: This article was first published in the Daily Times

Syria’s abysmal descent

By S P SETH

The Arab Spring has turned into a bloody autumn in Syria. What started as anti-regime graffiti by a bunch of kids in a remote town is now a full-scale assault by the Syrian regime on its own people. These kids were arrested and reportedly tortured, making it a trigger for the popular uprising that followed. President Bashar al-Assad’s regime has, however, portrayed the people’s revolt as the work of thugs and armed rebels supported by foreign powers. This doesn’t gel with the facts. First, if it were an armed rebellion with foreign involvement and backing, it wouldn’t have started with a bunch of kids writing graffiti seeking the change of regime. By most accounts, the people’s revolt has been largely peaceful. But the government’s response has been brutally violent with the deployment and use of tanks, heavy weaponry and the cordoning of towns and streets suspected of harboring rebels, with the denial of public utilities like water, electricity and supply of food. From the images on social websites as the main source of information (with the press denied access), the Syrian landscape in several places was like a ghost town after killings by the army. The death toll from the army’s operation is rising steadily to about 3000 people, with many more seriously injured.

Second: without the widespread use of massive force and fear of worse to come, people don’t run for safety and shelter across the country’s borders. Fearing the regime’s terror, many Syrians have fled across the borders into Turkey and Lebanon. They are now sheltering in camps set up by the Turkish government. Prime Minister Erdogan’s government had earlier enjoyed good relations with the Assad regime. But when it sought to impress the need for political reforms on the Assad regime the relationship turned sour. Damascus now suspects Turkey’s hand behind its troubles.

Third: even though the Assad regime might complain of a foreign plot, there is no credible evidence to support this assertion. Fourth: until recently, even the United States sought to refrain from any intervention on behalf of the protesters. The recent public appearance of the US and French ambassadors in the town of Hama was designed to lend moral support to the protesters, as well as a political tactic to cultivate a growing popular constituency in Syria. Of course, there have been sanctions against some key figures of the regime. But Bashar al-Assad was initially not targeted for sanctions because the US and its Western allies apparently hoped that, as a likely moderate, he might opt for a peaceful democratic transition. But this didn’t happen, and the sanctions were also extended to include President Assad. Therefore, the regime’s contention that it is facing an armed rebellion from thugs with foreign involvement is absolute nonsense. It is this kind of mindset that has brought trouble on the regime--- a failure to understand that the Arab world is in flux and that the authoritarian Assad dynasty, ruling in its own interest, do not have a special dispensation.

It would appear that President Bashar al-Assad is following in the footsteps of his father, Hafez al-Assad, who had the town of Hama bombarded in 1982 to quell an uprising by the Muslim Brotherhood. The estimates of civilian carnage from this brutal crackdown vary between 17,000 and 40,000. It shell-shocked the Syrian people, enabling Hafez al-Assad to rule unchallenged for nearly 30 years. That is until March of this year when, encouraged by popular revolt in Tunisia and Egypt, the Syrians too rose up to peacefully challenge the now President Assad who inherited his presidency from his late-father. His response was to do what his father did in an earlier era. Which is: to use overwhelming force to crush the people’s movement and spread fear to preempt another challenge to his power.

Will it work? It doesn’t seem to have worked so far. But the regime hasn’t given up. Nor have the people seeking a democratic change, provoking the regime into more killings and so it goes on. Even if the regime were able to restore some sort of order based on pervasive fear, it would have completely lost its legitimacy. It will not be business as usual and the government will simply be looking over its shoulder smelling danger everywhere. With thousands of its citizens forced into seeking safety and shelter across the borders into Lebanon and Turkey, the nucleus of a movement to challenge the regime from outside is already emerging. The refugee camps in Turkey are becoming the nerve centre of an anti-regime movement with support networks inside Syria. The popular peaceful movement for democratic reform, if handled with tact, finesse and accommodation of reasonable demands, might have been amenable to a democratic deal with the Assad regime. Now that so much blood has been spilled, they simply want the Assad regime to go. Indeed this could all have been avoided if the government had shown some understanding of its people.

The Arab Spring came a little later in Syria, which led the government to believe that it was a case apart from other unpopular regimes. It believed that the Syrian people were happy with their rulers and the system. But it didn’t take long to shatter that illusion. But the government is refusing to see what is apparent to most people. Which is that the Assad regime has lost its legitimacy to the point where people are prepared to risk their lives to challenge its rule. The government, though, still seems to have the backing of the armed forces, commanded by trusted officers with family and communal ties. This close-knit political, military and economic cabal has a lot to lose if forced into giving up control and power.

In other words, the government still has the firepower on its side to inflict maximum fatalities on its people. Despite this, the people are standing their ground everyday in the face of overwhelming use of force. There are, however, some sketchy signs of unrest among army ranks, particularly in areas where they were ordered to fire on peaceful civilians in their own towns and regions. While the military command seems loyal to the regime, their ranks might baulk at following such orders all the time. It has already happened in some units when ordered to fire in their townships. Some of these soldiers have now fled across the border into Turkey to escape reprisals for refusing orders. And if this were to spread to more units, the government might lose its most potent advantage over the rebels.

The Syrian government has handled the situation abysmally, considering that they had some advantages other Arab regimes didn’t. First, they had the support of about 20 per cent of the population, as well as the passivity of many others. For instance, the Assad regime enjoyed the support of its own Alawite (Shia) minority of about 13 per cent, controlling the levers of power all around. Besides, it also had the backing of other minorities to include Christians and minor sects and communities. These minorities weren’t too keen on the resurrection of a Sunni-led political order to include Muslim Brotherhood. At the same time, the major cities like Damascus and Aleppo were largely free of anti-regime fervor. Syria’s trading class didn’t want chaos and instability that might result from revolutionary fervor and change. But the Assad regime made such a hash of things with overkill (literally) that the popular revolt now covers now all the country. In other words, instead of establishing an orderly democratic transition, the government is now dealing with bushfires of revolt everywhere. Some minorities and other elements of the population, who backed the government, are not sure where it is all leading the country.

Second: much of the international community was initially not keen on instigating or encouraging the popular revolt in Syria. They hoped the regime might be able to preside over an orderly democratic transition. There was fear that the unraveling of Syria might trigger unpredictable regional consequences affecting its neighbors. Above all, the United States and its allies have neither the money nor the political will to undertake more military commitments. All these considerations seemed to insulate Syria from a concerted international action against the regime.

The Assad regime, however, opted for brutal force to deal with an internal problem, better tackled through a peaceful solution. In whatever way the problem is finally resolved, the danger is that the country might descend into the sectarian chaos of greater bloodshed between the Sunnis and the ruling community of Alawite (Shia), further adding to an already complex situation in the Arab world.

Will Gaddafi Survive?

Even as the popular revolutionary upsurge has spread to almost all Arab countries, it is probably facing its toughest test in Libya. The Libyan rebels, inspired by the relative ease with which Tunisian and Egyptian dictators were overthrown, and chuffed by their early successes in Benghazi, were hoping to topple Gaddafi and reach Tripoli in an easy swoop. Gaddafi, though, mounted a strong counter-offensive in a bid to demolish the rebellion. But for the French aerial intervention in the nick of time, backed up soon by the British and US bombardment of Gaddafi forces, his troops would have entered Benghazi to crush the rebels and their supporters. The aerial attacks to stop Gaddafi are now a NATO responsibility, with the British and the French doing much of the heavy lifting with the United States in a supportive role. The NATO operations draw their legitimacy from the Security Council resolution 1973 to prevent a possible massacre of the Libyan people in eastern part of the country.
The situation in Libya is very fluid, with Gaddafi forces engaged in a siege of Misrata, with its nearly half-a-million people subjected to constant pounding of heavy artillery. The NATO aerial operations are hampered by a fear of civilian casualties, as well as a failure to distinguish between Gaddafi and rebels forces, with the former often wearing civilian clothing to confuse the enemy. Though the rebels have been high on confidence and passion, they are sorely lacking in organization, discipline, training and weaponry. They basically want the NATO to turn the corner for them and get rid of Gaddafi
But with political divisions in the NATO ranks, as the French and the Brits carry much of the load; there doesn’t appear any immediate prospect of the rebels having an upper hand. However, there are signs that the British and French might be getting involved on the ground in a supportive military role. Such incremental Western involvement is likely to erode Gaddafi’s military advantage. And will further crumble his power base in the country. At the same time, it will not be smooth sailing for the intervening Western powers with their already overstretched economies. There is, therefore, some urgency for them to bring down Gaddafi to limit their role. Besides, they are keen not to be seen as the old colonialists staging a comeback.
Gaddafi would like to play this card. But his problem is that he is neither popular with Arab rulers nor with the Arab masses. In a popular environment when dictators are disposable, Gaddafi might not be the right leader to lead a supposedly anti-colonial movement. Another problem for Gaddafi is that if he can’t prevail over the rebels soon enough, he might run out of revenues (from the sale of oil) to continue his military operations. And if Gaddafi can’t sell oil, he won’t be able to maintain and support his political base. Like a number of Arab countries, Libya is heavily dependent on oil revenues and the political patronage that goes with it.
Gaddafi has so far held on because, unlike Egypt and Tunisia, he commands multiple security forces comprised of mercenaries owing allegiance to him, militias under the command of his sons and regular armed forces. Having staged a military coup in 1969, Gaddafi knew how easy it was to overthrow the country’s monarchy. He, therefore, took steps to create balancing military structures that have enabled him so far to hold on to power.
However, his medium and long-term prospects might not be all that bright. The defection of some of his ministers, senior diplomats, and others point to a crisis in his inner circle that is likely to become more pronounced as NATO pushes on with its military intervention, mostly from the air. Although there are differences in the NATO ranks regarding the level of commitment against Gaddafi, the recent joint article in the press by Barack Obama, Nicolas Sarkozy and David Cameron is a strong assertion of their common commitment to get rid of Gaddafi. It is, however, problematic because the relevant UN resolution doesn’t authorize this.
Obama, Sarkozy and Cameron concede in their article that the “UN Security Council Resolution 1973 is to protect civilians… It is not to remove Gaddafi by force.” It adds, “But it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Gaddafi in power…It is unthinkable that someone who has tried to massacre his own people can play a part in their future government.” They contend, “so long as Gaddafi is in power, NATO and its coalition partners must maintain their operations so that civilians remain protected and the pressure on the regime builds…”
The NATO strategy, therefore, is to keep up the military pressure on Gaddafi (including the arming and training of rebels in some way or the other), encourage defections in his inner circle, enforce multiple sanctions like the freezing of his government’s financial assets and trade embargo, and help create an alternative political structure to take over from Gaddafi when the time comes. With international isolation, increasing erosion of his internal popular and political base, and fast depleting revenue, it is difficult to see how Gaddafi can survive for long. It might still be time for him to work out a safe exit passage for him and his family. But if he continues on his present course, he might eventually end up before the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity.
What might follow after Gaddafi is a big question mark because the rebels do not have a clearly articulated political blueprint (disorganized as they are), apart from an omnibus commitment to freedom and dignity. As one Benghazi businessman told a New Yorker reporter, “ We want democracy. We want good schools, we want a free media, an end to corruption…and a parliament to get rid of whoever, whenever, we want.”
The Libyan revolution, as revolutions elsewhere in the Arab world, has laudable goals but the future is murky and full of pitfalls. But it is still an inspiring time to see how people’s power can topple long ruling dictators in the Arab world.


NOTE: This article was first published in Daily Times

Israeli veto on US’ Palestine policy

Israeli veto on US’ Palestine policy

By S.P.SETH

Even as the despotic Middle Eastern regimes are falling, the US is continuing to dither. One area where the US now can act with vigor is the continued Israeli intransigence over the Palestinian issue. Obviously, at the present time when the Middle Eastern countries are seeking to overthrow their dictators and despots, the attention of its people is primarily focused on their struggle at hand. But when things settle down and they forge new relations with the United States, even Egypt and Jordan, the two countries with peace treaties with Israel, are unlikely to actively help Israel to continue choking off Gaza, as Hosni Mubarak’s regime did.

Israel has always argued that its occupation of Palestinian territories is not an issue of much, if any, relevance in the Middle Eastern polity. Therefore, all those who argue that a resolution of the Palestinian question will significantly improve the US and Israeli relations with the Arab world, indeed with the Muslim world, are barking up the wrong tree.

Even Barack Obama once believed that a resolution of the Palestinian issue will greatly help the US make a new start with the Muslim world. Unless one is a downright bigot, it makes sound sense. As David Remnick writes in a recent issue of the New Yorker:”….The Netanyahu government’s refusal to come to terms with the Palestinians , and its insistence on settlement building, have steadily undermined both the security and the essence of the [Israeli]state, which was founded as a refuge from dispossession… [and] its prospects will not be enhanced by an adherence to the status quo [of occupation].”

Remnick adds, “That was true before the uprising in Cairo, and will remain true after it. This was true before the uprising in Cairo, and will remain true after it.” Because: “Judgment—whether rendered by gods or by people---can be postponed but not forestalled.”

But is Washington listening? Not at all, judging by its veto of the Security Council resolution condemning the Israeli settlement activity in occupied Palestinian territories. The irony is that only a short while ago the Obama administration was urging Israel to extend its 10-month moratorium (which the Netanyahu government was forced to impose under pressure from the Obama administration on illegal construction) for a little longer to facilitate peace talks between Israel and the Palestine Authority. Which Tel Aviv refused?

If, this was the US position a while ago, why did it not join other Security Council members to condemn Israel for acting against international law? Susan Rice, the US ambassador to the UN, argued it was a matter better pursued in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

At a time when the Arab world is going through a people’s revolution, on the Palestinian issue the US is still taking shelter behind arcane and, frankly, absurd arguments that even its European allies are finding it hard to digest. As Jonathan Freedland has written in the Guardian, “… that peace with Arab rulers alone could never last, and that one day Israel will have to make peace with the peoples [Arabs] it lives among.”

And he adds, “ That day may not be coming soon—but that truth just got a whole lot harder to avoid.” Not if the United States will continue to reinforce Israeli delusion by giving it political, economic and military support.

The point is that the US’ Middle Eastern strategy is in tatters. It had two pillars. First: an alliance with regional dictators to keep the Arab people down because, if allowed democratic rights, they might elect an Islamist regime hostile to the US strategic interests in the region. Indeed, there was a convergence of interests between the US and Arab dictators and monarchs because both feared the Arab people and Islamists.

The second pillar is the United States’ unquestioning commitment to Israeli state and its “security”. Both pillars are interconnected because Israeli “security” and US strategic interests require supine rulers in the Middle East, like Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, that would do their bidding.

Regarding the first, the People’s Power has shown that Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic groups were as much spooked by the popular and essentially secular nature of the uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt and elsewhere in the Arab world as anybody else. The militant Islam as a political force was largely exaggerated. Indeed, the protesters everywhere were gathering around the banner of freedom and democracy that should calm US fears.

Even a prominent US conservative analyst like Robert Kagan of Brookings Institution, a prominent early advocate of Iraq war, has said, “ We were overly spooked by the victory of Hamas” in the 2006 Palestinian elections. And he says, “…There’s no way for us to go through the long evolution of history without allowing Islamists to participate in democratic society.”

Which raises a pertinent question: “What are we going to do ---support dictators for the rest of eternity because we don’t want Islamists taking their share of some political system in the Middle East?” In other words, the US would need to reorient its Middle Eastern policy to accommodate the dynamics of democracy in that region, including legitimate political representation of Islamic parties.

Writing in the New York Times, Nicholas Kristof is equally emphatic when he says, “For decades, the US embraced corrupt and repressive autocracies in the Middle East, turning a blind eye to torture and repression, in part because of fear that the ‘democratic rabble’ might be hostile to us.” He adds, “Far too often, we were both myopic and just plain on the wrong side.”

An important factor in this has been the Israeli pressure, reinforced by the powerful Jewish lobby in the United States, to keep supporting and nurturing the despotic rulers because they were easy to manipulate and were equally fearful of the “democratic rabble”. Over the decades, Israel and the US have become indivisible over the Middle East, particularly on the Palestinian question. And that still seems to be the case, despite all the fluttering of democracy in the Arab world, as evident in the US vetoing of the UN Security Council resolution to condemn Israeli settlement activity in occupied Palestine.

Unless the United States starts seeing its national interest independently of Israel, there will be this dichotomy in its Middle Eastern policy. The democratic Arab countries in a new Middle East are unlikely to confront Israel militarily over Palestine, but their popular constituencies at home will not let them turn a blind eye to the sufferings and bombing of fellow Arabs in the Palestine. And this will have an important bearing on their relations with the United States.

Note: This article was first published in Daily Times