Closing the Gulf

Syria is not about democracy. It is about controlling Iran by weakening an obdurate ally. Iran is not so much about bombing the country before it gets the Bomb, but more to bring about a regime change that will be amenable. There is considerable war rhetoric on both sides of the fence. There are discussions on the respective strengths and weaknesses, attacks and counterattacks, strategies and tactics and their chances of success and failure. This makes it obvious that most of this is intended to be an elaborate ‘psywar’ campaign through the media and thinktanks. The only problem with such high-decibel war cry is that they develop a logic and momentum of their own.

There is a periodic urge in the West to fix Iran. Syria and Iran had been listed on the State Sponsors of Terrorism list for decades even before September 11, 2001. In 2002, George Bush described Iran as a member of the ‘Axis of Evil’. Despite all this, there were talks of negotiations.

A certain section at the US State Department, which included the then secretary of State Colin Powell, wanted to work on a new policy on Iran, including negotiations on nuclear issues. The Iranian regime had offered to negotiate in 2003 but the group that favoured the belief that the Ayatollahs were out to destroy Israel won the argument. The neo-cons set about creating a ‘new reality’ in West Asia beginning with Iraq. Condoleezza Rice also did make some overtures in 2006 to Iran but by then the US was too deep into its war on terror with Iran as the second main target, to make any reasonable negotiation possible.

In a way, all the three participants in the game — the US, Israel and Iran — are hyperventilating today the same way they did a few years ago. US defence secretary Leon Panetta is worried about a pre-emptive unilateral strike by Israel in the next few months. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey has also told the Israelis that the US would not participate in a war started by Israel. James Clapper, director, National Intelligence, told a Senate hearing on February 1 that “we do not know if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons”. The US is apprehensive of being caught in the middle of a messy situation because an Israeli attack on Iran would definitely mean a full blown war. Instead, it is pursuing the sanctions route against Iran.

However, the Israelis think and say otherwise. prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and defence minister Ehud Barak are convinced that Iran is on its way to making the Bomb but also add that no decision on a deadline has been taken yet. Former Mossad chief Mier Dagan and former chief of staff Gabi Ashkenazi believe that Iran is still some way away from the Bomb and a military strike could be catastrophic. However, Israelis are convinced that Iran has taken a strategic decision to wipe out Israel and no one else but Israelis can defend their country.

Barak and other political leaders believe that the window for carrying out a surgical strike is closing fast. They feel Iran will move its facilities to safer areas and that will make it more difficult to target, despite the new munitions from the US. The assessment is that Israel has the ability to severely damage Iranian nuclear sites, Israel will eventually have tacit US support and there is no other option left.

Iran, on the other hand, has also done its bit of sabre-rattling. In an unusual speech recently, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned that threats to Iran would be detrimental to the US and that the war itself would be 10 times more detrimental to the US. The Iranians live in a region that is predominantly Sunni and Arab and they are known to be hostile towards them. They also have the huge armada of the US Central Command forces staring down at them.

The Iranians do feel surrounded but with the support they have extended to the Hamas and the Hezbollah all these years, they themselves are no angels.

Despite all this talk about Iran, the present scene of action is Syria that harbours Hamas. Former Mossad chief Efraim Halevy recently wrote in the New York Times that Syria is becoming Iran’s Achilles’ heel. “Ensuring that Iran is evicted from its regional hub in Damascus would cut off Iran’s access to its proxies (Hezbollah in the Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza) ... This would be a safer and more rewarding option than the military one,” he wrote. For this, Russia, which essentially wants access to Syria’s Mediterranean ports in Tartus and Lataki, must be taken on board.

It is difficult to say how India should react to the developing situation in Syria and Iran. American and Indian interests in the area are limited to Iran not acquiring nuclear weapons. The tactics of forcing deeper sanctions are more likely to lead to more stiff resistance by the Iranian leadership. India imports 12% of its oil requirement from Iran. India’s access to Afghanistan and Central Asia is through Iran given that Pakistan remains intransigent on such issues. Iran is our neighbour, and Israel and India have a developing partnership. We can and must push for a negotiated settlement because sanctions are not desirable as they are ineffective and sometimes counterproductive.

Source : Hindustan Times , 14th February 2012,

Now that Iraq's done

The Great Game of the 21st Century is being played out in West Asia . This time round, it's about the control of Iran's vast energy resources.

The US’s war in Iraq is over but it has ended in a fiasco. Iraq is unstable and Iran is emerging as the strongest force in the region. However, some believe that Washington has accomplished its mission in Iraq: the US and its allies have managed to regain control over the oil business in the country, which threatened to slip out of their control in 2002. Today, despite the West’s dubious success in Libya and Egypt, and the uncertainties in Syria, Iran remains a prime target for the US and its friends.

Iraq was accused of possessing (non-existent) weapons of mass destruction; in Iran’s case, the target is Tehran’s nuclear weapons programme. The US’s logic is that since Iran is rich in energy resources, it has no reason to produce nuclear energy, which they see as the first step towards achieving Tehran’s final goal of becoming a nuclear State. Iran’s attitude has been ambivalent. Tehran dared to move out of its dependency on the dollar for its energy revenue when it faced sanctions. Since the US and its allies were keen on preventing this, they unleashed a combination of war games, mind games and spy games against Iran. What is unfolding in the region now is a 21st century version of the Great Game. And the targets are oil and gas resources of Iran.

In the media, experts often discuss how Israel, surrounded by hostile nations, is determined to prevent any State from acquiring nuclear weapons and how it might strike Iran. The list of targets in Iran includes nuclear facilities at Isfahan, Natanz and Arak. They also discuss the possible routes the attackers could take, much in the style of the Osirak attack of 1981. But many may not remember that the Mossad, the Israeli military intelligence, and the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission had opposed the Osirak attack. Even today, they are against any such attack. The decision was political then — and would have to be even so today.

However, the US is no longer leading the charge against Iran. In fact, former defence secretary Bob Gates and his successor Leon Panetta, and former senior military commanders, have opposed any Israeli strike. The US has a formidable force in the 6th Fleet patrolling the Mediterranean and the 5th Fleet operating from Bahrain. The Gulf Cooperation Council countries have bought US weapons worth $22 billion in recent years and the Saudis have a deal worth $60 billion pending. With so much firepower in the neighbourhood and hostile Sunni-Arab neighbours, Iran has reasons to worry.

Simultaneously, there is an open discussion about Iranian reactions, which includes the possibility of a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. Playing its own version of mind games, the Iranian National Security Committee on December 12 announced that the country would hold a military exercise on how to close the strait. A closure of the strait could push up oil prices astronomically. About 75% of the oil for Asian markets including India, China, Japan and South Korea passes through the strait daily.

Other possible Iranian reactions could include the use of (barely concealed) proxies. Iran could use the Hezbollah and the Hamas to target Israel. Lebanon is also dependent on the Iran-trained Hezbollah, which runs its espionage system, immigration and databases, communication and surveillance. It is the Hezbollah that regularly nabs foreign spies and cripples the Central Intelligence Agency’s security networks.

A covert war-game between Iran and the West is an old story with reports of assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists or attempted assassination of the Saudi ambassador in Washington. The use of the ‘incredibly precise’ Stuxnet worm or the Duqu virus to cripple Iranian systems is now being talked about. The November 12 explosion at an Iranian missile base was suspected to have been the work of the Israeli intelligence. The West seems to be working on new sanctions and an oil embargo.

Meanwhile, Iran and Syria also have their supporters. The Russians have decided to move their nuclear-armed aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov to the shores of Syria along with a flotilla from the Black Sea. The Russians also have geo-strategic interests in Syria and, along with China, have watched the Nato exceed the UN mandate in Libya. Both these countries have been opposing sanctions against Syria, have even larger interests in the oil- and gas-rich Iran and have signed strategic cooperation agreements with Tehran. Russia has been supplying high-tech military technology along with nuclear hardware and hopes to build more nuclear plants in Iran. China, with its growing energy needs, is a major investor in Iran’s energy and infrastructure sectors and has a thriving trade with the country.

It is the control of production and distribution of oil that has helped America’s military and economic rise. The gigantic oil conglomerates bankrolled its post-World War economic boom. The West endeavours to retain control of both. Oil major BP has calculated that the world consumed 13.2 billion tonnes of oil in 2010. In the same year, oil production was only 82 million barrels a day as against the estimated 97 million barrels a day. Future predictions about increased production are not very encouraging either. Worse, the world would need a 40% increase in fossil fuel supplies by 2030 for industrial powers and for sharply increasing demands from China, India and other nations. West Asia’s multiple insecurities affect not only Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States but also global growth which depends on uninterrupted energy supplies.

The Great Game of the century in West Asia is ultimately about the control of the region and its energy resources.


Source : Hindustan Times , 21st December 2011

The road to Tehran lies through Damascus

There is a serious crisis brewing in West Asia as the US and other Western nations tighten the noose on Syria and Iran. There is no knowing how the denouement will work out. The charge against Iran is the old one -- about its nuclear weapons ambitions -- while the Syrian people must be helped to get rid of their dictator. It would be unfortunate if Iran were to go for the nuclear weapons option.

Yet, drawing lessons from what happened to Libya after it gave up the nuclear option and what has not happened to North Korea because it did not give up, it is difficult to see the present regime or any other regime in Iran, giving up the nuclear weapons option.

Dubious successes in Egypt and Libya have not deterred the West from focusing on Syria and then ultimately, Iran. China is not on board with any harsh action against Iran and Syria. Russia has already despatched its aircraft carrier "Admiral Kuznetsov", along with a destroyer and a frigate from Murmansk to reach the Syrian port of Tartus along with reinforcements from the Black Sea. The US nuclear powered aircraft carrier USS George HW Bush and some naval vessels are anchored off the Syrian coast. Tartus incidentally is defended by the Russian S-300 air defence missile system (comparable to the Patriot).

For the present, the idea seems to be to glower at Iran, indulge in some sabre rattling and sponsor leaks about how the next attack would be configured. The Iranian regime is unlikely to be impressed. Apart from the overt, a ruthless covert war has also been in action in Iran and, surely in Syria too. About three weeks ago there were reports of a major setback to Iran's most advanced missile programme following a huge explosion at a major missile testing site near Tehran.

While the official version described this as an accident, suspicions that this might have been sabotage carried out by the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK), persist especially after the Stuxnet worm incident that had attacked Iran's uranium production facility at Natanz last year. The Iranians have accused the Americans and the Israelis of espionage, surveillance and sabotage. In a recent incident, the Iranians claimed they had shot down an advanced American RQ-170 drone in eastern Iran.

When the British lifted the ban on the MeK an enraged Tehran saw this as another move to try and destabilise its government. The recent anti-British protests in Tehran were also a reaction against the British move to impose new sanctions against Iran even before the EU had taken a decision. Generally speaking there is a strong move to tighten the sanctions regime against Iran and cripple all industry and financial systems even further.
This is not to suggest that Iran and Syria are angels.

They have supported and built the Hizballah into a formidable force in Lebanon. It has placed thousands of rockets aimed at Israel; has de facto control over Lebanese intelligence, immigration data bases, and the capability to conduct electronic surveillance. Hizballah exhibited its counter-intelligence abilities recently in June this year when it arrested two of its own members as CIA agents. This was followed by assistance in the arrest of 12 CIA spies in Iran in the last week of November.
Surely, the West is not risking a catastrophe to exhibit a sudden upsurge of love for the Syrian people. Damascus is only a stepping stone for the ultimate destination, Tehran. Just as the declared targets in Iraq were its non-existing WMDs in March 2003, Iran's nuclear weapons ambition may really be the camouflage for actual goals.

These would be Iran's abundant oil and gas reserves, its strategic location sitting atop the Persian Gulf, its relative strength compared to the various Arab regimes in the neighbourhood who remain in awe of Iranian power. If the West wishes to retain global dominance, it is imperative that it should have unimpeded access to cheap and abundant oil for itself. Also, that its distribution to rising economic powers and rivals like China and even friends like India, should be controlled. The danger with war rhetoric is that this develops a life of its own and its own deadly logic.

Source : Midday Mumbai , 8th December 2011

Hunting grounds

The count down to strike Iran may have begun

An international posse led by the United States has set off along with a motley crowd hunting for one of the two remaining leaders of the Axis of Evil. The British are there, as always, galloping along close to the Americans. The Germans and the French have returned to the fold after staying away in the hunt for Saddam Hussein. The Chinese and the Russians are there too; somewhat reluctant and tentative but there, nevertheless. We are there too, hunting with the Big Boys. Meanwhile, the quarry waits, defiant and refusing to run.

The Iran nuclear crisis continues to gather steam as the world watches. A good deal of hope is pinned on the February 16 meeting between the Russians and the Iranians but the latter are saying they won’t talk any more. There is no point, they say. The Iranian leader is neither crazy nor is the regime worse than that of the Nazis as his Western detractors would have us believe. On the contrary, the regime has gathered domestic support for standing up to the Great Satan.

The tactics used at the time of the build up preceding the Iraqi invasion have been used once again. A scare scenario, with the neo-con sections of the US media pitching in, threatening statements from US leaders and Condy Rice saying the time for talking is over. Other dire warnings are becoming shriller and more frequent. There is elaborate discussion about military strikes.

US intelligence assesses Iran is a decade away from making the bomb but Administration officials chose to ignore this. They say Iran has the capability to make a bomb. It has the intention to make a bomb. This situation was intolerable but that they will give diplomacy a chance. And if that fails then obviously the course of action recommended by Richard Perle, a powerful neo-con who was one of the chief advocates of the Iraq invasion and Chairman of the Defence Advisory Board from 2001 to 2003, will be followed.

Recently, on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference, Perle told the Reuters correspondent that “if you want to wait until the very last minute, you’d better be very confident of your intelligence because if you’re not, you won’t know when the last minute is.” He also said “And so, one of the lessons of the inadequate intelligence of Iraq is you’d better be careful how long you choose to wait. I can’t tell you when we may face a similar choice with Iran. But it’s either take action now or lose the option of taking action.” This makes it appear that the countdown may have begun.

It is also unlikely that the CIA has had any great intelligence from Iran and it may be of the same level as in the case of Iraq. Whatever intelligence it may have would be from defectors of the same kind as in Iraq. There are some other possibilities. James Risen in his unflattering book on the CIA called “State of War – the Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration” has described a clever by half CIA operation in which some dud intelligence about making a nuclear bomb was passed on to the Iranians through a Russian defector. The underlying assumption was that the Iranians were too dumb to understand this game. As it turned they were not – the Russian was working for them. It is also possible that in this hair brained scheme the CIA gave away more intelligence than they intended facilitating the making of the bomb.

The additional possibility could be General Musharraf has now come clean about the extent of assistance the Pakistanis gave to the Iranians in the making of the bomb. A. Q. Khan is only a convenient fall guy in this for he could not simply have given away secrets without approval from on high. In the past the CIA had shielded Khan when the Dutch wanted him arrested for stealing secrets. It is possible all this may be causing the Americans some anxiety although if there were something substantial to this, then they would have broadcast it far and wide.

The Russians see this as an opportunity to get into a position to play a role in West Asia, apart from the Bushehr nuclear plant that they are constructing on the Persian Gulf coast. They would also have worries that some of the secrets or material that might have been passed on to Iran or purchased by the Iranians of in the chaotic days that followed the breakup of the Soviet Union. There is an oil swap arrangement with the Russians who ship crude to Iran where it is refined for domestic consumption. In return Iranians give the Russians an equivalent amount of oil for shipment to non-European buyers. Sanctions would cut off supplies to Europe from Iran and increase its dependence on the Russians.

The Chinese have huge stakes in the Khuzestan province of Iran, which produces 90% of the oil. The China Petroleum and Chemical Corporation has a 50% stake in the Yadavaran oil field. On the one hand, the Chinese would not want to be a party to any sanctions on Iran, as this would affect its supplies. On the other, neither Russia nor China would really mind if the Americans got sucked in deeper into the Iranian quagmire that threatens to be far worse than the Iraqi quagmire.

The US seems determined to go ahead with destabilising the Ahmedinijad regime. There were reports earlier of the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, till recently on the terrorist watch list, being rehabilitated and used from Afghanistan and Balochistan to incite trouble in eastern Iran. Similarly, there is renewed interest in the Khuzestan province in southwest Iran on the Iraqi border. Since last year more and more incidents have been reported from this area with a predominantly Arab Shia population akin to the population in Iraq. Control of this province will enable control of the wealth of Iran leading to a possible regime change and the return of US companies to Iran.

As Iran gets closer to the proposed date of opening its oil bourse dealing in euros on March 20, the petrodollar is at risk of ultimately losing its pre-eminence in oil dealings. Neither the Russians nor the Europeans would mind selling or buying oil in euros. Oil may cease to be billed in dollars. So far the US has been able to go to war despite its massive budget and trade deficits because major buyers like Japan, China, the EU and oil producers have purchased US debt and hold dollar denominated assets. All these countries have to do is to dump the dollar precipitating a crisis in the US economy. Naturally the US cannot allow this to happen.

The Iranians are to be denied the bomb while US nuclear weapon scientists at Livermore and Los Alamos are working on a new hydrogen bomb design which, if successful, will lead to highly automated factories producing more warheads and new kinds. But it is more than just the nuclear bomb. It is more than the charge that Iran is aiding terrorism. It is ultimately a question of command and control. Halford Mackinder, the British geographer, economist and politician said about eighty-five years ago

Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland:
Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island:
Who rules the World-Island commands the World.

Today, instead of East Europe, it is the Caspian region that commands the Heartland.


Source : Hindustan Times 15th feb 2006

The new great game : 21st century version

The British, French and Russians, played their Great Game in the 19th century in the playing fields of the Middle East and Central Asia. Britain’s Indian possessions were the coveted prize. Today the three players are the Americans, Russians and Chinese; the main playing fields are the energy rich but trouble-prone West Asian and Caspian lands. India, whose USP is its growing market, is peripheral.

Post Second World War, it was clear that the American way of life, based on cheap and abundant availability of oil, had to be preserved. As domestic supplies declined, dependency on imports from conflict zones increased. From being domestically self-sufficient, the US has moved to becoming the world’s biggest importer of oil and by 2025 it would need to import 70% of its requirements.

Successive post-war American Presidents enunciated doctrines for guaranteed supplies of oil from the Gulf. President Carter declared in 1980 that access to Persian Gulf oil was a vital national interest and that the US would be prepared to use military force to protect its interests. Carter’s Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force eventually blossomed into CENTCOM with an area of responsibility coinciding with the energy rich West and Central Asian and Caspian Sea regions.

Strategists of the Republican Right began planning for the future in the post Cold War phase. In 1992, the neo-con policy paper, Defence Planning Guidance, talked of permanent military superiority and world dominance and of the need to prevent emergence of a new rival. There was need to remain the predominant outside power in the Middle East and South West Asia to preserve US and Western access to the region’s oil.

In September 2000, the Project for the New American Century spoke of America’s grand strategy to preserve and extend its advantages in the absence of any rival power and recommended massive power projection capability globally. Translated it meant stepped up pressure on ‘rogue’ states like Iraq and Iran, and “take actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields.”

President George W. Bush’s new energy policy enunciated by the National Energy Policy Development Group in May 2001 recommended that ties with oil rich countries should be bolstered and US presence in these countries expanded. The 2001 Quadrennial Defence Review spoke of the need for the US to retain the ability to send forces to critical points around the globe and explicitly identified overseas oil producing regions as critical points. Preemptive intervention became the Bush doctrine of 2002. This was a clear indication that private oil interests and US strategic interests now coincided.

Even as conflict and instability in the oil producing regions remain a real problem for the foreseeable future, two other crises loom. There is this phenomenon of peak oil. Experts differ about when the supplies will dwindle but all agree that this decline is inevitable and it will become increasingly difficult to extract more oil. The bigger countries – the US, Russia and China -- have responded to scarcity by securitising the energy supply dimension and strengthening military alliances in the Gulf.

The other worry for the US was the rise of the Euro. Over half of the total crude oil produced in the Middle East was bought by the EU in 2004 who could legitimately insist on paying in Euros. The dollar’s supremacy and its status as the world’s reserve currency were under threat. Oil was denominated in dollars and the strength of the US dollar had propelled the US economy to new heights and military supremacy. In effect, the US with its more than 6 trillion dollar debt in a 9 trillion dollar economy was not really paying for any oil.

Saddam Hussein’s effrontery was not that he was making WMDs and harbouring Al Qaeda. It was that Saddam had dumped the dollar and switched his UN ‘oil for food’ fund of US $ 10 billion to the euro in October 2000. The fear was that if OPEC also made a sudden switch to the euro, the US economy would collapse. Other countries could follow OPEC and some of them had begun to keep a part of their holdings in euros. Saddam had committed blasphemy and had to be punished.

Iran had also transferred a majority of its reserves into Euros in 2002 and contemplated a Euro-based oil bourse by March 2006. Some European analysts describe the effect of this changeover as worse than a nuclear attack on the US. Iran had qualified to be a member of the Axis of Evil. But post-Iraq, with credibility low, even the UK balking at any talk of attacking Iran, the USA has limited choices. A full-scale invasion seems to be out; attacks from the air would be the other option. Clandestine covert operations through the Baloch areas of Pakistan and partly through Afghanistan could be a possibility. Somehow Iran has to be disciplined -- and soon.

Ideally the US would like to access Iran’s hydrocarbon reserves for US companies, restructure OPEC and keep out competition. Unfortunately, the US Executive Order of 1995, renewed by President Bush in 2004, prohibits American companies from working in Iran. This order will not be revoked so long as Iran does not have a regime change and refuses to give up the nuclear option.

Russia may no longer be a Super Power, militarily or economically but it is still the world’s second largest oil exporter and the largest outside OPEC. It remains a major player in the energy market outside total US control and has continued interests in Iran and the Gulf. Russia and China have been investing in military sales to the Middle East.

Russia remains an important player in Central Asia while the EU and NATO along with China are the other big players. After initial flirtation with the US, the Uzbeks once again talk of the reliability of Russians. The US Senate vote to delay payment to Uzbekistan for the use of an air base undoubtedly angered the Uzbeks. The EU decision to impose sanctions would be another factor. Russia is to build a military airbase in Tajikistan, apart from retaining the one it has in Kyrghystan where the Americans also have a base at Manas. The Tajiks have so far resisted having an American airbase but might change their minds depending perhaps on what is on offer. Condoleezza Rice was on a visit to Kyrgystan, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan in October trying to shore up US position in these former Soviet Republics after the loss of influence in Uzbekistan that could have some bearing on US which could have a partial bearing on its operations in Afghanistan and the rest of Central Asia.

China has been concentrating on oil and gas rich Kazakhstan. This makes economic and strategic sense for it could provide the much needed energy, close political ties would help keep the East Turkestan movement active in Chinese Xinjiang province at bay and hopefully keep the Americans at arm’s length. The Chinese have remained extremely busy planning gas pipelines from Kazakhstan to Xinjiang. The Chinese have a 962-kilometre oil pipeline deal with the Kazakhs to be completed by 2015 and want the Russians to build a pipeline from Siberia to China. The Russians are similarly interested in the oil fields in Kazakhstan. Earlier this month, the Chinese announced plans to spend about 180 billion dollars in the next 15 years to increase use of renewable energy to 15% up from the present 7% and to replace ten million tons of petroleum with renewable energy as well as increase use of solar energy to replace 40 million tons of standard coal each year.

While NATO has offered Kazakhstan military assistance, the Chinese and the Russians have been having joint exercises in the Pacific and Russia has sold state of the art military equipment to China. While the US has used the war against terror to move into the energy rich areas with bases and forces to guard the pipelines and installations, the other two have been militarising their friendships and alliances in the region as well. US presence in the region naturally heightens Chinese fears of encirclement and Russian fears about their near abroad. It is not difficult to see a triangular struggle in the future.

Nearly 200 years ago, William Moorcroft of the British East India Company made desperate attempts to attract his employers’ attention to events in Central Asia and of the advance of the Russian Empire but they would not pay any attention to him. Today, when we want to pay attention to this area we are hemmed in by disadvantaged relations in our neighbourhood, even though to us Russia is far from an Evil Empire. Maybe we can breakthrough this geopolitical logjam. We should make use of the invitation to the SCO and maybe we should think like Moorcroft did, of accessing the Central Asia through Yarkand and Kashgar.

The game remains what it was -a game for the dominion of the world. This would be a test of our diplomacy and long-term strategic thinking, of thinking out of the box.

Source : Tge Hindustan Times, November 23, 2005

America-Iraq tie-ups

As GI boots sink deeper into the Iraqi quagmire, the echoes of Vietnam can be heard

“A phenomenon noticeable throughout history regardless of place or period is the pursuit by governments of policies contrary to their own interests. Mankind, it seems, makes a poorer performance of government than of any other human activity. In this sphere, wisdom, which may be defined as the exercise of judgment acting on experience, common sense and available information, is less operative and more frustrated than it should be. Why do holders of high office so often act contrary to the way reason points and enlightened self-interest suggests?” Barbara Tuchman in her book, “The March of Folly – from Troy to Vietnam.” Had she been alive today, she would probably have replaced Vietnam with Iraq in the title.

The latest is the Iraq theatre where one folly follows another, one insensitivity follows another. Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and Baghram symbolise this. The Islamic world is in the throes of protest because of the reports of desecration of the Holy Book. Continued occupation of Iraq and the daily dose of humiliation of the people during midnight raids, searches and detentions at unknown places is par for the course. All the unthinking brutality that signifies a desperate and exasperated occupying force is presumably designed to instill fear but is ending up arousing hatred and anger. A young blogger described Baghdad as a giant graveyard.

Following a brutal fortnight which saw nearly 500 deaths in Iraq, in revenge attacks and sectarian violence, Condoleezza Rice arrived in Baghdad to pronounce: “We are grateful that there are Americans willing to sacrifice so the Middle East will be whole and free and democratic and at peace”, she said. Ordinary Iraqis don’t think so and now refer to the state of affairs as “bloodocracy.” If genuine democracy were to indeed blossom in Iraq the following could happen. The Iraqis would oppose privatisation of their economy which gave the outsiders (read Americans, Halliburton, Bechtel) control, they would not want the Americans to stay on nor pay for the military bases, and finally or perhaps foremost, they would want control of oil themselves. In which case would democracy in Iraq be a primary US objective?

More and more Americans (58 %) are wary about wanting to make sacrifices. Bob Herbert writing in the New York Times earlier this month described what one of the army reserves who opted out from Iraq had to say. Soldiers heading off to Iraq were briefed how they would kill a few “ragheads” and burn their turbans. Young American soldiers driving around in their Humvees would routinely shatter empty Coke bottles on the heads of Iraqi civilians passing by. Or kick young six-year olds in the chest, or tie school children with the Humvees’ steel antennae. And Iraqis are also referred to as “Hajis” just as the Vietnamese were called “gooks” or “Charlies”.

According to a survey by the International Republican Institute, Iraqis have to endure about 12,000 patrols every week, omni-present and omni-powerful check points, where at those manned by the Americans, 90 civilians have been killed in the two years up to April 2005 because soldiers manning these positions were poorly trained and equipped. There have been about 8000 raids since May 2003 and more than 80,000 Iraqis have been rounded up since April 2003. Iraqis can now establish their identities only through papers issued by what is increasingly seen as an invading force. They have lost the right to show their own papers and thus lost their identities and their self-respect.

A UN survey called “Iraq Living Conditions Survey 2004” found that following the US-led invasion conditions in Iraq had deteriorated at alarming rate. Vast numbers of people lack access to basic services like clean water, food, health care, electricity, jobs and sanitation. Child malnutrition has increased, infant mortality is up and there are no funds for hospitals. The situation is much worse when compared to 1980. The great promise of economic emancipation under a free democracy has not even begun to take any shape. Sure there are bulldozers and cranes in Baghdad only for constructing new and bigger military bases and not for any infrastructure development. The IMF and World Bank are as usual being unhelpful and unimaginative.

Rice’s visit was followed by the visit of Iranian Foreign Minister, Kamal Kharrazi to Iraq. The contrast was an eloquent testimony. Rice, the Liberator, went about in a helmet and a bulletproof flak jacket, remained inside the Green Zone and was in Baghdad for a day. The other, from the Axis of Evil went around in his robes, stayed for the better part of the week, went to Najaf for an audience with Ayatollah Sistani, made his peace with the Iraqis and also met more people than Rice could. The significance of the meeting would not – hopefully --have been lost on the Americans. So far the Shias in Iraq have been kept under a tight leash and could at any time cut loose with the Badr Brigade – the military wing of the Shia Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq showing a growing tendency not to obey calls for self-restraint. With civil war type conditions already rearing their head, the Iranian role would become more relevant in Iraq.

What is happening in Iraq is not just a growing sectarian divide or a civil war. It is not terrorism or insurgency inspired by a ‘foreign hand’; it is more a national resistance against a foreign invader and against foreign occupation. While there are voices in USA that want their countrymen to pull out, US Generals warn of a long haul. Having entered the country under various pretexts but really to ensure the supply of cheap oil, the forces cannot leave without securing their primary objectives. Does one hear echoes of Vietnam?

If the Americans stay on in Iraq they would need to give up resurrecting pliable leaders with a dubious past and uncertain future and talk to the resistance to ensure some level of peace. A policy of not talking to them simply because you do not ‘like’ them or they have outsmarted Pentagon, is a self-defeating policy. It only shows exasperation, impatience and is ultimately self-defeating. Otherwise there are going to be more Osama bin Ladens and al-Zarqawis. Without this arrangement of a dialogue, the battle will only get bloodier and bloodier.

Two years after President Bush proclaimed Mission Accomplished in Iraq, Americans and Iraqis continue to die; the insurgency is now full blown and the country has become a fertile ground for recruiting terrorists. There are about 18,000 to 24,000 Iraqi civilian fatalities but no one really cares. There were of course no WMDs, there was no connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam, and the Iraqis were not involved in the September 11 attacks. Not only that, America with a tarnished image, no longer looks invincible. This would give courage to Iran, the next country on the hit list.

Maybe the following might help the USA –
“A great nation is like a great man: When he makes a mistake, he realises it. Having realized it, he admits it. Having admitted it, he corrects it. He considers those who point out his faults as his most benevolent teachers. He thinks of his enemy as the shadow that he himself casts. If a nation is centred in the Tao, if it nourishes its own people and doesn't meddle in the affairs of others, it will be a light to all nations in the world." Lao Tzu - in Tao Te Ching, Chapter 61

Source : The Hindustan Times, June 1, 2005

Top Billing for Tehran

The shoes are by Bally, slacks by Balenciaga, the bag by Givenchy and the hijab by decree. Elsewhere, in places like the island resort of Kish in the Persian Gulf where the laws tend to be slack, one can see blonde-streaked hair peeping out from under a Hermes scarf worn somewhat casually. This is the modern Iranian woman who also typifies modern Iran, a mixture of the old and the traditional, the modern and the technological. This, despite 28 years of sanctions, which no Iranian lets you forget.

Tehran itself is a concrete jungle, a moving parking lot as the locals call it, where all power and privilege resides in the north and the people live in the southern part of the city. Petrol sells at the equivalent of one US cent a litre and bottled mineral water costs thrice as much — not that there are water shortages or power outages. The infrastructure is marvellous and the roads, like the one to Arak where the Iranians have built their heavy water facility for the 40 MW reactor to be constructed, are black-topped without potholes.

Iranian scientists at Arak asserted that the indigenously built IR-40 heavy water reactor would produce radioactive isotopes for various medical and industrial uses. Western scientists say that the facility at Arak could produce plutonium in another seven years. This and the other facilities across the country are a symbol of not just the Iranian struggle for modernity, but also of national pride and sovereignty that no Iranian is willing to give up at any cost. As signatories to the NPT, Iranians assert it is their right to process uranium for peaceful purposes.

If Arak and the Tehran TV tower, the fourth highest in the world and built indigenously, are symbols of modernity, Isfahan signifies the traditional and artistic Iran. Isfahanis proudly call their city Naqsh-e-Jahan (Half of the World). Close to the exquisite Imam Mosque is the Chehel Sotun Palace. On its walls hang paintings of Nadir Shah’s conquests in India and of the visit of deposed emperor Humayun to the court of the Safavid King, Tahmasb I, seeking assistance for his restoration.

Four hundred and fifty-three years later, Murli Deora visited Tehran seeking an agreement for LNG but he got neither the kind of coverage nor the promise that Humayun got. The Iranians are keener now to have the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline. There is also a sense of astonishment, hurt and even anger at the way India has twice voted against Iran at the International Atomic Energy Agency. They interpret this as a sign that India has subserved its strategic independence in favour of US interests in the region.

In our search for new strategic options we seem to forget that Iran and India were neighbours for centuries till 1947. Iran was anti-India at its virulent best during the time of the Shah of Iran, America’s regional surrogate. It is true that in its initial post-revolution years, the regime routinely exhibited its Muslim closeness by siding with Pakistan on the Kashmir issue. It is equally true that it was Iran which prevented a consensus Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) vote on Kashmir in 1994 that would have led the Kashmir issue to be eventually re-opened at the United Nations Security Council. Given that gratitude is not reason enough for international relations, India has to seek mutually beneficial relations with Iran purely for geo-strategic considerations.

Ten per cent of the world’s oil reserves — about 132.5 billion barrels of proven reserves — are in Iran. It has the world’s second largest reserves of gas. Given these assets, it is far too irresistible a prize, far too important, to be left alone and strong in the region. Iran is, therefore, a natural and prime target of US actions in the region in its quest for full spectrum global dominance. The German-born Baron Reuter (of Reuters news agency) acquired the Reuter Commission in 1872 that gave the British monopoly over Iran’s economic and financial sector. From then to the overthrow of the brutal Shah in 1979 was a long history of exploitation of Iran by Western interests.

Courtesy : The Hindustan Times, May 10, 2007