Once again, the “winds of war” are beginning to gain strength, as  international relationships between Iran and the West (including Israel) continue to deteriorate at a rapid pace.   There is little doubt that the volatile and vociferous  leadership of  Iran has made a decision to develop and strengthen their military capabilities, and to pursue an aggressive course of action against  neighboring countries.   The imposition of economic sanctions against the Iranians by Western nations has done nothing to weaken the Iranian’s resolve to develop nuclear weapons capabilities, and have failed to bring the Iranian government back to the “bargaining table.”  Although sanctions have impacted the lifestyles of the Iranian people by depriving them of certain imported goods, there is no sign that sanctions have in any way slowed down the government’s grand plan to develop nuclear weapons, to destroy the Nation of Israel, and to dominate the Middle East through force of arms.  This point was made abundantly clear yesterday in a speech by Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, when he compared Israel to a “cancer” that must be removed.  By all appearances, the Iranian government has committed itself to war and has no intention of backing down, regardless of the consequences.

The militant attitude of the Iranian government, its continuing efforts to develop nuclear weapons, its threats against the West (particularly the U.S. and Israel), and its threats to close off the Straight of Hormuz  have now escalated to the point of being intolerable.  According to Israeli Minister for Strategic Affairs, Moshe Yaalon, the Iranians have come close to developing ballistic missiles with a range of 6,000 miles, which would be capable of delivering a nuclear warhead to the East coast of the United States.  They already have missiles with a range of over 1,200 miles, well within the reach of any country within the Middle East.  Mr. Yaalon, in a meeting with U.S. officials,  indicated that all of Iran’s nuclear sites could be taken out with a sustained and coordinated attack by the Israeli and U.S. military.  Many defense experts do not, in fact, support Mr. Yaalon’s position, saying that much Iran’s military capabilities are buried deeply underground, well protected from assaults from the air.  The time to neutralize  Iran’s military capabilities may have finally come; however, the task will require a strong stomach and steely resolve on the part of war-weary Americans.

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, speaking at the NATO Meeting in Brussels, said earlier this week that there was a “strong likelihood” that Israel would strike Iran in April, May or June.  This unusually candid statement by Mr. Panetta should be taken by the Iranian government as a “warning shot across the bow”.  The truth of the matter is that Iran’s military would be very quickly defeated by vastly superior Israeli and American forces.  In some ways this is reminiscent of the terrible days leading up to the Second World War, when Hitler held strongly to the delusion that the world would not be able to stand up to Nazi aggression.  Let us all hope that the Grand Ayatollah Khamenei does not hold fast to a similar delusion.

Rich

As the first few days of 2012 slide by, there is very little indication that the new year will bring much relief from the political tensions and turmoils that embroil humanity from one side of the globe to the other.   The simmering tensions between the religious sects in Iraq continue to  heat up, the war between the Taliban and the government forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan continue to be  more explosive and destructive than ever, the much sought-after political reforms in Egypt, Libya and Bahrain continue to be elusive, and the Palestinians and Israelis continue to be hell-bent on following a path toward  another war.  Although 2012 will definitely be a year of simmering tensions across the Middle East and North Africa, the most dangerous potential conflict for the new year will most likely be between the United States and Iran.  In fact, things have already started out badly with Iran’s threat to block the shipping lanes in the Straights of Hormuz.

Over the last few years, the international community under the leadership of the United States, has imposed increasingly harsh sanctions against Iran, which have taken a significant toll on Iran’s ability to grow its economy and provide a higher standard of living to its citizens.  Although the sanctions are intended to motivate the Iranian government to halt the development of nuclear weapons, they have done little to slow Iran’s nuclear development efforts, and have  greatly increased the level of hatred among the Iranian people toward the United States.  There is little doubt that the imposition of even harsher sanctions against Iran will eventually cause them to push back with provocative actions such as closing the Straights of Hormuz, or even attacking Israel.  Once the “bullets begin to fly”, there will be no chance of turning back. The United States will once again be involved in a dangerous and bloody foreign war.

At the current time, President Obama has chosen to focus U.S. efforts on finding a diplomatic solution to the “Iranian Problem,” and he has combined diplomatic efforts with economic sanctions.  The United States’ policy has been to work with the U.N. and the community of nations to convince Iran that the development and deployment of nuclear weapons is not in its best interests, and certainly not in the best interests of the rest of the world.  This seems to be the right approach.  If, in fact, the Iranians should take a unilateral military action by closing off the Straights of Hormuz, then the U.S. should become part of a coalition of world powers to force Iran to back down.  Under no circumstances should the United States engage in direct, unilateral military action against the Iranian Naval forces.  Since the  blocking of the Straights of Hormuz would adversely affect powerful countries throughout the world, and since such a blockade would shut down the economic engine of many of Iran’s Arab neighbors, there is no reason why the United States should be the only country actively engaging in hostilities.  Similar to the coalition that helped to liberate Libya from the iron-fisted rule of Gaddafi,  let a similar coalition rid the Middle East of Iranian military aggression.

The public positions taken by the six remaining, Republican presidential candidates (with the exception of Ron Paul) regarding relations with Iran  call for aggressive and unilateral military actions on the part of the U.S. military.  This would undoubtedly result in another long and bloody conflict.  A conflict that America can ill afford.

Rich

Over the last week the U.S. military officially pulled out of Iraq after almost ten years of war and occupation.  The last of the remaining combat troops and equipment were moved across the border to Kuwait, and loaded on board vessels for the trip home to America.  There were no triumphant  speeches from American politicians, nor were there jubilant celebrations by the military for their great sacrifices and accomplishments.   However, in a dusty corner of a soon-to-be abandoned air base, the U.S. Secretary of Defense, along with a few Generals and a couple of hundred soldiers, simply rolled up the American flag, uttered a few words of encouragement,  and “got out of Dodge”.   The war in Iraq ended for the American military with a whimper.  In the meantime, not one Iraqi politician, nor a single Iraqi citizen or local newspaper praised America for sacrificing almost five thousand American lives and around $1.0 trillion in taxpayer funds for its “war of liberation”. The Iraqis simply wanted the American out of their country and out of their lives.

In a very real sense, this week marks a sad milestone in American history.  The lofty goals of bringing democracy to Iraq,  freeing them from  terrorism, and making the country a bastion  free enterprise in the Middle East never panned out.  In fact, the terrorism perpetrated between the ethnic groups in Iraq, which was largely kept in check by the regime of Saddam Hussein, was loosened to run rampant after Saddam’s demise.  Rather than freeing a nation from tyranny, the American military occupation only fanned the flames of deep-seated hatreds, and unleashed a new wave of violence.  During the ten years of occupation the Iraqi infrastructure was destroyed, the Iraqi economy was  ruined, and individual liberties were trampled upon by a new, U.S.-sponsored  dictatorship.  It is no wonder that the “victory march” out of Iraq by the U.S. military was not accompanied by the playing of brass bands.  In essence, the awesome power and might of the richest, most militarily sophisticated  country in the world was used to crush into submission a small, desert nation over ten long years. In the end, nothing of substance was accomplished.

With the war in Iraq finally over, the time has come for Americans to recognize that military actions taken against countries that pose no direct threat to American interests can create unexpected, and undesirable consequences.  For example, the military forays into both Iraq and Afghanistan have done nothing but push these nations further under the influence of Iran.  There is little doubt that the future will be rife with many opportunities and justifications for engaging in other military actions  in other far-off locations.   The strength and character of the United States as a world leader will not be measured in the future by the power of our military, but rather by our willingness to refrain from using military action to accomplish political objectives.  We must be ever-vigilant against becoming entangled in future conflicts that could lead to escalating violence and the threat of another world war.  It’s not too late.

Rich

In the early years of the 1930′s, all the signs were present that something extraordinary was going on in Germany.  The German people, impoverished by years of economic recession, and angry with the crushing burden of war reparations, began to turn their attentions to a charismatic ex-army corporal from Austria named, Adolph Hitler.  Desperate for a strong leader, and willing to believe the lies of Hitler and the  Nazi party, the German people abandoned all of the individual rights afforded them by the constitution, and put into power a maniacal and ego-centric dictator.  Within a decade, fifty million people had been killed, Germany and much of Europe had been utterly destroyed, and the maniacal dictator was dead by his own hand.  In the aftermath of  the blood and suffering of World War II, many historians have asked how the great powers of the world could have allowed Hitler to gain such power, and why was nothing done to stop the Nazi‘s while they still had a chance.

Biographers over the last sixty years have done a good job in explaining how Hitler and the Nazi’s came to power, but have not done such a good job in explaining why nothing was done to stop them.  Perhaps the simple answer would be that peace-loving nations will usually choose appeasement and inaction over war and bloodshed, and that the lies of the aggressor will usually trump the reality of truth.   In short, the nations of Western and Eastern Europe knew exactly what Hitler was doing long before the German Wehrmacht began its blood-thirsty war of conquest, but they chose to ignore the warning signs before it was to late.  The question today is whether another powerful nation, with a similar goal of world conquest, again rise to threaten world peace?  Unfortunately, the answer to that question is yes!

Similar to the political situation that arose in Nazi Germany, the people of Iran have abandoned all hopes of a democratic  form of government, and have given absolute power to an elite group of ayatollahs.  These Islamic clerics are neither elected by the people, nor are they accountable to the public for their actions.  They have gained for themselves total dictatorial powers, and may not be questioned by the Iranian media or the public under threat of severe punishment.  Armed with Sharia Law and the Koran (as opposed to Mein Kampf), the leaders of Iran have set their sights on the conquest of the Middle East and beyond.  After developing nuclear weapons capabilities and strengthening their conventional weapons systems, the Iranian dictatorship may first attack Syria and Lebanon, and then move on to the conquests of Iraq and Afghanistan. Turkey and Saudi Arabia may not be far behind. Using the threat of nuclear war, the Iranians will test the will of peace-loving nations to the West and to the East to stop their advances.  The question will, once again, be whether or not other powerful nations in the world will be willing to risk spilling the blood of their own countrymen to stop a rogue nation from conquering and imposing its will on its neighbors.

Now is the time for the powers of the world to unite in their demands for Iran to cease its quest for nuclear weapons, and to open its borders to international inspections.  History must not be allowed a repetition of the world holocaust caused by the unchecked rise of the Third Reich.  It must not be allowed to happen again!

Rich

Over the last year or so the world has witnessed a truly remarkable movement within many countries in the Middle East.  It has been a concerted effort by popular uprisings of common citizens to rid themselves of long-standing despots and dictators.  The struggle for freedom is far from over, as bloody conflicts and government back assassinations continue in places like Syria, Yemen and Bahrain. Although the ultimate outcomes of these rebellions will change the relationships between nations within the region, and perhaps relationships with Western nations, they will not profoundly affect the power structure within the Middle East.

The true power in the Middle East continues to be the Islamic Republic of Iran.  The rebellions taking place in the neighboring countries will have little or no bearing in their quest for power and influence.  In fact, there is little doubt that Iran has often fomented the social unrest within the region to advance its own causes.  While the world has focused its attention on newly-sprouted democratic movements in small and mostly impotent desert nations, Iran has continued building its military capabilities, including strategic nuclear weapons.

Although the most of the large “super-powers” within the world have denounced Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons capabilities, very few effective actions have been taken by the UN to prevent it from occurring.  Powerful countries, such as Russia and China have failed to support stronger sanctions against Iran, and may have actually offered Iran much-needed technical assistance in achieving their goal.  As the popular revolutions continue to rage in the surrounding nations, there is one nation in the region that has not lost sight that Iran is the real threat to world peace; that nation is Israel.  The Israelis have good reason to believe that their small homeland would be Iran’s first target when Iran finally builds a workable nuclear weapon and puts in place the means to deliver it. The government in Tehran has stated publicly, and often, that the destruction of the State of Israel is their ultimate goal.

Given this frightening and ugly scenario, it is no wonder that the Israelis are debating the possibility of taking preemptive, unilateral military actions against Iran’s nuclear facilities. The threat of war between Israel and Iran has never been greater. If war breaks out between these nations, there is little doubt that other countries, such as Syria and Egypt, will join the Iranians. The U.S. military will, in turn, support the Israelis.

There are any number of possible ways that such a conflict could begin, but only one way it could end: Badly!  At this critical juncture in time it is crucial that the government of Israel carefully consider its options before launching an attack that could lead to a third World War. Perhaps the best scenario would be a state of uneasy peace, brought about by the reality of “Mutually Assured Annihilation.” It kept the peace between the United States and the Soviet Union for sixty years, and it may just be the answer for Israel and Iran.

Rich

Image by sergio m. mahugo via Flickr

The recently uncovered plot by Iranian government operatives to assassinate the Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the United States should not come as a surprise to anyone in Washington.  It should also come as no surprise that the Iranian government is vehemently denying  their involvement,  accusing the United States of making the whole thing up.Although caught “red-handed” by American intelligence agents,  and although the Iranian perpetrator has freely admitted his culpability,  the government in Tehran insists that their country is  innocent of any misdeeds.   The Iranian government, which is significantly “truth impaired,” also denied that the Holocaust ever happened, that they are developing nuclear weapons capabilities, and that they are not the biggest sponsor of terrorist organizations throughout the entire globe.   There should be little doubt  by  nations of the world that Iran continues to relish its role as the “international bad boy”,  and has no intention of changing its behavior.  The question is what does Iran expect to accomplish by thumbing its nose at its powerful neighbors to the North (Russia), to the West (the U.S. and Europe),  to the East (China), and to the South (Saudi Arabia)?

The simplified answer to this question is that Iran is not so much concerned with other world powers, rather it is primarily concerned with the political and military domination of its own Middle-Eastern neighborhood.   A major strategy  in accomplishing this  domination is to foment revolution within the much smaller,  unstable nations within the region.  In Iraq, Bahrain and many other places throughout the Middle East, Iran has pitted Sunni Muslim sects against Shiite Muslim Sects, providing military hardware and intelligence wherever needed.  In other places, such as Syria and Palestine, Iran has helped to prop up  unpopular rulers that have shown a willingness to support Iranian objectives.   In a nutshell, the regime in Tehran think that Iranian (i.e. Shiite) domination of the region is only a matter of time.   The attempted assassination of the Saudi Arabian Ambassador was seen as a way to shorten the time-table, by further driving a wedge between Sunnis and Shiites.

The regime in Tehran knows that an arsenal of nuclear weapons will not be needed to obtain dominance in the Middle East, and they also know that the use of nuclear weapons against their arch-enemy, Israel, would only result in mutually assured annihilation.   Nuclear weapons capabilities will only be necessary to ensure that other super-powers in the world will not interfere with Iran’s plans for regional dominance.  In essence, Tehran will have a free reign to impose its will on its neighbors, and to effectively control the majority of the world’s oil supply.  As the twenty-first century presses on, it is becoming more and more likely that the next major “world conflict” will be centered not in the Israeli town of Armageddon, but in the Iranian capitol of Tehran.

Rich

Image via Wikipedia

On Friday, October 7, the United States reached  grim milestone. This date marked the ten year anniversary of U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan.  During this period of time over 1,700 American service men and women have been killed,  thousands more have been wounded and maimed, and the cost to the taxpayers has exceeded one trillion dollars.  In addition to American losses, tens of thousands of Afghan men, women and children have met their demise.  U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan has now exceeded the ten year involvement in the War in Viet Nam, and it’s not over yet.  At best, the Obama Administration has indicated  the  military will be in Afghanistan for at least another three years, or three hundred billion dollars worth.  From just about any possible viewpoint, the conflict has been a huge waste of American lives and money, has done nothing to reduce the power and influence of the Taliban and al Qaeda, and has further destabilized a  very volatile region of the world.

There are many lessons that can be learned from America’s ill-conceived involvement in Afghanistan.  The first, and most important lesson is to allow regional powers to resolve problems within their own regions. Although terrorist organizations, such as al Qaeda and the Taliban, can cause damage and destruction throughout the world, it is impossible to  fight against them with boots on the ground in their own home territories.  It is inevitable that local warlords or tribal elders will  view the American military as foreign invaders.  In some cases, such as the ISI in Pakistan, terrorist organizations will be actively supported by local governments.  The key to avoiding long and costly military engagements is to stay out of regions where we have no strategic interest and to avoid conflicts in areas where we don’t belong.

The second lesson to be learned from the protracted war in Afghanistan is to have a well-defined exit strategy before embarking on a military campaign.  If the power and might of the U.S. military forces cannot be used to bring a quick end to the conflict, then the military should not be used. We should have learned this lesson from the Viet Nam War, but sadly we did not.  The American government knew early on that a disastrous end to the Viet Nam War was inevitable, yet the conflict went on for many more years than it should have.  The same is true for the conflict in Afghanistan.

Once American military forces leave Afghanistan, there is little doubt that Iran will slowly but surely bring them under its powerful sphere of influence.  The presence of the Taliban and of al Qaeda will matter very little to the Iranian government, since their objective will not be “the spread of democracy”, but exploitation and domination.  Such is the fate of Afghanistan, and there’s nothing much  the U.S. can  do to change this inevitability from happening.

Rich

Image by cactusbones via Flickr

The results of the so-called “Arab Spring” have permanently changed the landscape of Middle-Eastern politics, and it’s not over yet.  There is little doubt that  popular uprisings  will continue in Syria and Yemen, and will undoubtedly spread to other places, such as Saudi Arabia, and Jordan.   Each of the uprisings have resulted from different sets of circumstances, although all of them have been fueled  primarily by unemployed (or underemployed) youth, who have effectively used technology to communicate with one another and to coordinate their efforts.  Without modern computer and communications technologies it is doubtful that revolutionary forces would have been successful against well-armed and entrenched regimes.  Fortunately, desperate efforts by these regimes to cut off access to technology to the people in their countries have largely failed.  History teaches us that freedom of information (i.e. the truth) is the greatest enemy of despots.

In a very real sense, the world has changed in a  significant way by opening up the channels of communication via the internet and via satellite communications to all peoples of the world.  In the future,  despots such as Hitler, Stalin, and Chairman Mao will have a much more difficult time garnering  popular support by disseminating false claims and blatant propaganda.   It will become increasingly difficult for dictatorships in places like North Korea and Myanmar to keep populations, especially young populations,  in the dark about the world they live in.  This will, of course, not stop them from trying; but their efforts will eventually fail.

Freedom of information does not, however, mean freedom to hear the truth, because all of us interpret the meaning the “truth” differently.  What freedom of information guarantees is that people will be able to have access to different opinions and different ideas, and then make their own judgments as to where the truth resides.   Because of this, the new “information-friendly” Middle East will not necessarily become any “friendlier” to the West, and in particular to the U.S.   It may, in fact, become a lot less friendly when radical Islamic groups find they have new and unfettered access to large populations in places like Libya.  It is almost certain that America‘s arch-enemy in the Middle East, Iran, will now have much greater influence on the other nations within the region.  In fact, it is only a matter of time before Iran uses its renewed access to information to  foment revolutions in the region in order to achieve its own political agenda.

The information “genie” is now out of the bottle in the Middle East, and it’s unlikely anyone will be able to put the cork back in.  Only time will tell if  access to  “information” has truly freed the people in the region, or if it has opened the door to an even more cruel  master; the master that schemes against them in Tehran.

Rich

Image by Omer Wazir via Flickr

Over a decade ago the U.S. government realized that the  “fight against terrorism”  would not only require boots on the ground in Afghanistan, but would also require military and political co-operation with Afghanistan’s neighbor to the East, Pakistan.   At that time, the U.S. State Department was well aware that Pakistan was controlled by a military dictatorship, was corrupt to its core, and that its people harbored long-standing anti-American attitudes dating back to its inception in 1949.  Over sixty years ago, when the British colonial government was forced to approve the partition of the Indian sub-continent in two separate nations, it was clear that American sympathies lie with India, and not with Pakistan.  Over the long period of time since its inception America’s relationship with Pakistan has languished, while the economic, political, and cultural relationship with India has continued to grow and prosper.   Since Pakistan has always viewed India as its mortal enemy, it is no wonder that America’s long-standing support of India has caused most Pakistanis to see the United States as its enemy also.

Frankly, the U.S. State Department  never cared much about Pakistani public opinion until two specific events occurred.  The first event was the development and deployment of nuclear weapons on Pakistani soil, and the second was the need to use Pakistani territory to wage a war against various factions in Afghanistan.  Of the two events, the development of nuclear weapons capabilities was by far the most important.  It allowed Pakistan to claim the dubious distinction of being the only Muslim country in the world to have such potentially lethal weapons, and it acted to “even the playing field” with the giant military powers in its neighborhood, such as India, China and Iran.  Both Pakistan and its neighbors realized that its sovereignty could never again be threatened without dire consequences.

When the U.S. government made the decision to invade Afghanistan,  U.S. intelligence  assessments that al Qaeda and Taliban operatives would use Pakistan as a safe haven were well understood.  What also was understood was that it would take a lot of U.S. foreign aid (call it bribery or facility fees) to convince corrupt Pakistani government officials to go against the Pakistani peoples‘ basic hatred  for America, and allow the U.S. military access to its territory.   With the continuation of U.S. drone attacks, which have oftentimes killed Pakistani civilians, and with the embarrassment of the Special Ops raid to kill Osama Bin laden, the Pakistani government has finally had enough.  The U.S. has cut off $800 million in “foreign aid”, and the Pakistanis have ousted thousands of U.S. military personnel from its territory.  At this point, it is fair to ask; could things possibly get any worse?  The answer is a resounding Yes.

On Saturday, Pakistani President Zardari traveled to Iran to conduct high level meeting with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  The primary purpose of the meeting is to discuss how to deal with Afghanistan, which is sandwiched between both nations;  however, the talks will also include developing closer military and economic ties between the two countries.   If U.S. military forces could be expelled entirely from Pakistan, and if U.S. economic aid could be replaced by funds from Iran, then the Pakistani could strike a strategic alliance with its brother Muslim nation, while at the same time forcing U.S. military forces to leave the region entirely.  The key to winning any kind of lasting U.S. victory in Afghanistan, if possible at all, will be continued access to Afghanistan through Pakistani territory.  To be denied that access is to lose all possibility of victory.   It appears that the Pakistani  government has finally gotten off the political fence,  and landed in Iran’s back yard.   The ultimate fate of Afghanistan will rest in the hands of Iran and Pakistan, and there’s not much America can do about it.

Rich

Image via Wikipedia

The relationship between the United States and Pakistan is continuing to deteriorate, and the assassination of Bin laden on Pakistani soil will be viewed by most Pakistanis as a major affront to their sovereignty.  This, of course, is nothing new.  The U.S. government has suspected for a long time that Pakistan’s spy Agency, the ISI,   knew of Bin Laden’s where-abouts, and actively assisted him in hiding from the CIA.  The Pakistani government went so far as to forbid the U.S. military from conducting drone attacks on al Qaida targets within their borders, using the threat to civilian populations as an excuse to desist the attacks.  The pleas by the Pakistani government were ignored, and the drone attacks continued.   Doubtless, the American military’s killing of Bin Laden has been a major embarrassment to the Pakistani government, and in particular, to the ISI.  Because of this embarrassment, it is likely that terrorist organizations, like al Qaida and the Taliban, will be flooded with new recruits looking to attack American targets.   In a convoluted way, the killing of Bin Laden may be a huge help to al Qaida in their quest for power and influence within the Pakistani government.

The political structures within the Islamic countries throughout the world are rapidly changing in ways that are not yet fully understood by America and her allies.  The elimination of Bin Laden, the ouster of Mubarak, and the revolutions occurring in Yemen, Syria and Libya are all indications that the old “power structure” is being replaced with something new.   Unfortunately, the new power structures are not likely to be any more democratic than the old ones, and will probably end up looking more like the regime in Iran.  The net result of the assassination of Osama Bin Laden may be an Arab world that is more fundamentalist, more united against Western interests, more militant, and much more willing to align themselves with Iran.   It is probable that the “post Bin Laden” world will be even more dangerous for Americans than any time in the past.  Our vigilance must continue.

Rich

As you may recall, it was only a few weeks ago (March 7, 2010 to be exact)  that national elections were held in Iraq to determine the future course of this war-torn nation.   Unfortunately, the elections determined just about nothing, other than a desire by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to maintain the status quo.   Maliki’s method for maintaining his power is really quite simple;  first of all he ignores the fact that Ayad Allawi, the head of the Iraqiya Party, actually got more votes than he did,  secondly, Maliki uses the power of his office to alter the election outcome, and thirdly, he refuses to meet with Ayad Allawi to even discuss the forming of a new government.  In short, Mr. Maliki’s grand political strategy is to ignore the elections results , and hope that the whole ugly mess will just go away.  The only trouble with this strategy is that it will be a path that almost certainly leads to sectarian war; and probably sooner rather than later.

In essence, the elections in Iraq were about the kind of government that the people wanted to embrace.  Allawi, a secular Shiite, attracted millions of votes from both Sunnis and  Shiites, and proposed, in part,  a reconciliation with Iraq’s Baathist Party loyalists.  He has repeatedly warned that a continuation of the religious Shiite government’s policies of exclusion would lead to renewed bloodshed.  So far, Allawi’s warnings have come true.  In a recent speech, Allawi went so far as to say ” It’s going to be very dangerous, it’s going to be counter-productive, and the backlash will be severe.  The whole foundation of whatever infant democracy we’ve built will be ruined”.  As proof of this, at least ninety people have been killed in attacks over a five day period, and there are signs that the violence is beginning to spread.  In a somewhat dangerous, and perhaps desperate move, Ayad Allawi sent a delegation to neighboring Iran in an effort to get support from the Islamic Republic’s leadership, who have made no secret of their disdain for the  current, al-Maliki regime.

As could be expected, Allawi has asked the U.S. government to intervene on his behalf, and to aggressively prevent sectarian violence from occurring.  Although this move would be a giant step backwards for U.S. policy in Iraq, it should come as no surprise.  Over the last two years, Prime Minister al-Maliki has been consolidating power within his  “State of Law” Party, and has shown an increasing unwillingness to listen to anyone (including the U.S. ) outside his Shiite group of supporters.  It is, unfortunately, unlikely that Maliki will relinquish power any time soon, and equally unlikely that the U.S. government will become involved in any meaningful way.  As a result of this, Iraq will continue to see a significant increase in sectarian violence, and probably will descend into a state of civil war.  When that happens, the wisest move for the U.S. would be to stand aside and let the inevitable take place.

Rich

At the same time that  U.S. troops in Afghanistan are putting their lives on the line  fighting Taliban and al Qaida insurgents, Afghan President Hamid Karzai is meeting with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Kabul.  As could be expected, Ahmadinejad has taken this opportunity to sharply criticize the U.S. for its military presence in Afghanistan, and to emphasize that Americans will never be able to bring peace to Afghanistan through military means.  The Iranian President further stated that the presence of  U.S. troops in Afghanistan is only escalating tensions and creating a higher level of instability.  In response to Mr. Ahmadinejad’s remarks,  Secretary of  Defense, Robert Gates, accused the Iranian leader of playing a “double game”  in Afghanistan by professing support for the Afghan government while undermining U.S.-led efforts to improve the government and stabilize the country.  As accusations fly back and forth between Washington and Tehran, the real truth of the matter is that Hamid Karzai is the one playing the “double game”.

The Karzai government has received billions of dollars of  foreign assistance by playing off  Iran against the United States, and all the while enjoying protection from his enemies by the U.S. military.  Out of one side of his mouth, Karzai thanked Ahmadinejad for his long-time assistance, and called the Islamic state a “real friend”.  Out of the other side of his mouth he thanked Secretary Gates for American help in fighting off insurgents, and called America a friend of Afghanistan.  Even as U.S. troops are engaging in deadly battles in the southern provinces, Mr. Karzai is discussing with Ahmadinejad the possibility of building a railroad linking Iran and Tajikistan through Afghanistan.

It should come as no surprise that the Afghan government is interested in building a stronger alliance with their Muslim brothers in Iran.  Not only do both countries share a thousand mile border, but Iran, being the dominant power in the region, is clearly in a position to influence internal policy in Afghanistan when the time is right.  At the present time, Tehran  is content to let American blood be spilled battling the insurgents, knowing full well that when the battle is over, and American troops leave the region,  the Afghans will elect a pro-Iranian government.   For the Iranians, what cannot be reasonably obtained on the battlefield will be eventually be  obtained through the ballot box.

-Rich

The first step in a long and complicated  political process was completed today, as Iraqis from across the country attempted to cast their ballots.  The voting for  thousands of political candidates transpired in spite of an ominous increase in sectarian violence over the last month, which was intended to derail the democratic process.  In addition to numerous bombings and mortar attacks by Iraqi insurgents, al Qaida warned that anyone taking part in the voting process would risk “God’s wrath and the mujaheddin weapons.”  Millions of Iraqis voted in spite of the dangers involved. The particularly violent and highly divisive election will be a good indicator of whether or not the country can overcome the sectarian divisions that have plagued it since the 2003 U.S.-lead invasion. It may also be a good indicator of whether or not the U.S. can continue the process of troop withdrawals.

President Al-Maliki, in his bid for re-election, is primarily being challenged by two powerful and influential coalitions.  The first group, led by former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, is a coalition  of secular Shiites, who have teamed up with a number of Sunni groups.   This coalition has promised to keep Iraq a secular nation, and to diffuse sectarian tensions through  a process of inclusion.  The second group, led by anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, is a coalition of  mainly Shiite religious groups, intent on turning Iraq into a theocracy.  This coalition is pushing for closer ties to Iran; its large and bellicose neighbor to the north.  In essence, the election is a crossroad, where Iraqis will have to decide whether to move away from sectarian tensions and institute democratic principles of government, or whether they will continue along the fragmented path toward civil war.

The political and economic interests of Iran, and Iran’s desire to become the region’s undisputed super-power cannot be overemphasized as a significant factor influencing the Iraqi election.  If  Muqtada al-Sadr should gain power, there will most likely be a rapid movement toward the curtailing human rights,  and the institution of Islamic fundamentalist laws.  The al-Sadr government will quickly turn to Iran for military assistance in eliminating all political resistance  within the country.  This unfortunate scenario could bring to a halt the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, and the likelihood of armed conflict with Iranian military forces.

The unintended consequences of America’s move to topple Saddam Hussein could be a military conflict with its much more powerful and militarily capable neighbor to the north.   Over the next few months, as the implications of the Iraqi elections come into focus,  U.S. policy makers may have to decide whether to continue the pull-out of troops from Iraq, or to risk getting entangled in another, probably much bloodier, regional conflict.

-Rich