Dear Readers,
My friend and intrepid reporter Howard Altman has launched his blog:
He has kicked it off with contributions by various analysts and scholars (to be posted in a series) in an extensive discussion about what to do about US-Iranian tensions. Please check it out, and feel free to post your comments/feedback. Thanks.
Foreign Affairs Correspondent Jonathan Miller (for ITN Channel 4 News, London) reports: “Omar Shakir, the opposition activist in Homs, told Channel 4 News: ‘We are hoping and trying not to drift into civil war, but only international action will prevent it. If the regime continues its murderous violence, we will have to defend ourselves.’ Both sides are going for broke.”
This is obviously a catch-22 situation for both the anti-Assad activists and opposition groups, as well as for the Assad regime, and even for the international community. Hypothetically, if there is an R2P (“Responsibility to Protect” civilians) mandate implemented by the UN in Syria, much like the Libya case, there is no guarantee that civil war will not occur. In fact, that is exactly what happened in Libya. And, as far as I can tell, the early stirrings of civil war have already rippled inside Syria.
Yes, the odds against the Assad regime will stack up upon applying the R2P mandate, assuming it involves a no-fly zone and NATO-led airstrikes, as in Libya. But, it does not mean that the civil war would be any less bloody.
In fact, the Assad regime will have the opportunity to accuse external powers of interfering in Syria’s internal affairs, and he’ll no doubt point his finger to them and say, “See, I told you it was foreign agitators all along” (not that the opposition will believe him, of course!).
Syria faces a delicate dance, because, unlike Libya, the Syrian government has strong allies, Iran and Russia to name the top two. And, the Assad regime can manipulate proxies in Lebanon to widen the conflict. The stakes are extremely high for the opposition groups as well as the Assad regime. The international community’s potential role can either be a game-changer, or the fuse that further intensifies civil war in Syria. It could be another Lebanon. It’s two sides of the same coin: It can either offer Assad opportunities to exploit foreign involvement, or it can ultimately be the nail in his coffin. I’m guessing, sadly, that one thing Syria will not face a shortage of is shrouds and coffins.
NOTE: Everything I write in this blog constitutes my personal opinions and views.
On this Martin Luther King holiday, it is all the more fitting to shake our collective fingers at violent dictators like Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad, and remind them that, as MLK put it so eloquently, “unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word.”
Truth and justice do not hide behind guns, bombs, and torture devices. And, history has shown that the former carry moral legitimacy that far outweighs the morally bankrupt expediency of violence and brutality. The former also is more powerful in disarming the bully than the latter will ever be in oppressing the innocents.
Fear is never the best weapon. It’s a temporary emotion, and tyrants will only have temporary effectiveness. Noncooperation, noncompliance, and disobedience will always be stronger than tyranny, especially when they are infused with an infectious stubbornness that will not die. This is Mahatma Gandhi’s legacy, and also MLK’s.
Today Al Jazeera is reporting that Imad Ghalioun, a member of the Syrian parliament, has defected and joined the opposition. According to Al Jazeera –
“Imad Ghalioun, who represented the central city of Homs, told the Dubai-based al-Arabiya TV on Sunday night that the city is “disaster stricken” and has been subjected to sweeping human rights violations. Ghalioun said he was able to leave Syria before a travel ban was imposed on officials.
He said there are many legislators who support the uprising but have not said so publicly.”
It’s just a matter of time, for fear is temporary. Stay stubborn in the path of truth and justice. I leave you with a quote by MLK:
“Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.”
NOTE: Everything I write in this blog constitutes my personal opinions and views.
In his latest public speech, Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad sounded a lot more like the late Colonel Qaddafi, who threatened to crush his opponents mercilessly. Where Qaddafi threatened to go door-to-door, house-to-house, and alley-to-alley – and made good on his threats – Assad is now saying he will crush his opponents with an “iron hand.” Assad started off in the early stages of the Syrian uprising sounding very delusional and detached from the reality on the ground, to the point of making ridiculous claims in his interview with Barbara Walters a few weeks ago. He attempted to dissociate his presidency from the authority and responsibility of giving orders to, and controlling, the state security forces. But, he fooled no one.
However, Assad’s latest 110-minute speech in Damascus manifests a shift in his rhetoric towards an even more threatening stance, which by the way contradicts what he said in the Walters interview, and now puts him in a similar light as Qaddafi. Whereas Qaddafi referred to the opposition as “rats, cockroaches, and Al Qaeda terrorists on drugs,” Assad labeled his opposition as “terrorists, murderers, criminals.”
The critical question for the international community is whether or not the “R2P” (Responsibility to Protect civilians) UN mandate applies to the Syrian case. With 5,000+ casualties (mostly civilians), the protesters in Syria have been pleading with the international community to apply the R2P mandate and protect them from Assad’s ruthless crackdown.
But, Syria is not Libya, and even in Libya, with its much smaller size and less formidable military compared to Syria, it took NATO and the rebels several long months to achieve their missions, and for the regime to fall. Syria is a different nut to crack. You can compare the military strength between Syria and Libya at Global Firepower: http://www.globalfirepower.com/. Plus, one must consider Syria’s powerful allies, Iran and Russia, as a January 10th article in the Globe and Mail describes:
“The Syrian President still has powerful allies like Russia, five of whose naval vessels docked on the weekend at the Syrian port of Tartous, where the Russians maintain a base.”
Nonetheless, Assad clearly is not applying lessons learned from the 2011 Arab uprisings and revolts. Perhaps denial and delusions of grandeur and invincibility are in the DNA of dictators.
NOTE: Everything I write in this blog constitutes my personal opinions and views.
Attacking Iran would be an ideological victory for hard-line Salafists / Wahhabis, tipping the regional balance-of-power in favor of the ultra-orthodox. This is not a minor consequence. Like it or not, Iran’s Twelver Shiite national ideology is somewhat of a counterbalance to the ultra-orthodox Salafists in the region.
The Egyptian parliamentary election results show that the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom & Justice party gained 193 seats (45.2%), and more worrying are the gains of Al-Nour, the Salafist party, which has 108 seats (25.3%), according to Jadaliyya. And the Saudis are arming themselves to the teeth.
Now that tensions are rising with Iran, and supposed progress in its nuclear program may trigger further confrontations, what policy-makers are potentially failing to see is that Iran’s demise might translate into the ideological hegemony of hard-line Islamists, namely Saudi-oriented Salafists / Wahhabists, throughout the region. That is not a good thing for Western national interests, nor is it good for the Middle East region, as it is the antithesis to liberal democracy, and I will even go as far as to say that it potentially will arrest the region’s development prospects. That is a controversial statement to make, I know, but nonetheless, that is my opinion. Theocracies by definition restrict people’s rights and freedoms, which in turn arrest comprehensive socioeconomic development; and Saudi Arabia, which exports its hard-line ideology globally, is the epitome of a totalitarian religious-police state. If the region is tilting in that direction, then that’s very bad news for secularists, liberals, and in my view, women and minority groups.
Western powers need to be very careful about which regional horse they want to back in the showdown against Iran. There’s no denying that the Iranian regime must be contained, but the danger is a scenario wherein we might inadvertently end up backing and empowering hard-line Salafi-types in the effort to keep Iran in check. The longer-term ramifications, even ideological ones, must be thought out carefully, or else we’re doomed to repeat history. Can we say “Afghanistan”?
In a January 9th opinion piece in the Tehran Times, former Iranian Ambassador to Syria, Hossein Sheikholeslam, placed the blame for the current turmoil in Syria squarely on Western powers allegedly backing the opposition Salafists. He says:
“The Arab governments that have dispatched representatives to monitor the situation in Syria actually have terrible records in terms of human rights and political liberty in their own countries. This hypocrisy shows that instigating a civil war in Syria is the real goal of these countries. The recent wave of suicide bombings in Damascus is a clear illustration of this policy, which is directly sponsored by the United States and is being implemented by the Salafis.”
Yes, we must be mindful of the source of that quote. However, if there’s an element of truth to this, then we risk backing a horse that could potentially emerge as a Frankenstein’s monster down the road, not unlike what happened with the Cold War zeal to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan by supporting the most diehard militants in the Af-Pak region (i.e., the Reagan Doctrine).
And, this quote is in no way cited in support of the Assad or Iranian regimes on my part, so please do not misconstrue my comments. My posting is only meant to serve as an analytical caveat.
As I remind my students, the Middle East is a 3-D chess game, with a lot of moving parts. We must tread very carefully. Expediency can lead to mistakes, some far too costly.
NOTE: Everything I write in this blog constitutes my personal opinions and views.
My interview in Gulan Magazine, Iraqi-Kurdistan, has been published (Jan. 7, 2012):
http://www.gulan-media.com/english/t_detail.php?section=21&id=37
It also appears in Kurdish language. Feel free to comment.
There’s a circle of journalists and scholars who has been following and writing about Afghanistan since the Soviet invasion days. One of them is Edward Girardet, whose current book, Killing the Cranes: A Reporter’s Journey through Three Decades of War in Afghanistan, offers personal accounts and commentaries about his encounters with Ahmed Shah Massoud, Gulbuddin Hekmetyar, and even Osama bin Laden. Ed was a co-panelist with me at a 9/11 tenth anniversary talk we participated in at the University of Maine School of Law last year. His talk was absolutely captivating, and I have a hard time putting down his book.
I like to consider myself as part of this circle, as I have also closely followed Afghanistan since the Soviet invasion. Since 9/11 and the US campaign that toppled the Taliban regime, the US and ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) have come face-to-face with the complexities of the region. If only the book Charlie Wilson’s War (2004) had been published sooner! But, still, I doubt zealous policy makers on all sides would really appreciate or comprehend the complicatedness of the situation in Afghanistan, since diverse factors of the equations pertaining to each and every aspect of the situational factors are rarely considered, not to mention the often imprecise metrics in measuring the effectiveness of policies and strategies help put a more positive spin on the efforts and achievements of the coalition forces. This is not to say that there are absolutely no positive results at all, but in light of a 2014 drawdown, this political analyst cannot help but be cynical.
For instance, much of Afghanistan’s economy relies on drug production and trafficking, as well as an intricate network of organized criminal activities involving warlords, gangsters, and a variety of opportunists, black marketers, and middlemen. Check out this November 3, 2010 Time Magazine article (excerpts) describing only one aspect of Afghanistan’s black market economy:
“Popularly known as the ‘Bush Market’ and, increasingly, the ‘Obama Market’ the warren of small shops is the largest of several commercial centers named after U.S. Presidents that have sprung up since the fall of the Taliban in 2001. Indeed, the presence of foreign armies in the country has for many years spawned a supply and demand for their homegrown products. Three decades ago, during the Soviet occupation, its forerunner was called the ‘Brezhnev Market’ after the former head of the Communist Party, and its stalls were packed with basic Russian commodities. Now, 10 years into an American-led war, hard-to-find Western items are the top draw. ‘I come here all the time for new clothes,’ says Ajmal, 27, as he browses a selection of North Face trekking shoes. ‘The styles are good, the prices are low. It’s great’ …
At the Bagram market, bulletproof vests and Kevlar helmets are known to turn up. U.S. Army and Marine digital-camouflage fatigues are widely available for about $40 a set. And at another market near the capital’s largest mosque, Afghan police, army and even presidential guard uniforms sell for even less. (It’s not unheard of for Taliban suicide bombers disguised as Afghan security forces to infiltrate and attack large gatherings.) Yet shopkeeper Khwaja Muhammad, 23, concedes that although many of the customers are state military employees who go to buy a second uniform or have alterations done, ‘We sell to anybody with cash’.”
This is just one small glimpse into a spider-web network of the underground economy in Afghanistan, often linked to counterparts in Pakistan. Ed’s book drives home the point: if only we paid attention to certain caveats.
I contend that in order for a viable, legitimate economy to flourish, Afghanistan needs to empower an independent and impartial judiciary, which would presumably prosecute the lawbreakers, including those in the organized crime networks. Some people argue with me that a viable Afghan judiciary is simply not possible, and even that it’s not the answer to Afghanistan’s problems. It might not be the answer, but it better be part of the equation.
NOTE: Everything I write in this blog constitutes my personal opinions and views.
International Relations have seen ping-pong diplomacy, chess diplomacy, sports diplomacy, and musical and cultural diplomacy. Now, we have the potential for “fisherman diplomacy.”
Thirteen Iranian fishermen were profoundly grateful to the US Navy today. That’s not something we see often. Somali pirates had taken over the Iranian vessel and held the crew hostage for weeks. This happened in the thick of tensions in the Persian Gulf region, with Iran holding naval exercises and threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz; and demanding that the Stennis aircraft carrier leave the region. Ironically, the very same aircraft carrier group’s forces rescued the Iranian fishermen in response to a distress call.
This development is a golden opportunity for Iran and the US to talk to each other, and in the process calm the tensions that have been building up for the last few weeks. Interestingly, during all the saber rattling, Iran has hinted at willingness to hold talks about the nuclear program. The January 7th edition of the Tehran Times reports that Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi “said at a joint press conference with (Turkish Foreign Minister) Ahmet Davutoglu in Tehran on Thursday that the Islamic Republic is also ready to resume talks with the 5+1 group (the UN Security Council members + Germany) at a time and place agreed by both sides.”
However, I could not see any mention of the fishermen’s rescue on the Tehran Times website. This is not the time to allow egos and pride get in the way of diplomacy and preventing future conflicts. Rescuing innocent hostages from pirates should be seen as a gesture of good faith. I recommend that all sides go fishing together, but not in pirate-infested waters.
NOTE: Everything I write in this blog constitutes my personal opinions and views.
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei spoke at a “Forum on Strategic Thought” on Wednesday, the theme of which was “Women and Family.” This is what he said, according to the Tehran Times:
“’The role of women in the campaign (against the Iranian dictator Mohammad Reza Pahlavi’s regime), in the victory of the Islamic Revolution, and after the revolution, particularly during the extremely difficult time of the Sacred Defense (1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war), and in various areas is an effective, special, and unique role, which cannot be measured with any criterion,” the Leader said.
Ayatollah Khamenei also advised scholars, researchers, and the media to pay due attention to the issues of women and family from the viewpoint of Islam.
Elsewhere in his remarks, the Leader criticized the West’s attitude toward women as insulting and said that this attitude has damaged the dignity and status of women in Western societies.’”
The ambiguity of his comments surprised me. I don’t know if it was limited reporting, or he in fact did not elaborate on the role of women during Iran’s revolution and crises, and the “special, unique role, which cannot be measured with any criterion.” Notwithstanding the theocracy’s male-mullah-dominated power structure, it’s extremely unnerving to me that the state would define women’s roles and effectiveness. I’d like to ask my readers to chime in on this one.
NOTE: Everything I write in this blog constitutes my personal opinions and views.
The world now has two “Supreme Leaders”: Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Iran, and Kim Jong Un in North Korea. And, the late Colonel Muammar Qaddafi called himself the “Brother Leader.” But it’s the double “supreme” leaders that render a global enigma. Can the world have two “supreme leaders”? Of course, this is a rhetorical question, tinged with a dose of sarcasm.
Khamanei runs a totalitarian theocracy, based on Twelver Shiism. Kim Jong Un, now succeeding his deceased father, Kim Jong Il, heads a totalitarian “Stalinist” state. Both, to varying degrees, stoke personality cults, both rely on powerful militaries, and both embrace nuclear power. The legacy of both has led their respective countries into isolation, invited harsh economic sanctions, arrested socioeconomic development, brutally repressed opposition and grossly violated human rights, and provocatively brought their countries to the brink of war without regard to the consequences of their actions, and at the expense of their own people. Supremely reckless indeed.
NOTE: Everything I write in this blog constitutes my personal opinions and views.
Hayat Alvi, Ph.D. 