Iran Chooses to Quickly De-escalate After Pakistan Hits Back Hard

Pakistan swiftly retaliated with "killer drones, rockets, loitering munitions and stand-off weapons" to an Iranian military provocation in Balochistan province this week, according to multiple media reports. Pakistanis felt it was necessary to hit back hard to send a loud and clear message to the Iranians to respect Pakistan's national sovereignty. Within hours of the strong Pakistani military response, the foreign ministers of the two neighbors agreed to de-escalate tensions in a phone call. The Pakistani foreign ministry sent out the following tweet after this phone conversation: "Foreign Minister @JalilJilani spoke with the Foreign Minister of Iran, @Amirabdolahian today. Foreign Minister Jilani expressed Pakistan’s readiness to work with Iran on all issues based on the spirit of mutual trust and cooperation. He underscored the need for closer cooperation on security issues". 

Pakistan Foreign Minister Jalil Abbas Jilani (L), Iranian Foreign Minister Amir-Abdollahian

In the early hours of Tuesday, Iran fired missiles and drones at an armed group Jaish al-Adl in Pakistan’s southwestern border province of Balochistan. Pakistan in turn struck anti-Pakistan Baloch militant targets inside Iran on Thursday. Pakistan also recalled its ambassador from Tehran and blocked the return of Iran’s envoy to Islamabad. 

The Iranian attack on Pakistan came without warnings at multiple forums where the two sides were engaging each other. Just prior to the Iranian provocation, the Iranian Foreign Minister met Pakistani Prime Minister Anwarul Haq Kakar at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. There were also joint navy drills taking place which were quickly abandoned after the surprise attack. 

The only way to explain it is that the IRGC, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, initiated the attack on Pakistan without consulting with the Iranian government of President Ebrahim Raisi. The IRG also targeted locations in Iraq and Syria. The IRGC works independently of the Government in Tehran. Its commander reports directly to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. 

Late IRGC Commander General Qassem Soleimani 

IRGC appears have been personified by its former leader General Qassem Soleimani who was assassinated by the US military on former President Donald Trump's orders. He was known for his independence from the Tehran government. There were reports in 2018 of then President Hassan Rouhani lashing out at Soleimani during a meeting with several senior IRGC officers in attendance,  accusing him of hiding the truth from the president and even from the supreme leader. Soleimani left the room in anger. Earlier, when the two met during Friday prayers, Soleimani warned the president about the “folly of not increasing the budget allotted to Quds.

Soleimani sat by Imam Khamenei’s side at key meetings, conveying his importance in the eyes of the spiritual leader. He met Syrian leader Bashar Al-Assad in February 2019 together with the supreme leader — but without Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, triggering resignation threats by Iran's top diplomat at the time. 

In February, 2019, Soleimani threatened Pakistan. He boasted of Iran's "independent power and honor". He said: "I warn you not to test Iran and anyone who has tested Iran has received a firm response. We are speaking to Pakistan with a friendly tone and we are telling that country not to allow their borders to become a source of insecurity for the neighboring countries..... Iran enjoys independent power and honor. Some countries have wealth, but no prowess. Trump tells the Al-Saud that if it hadn't been for the US support, Saudi Arabia would not have survived and Saudi Arabia's coalitions in the region have all ended in failure." Soleimani's tone in this message to Pakistan is anything but "friendly".

Related Links:

Haq's Musings

South Asia Investor Review

General Soleimani's Hardline Against Pakistan

Iran-Pakistan Ties

Iran's Chabahar and Pakistan's Gwadar Ports

Indian RAW Agent Kulbhushan Jhadav Used Chabahar

Iran-Saudi Conflict

Pakistan's Nuclear Program

Iran Nuclear Deal

1971 India-Pakistan War

Chabahar vs Gwadar Ports

Did America Contribute to the Rise of ISIS?

Riaz Haq's YouTube Channel

PakAlumni Social Network

Does America Share Responsibility For the Rise of ISIS?

Did the Obama administration enable ISIS, also known as Daesh, to unleash its reign of terror in Iraq and Syria? Have the policies of successive prior US administrations contributed to rising wave of global terrorism today? Is the American filmmaker Oliver Stone right when he says "we are not under threat. We are the threat"? Let's examine answers to these questions in light of available facts and evidence.

US Support for ISIS:

A recently declassified DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) document of August 2012 said that “the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI (Al- Qaeda in Iraq) are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria” being supported by “the West, Gulf countries and Turkey.”

The document DIA declassified under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), analyzed the situation in Syria in the summer of 2012 and predicted: “If the situation unravels, there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria… and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime.”

In an interview with Mehdi Hasan of Al Jazeera, former head of DIA and President-elect Donald Trump's National Security Advisor General Michael Flynn confirmed that it was a "willful decision" of the Obama White House to transfer arms to the Salafists and Al Qaeda in 2012 to defeat the Assad regime in Syria. Here's what General Flynn told Mehdi Hasan:

"I don’t know if they turned a blind eye. I think it was a decision (US arms transfers to Salafis and Al Qaeda fighting in Syria in 2012). I think it was a willful decision....Well, a willful decision to do what they're doing, which, which you have to really – you have to really ask the President (Obama), what is it that he actually is doing with the, with the policy that is in place, because it is very, very confusing? I’m sitting here today, Mehdi, and I don’t, I can’t tell you exactly what that is, and I've been at this for a long time. ...I think it was a strategic mistake. I think history will not be kind. It was a strategic mistake"

Here's a video clip of General Michael Flynn's Aljazeera interview with Mehdi Hasan:

https://youtu.be/i0_BEPfYk4A

US Role in Iraq:

In an interview with Vice News, President Barack H. Obama acknowledged that the rise of ISIS was directly linked to the 2002 American invasion and occupation of Iraq during President George W. Bush's administration.

 “Two things: One is, ISIL is a direct outgrowth of Al-Qaeda in Iraq that grew out of our invasion,” Obama said in an interview with VICE News. “Which is an example of unintended consequences. Which is why we should generally aim before we shoot.”

More recently, the CIA agent John Nixon who interrogated Saddam Husain has revealed that the former Iraqi dictator had predicted the rise of ISIS... a prediction that has turned out to be accurate. Here's what he told Amy Goodman of Democracy Now in a interview:

"When people ask me, you know, "Was it worth taking him out of power?" I say, "You know, look around you. Show me something that is positive that happened." Iraq, right now, is a country that has 2 million displaced people. Parts of its territory are held by ISIS. You have a dysfunctional government that is probably more corrupt than Saddam’s government was. And if ask the average Iraqi—Sunni, Shia or Kurd—you know, "Were things better back then? Were services better? Did the government do more for you?" I think they would say yes. I can’t find one thing. And if you said, "Well, maybe, what about the Kurds? They’re almost independent now," that was happening already. I can’t find one thing positive that came out of his removal from power". 

US Role in Afghan Soviet War:

In an earlier testimony to the US Congress, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said very candidly that "the terrorists we are fighting today we funded 20 years ago".  Here's what she said:

"We also have a history of kinda moving in and out of Pakistan.....Let’s remember here… the people we are fighting today we funded them twenty years ago… we said let’s go recruit these mujahideen. .....And great, let them come from Saudi Arabia and other countries, importing their Wahabi brand of Islam so that we can go beat the Soviet Union.  And guess what, they (Soviets) retreated....it led to the fall of the Soviet Union.... It wasn't a bad investment....But let's be careful what we sow because we will harvest....we then left Pakistan. Now you deal with the stingers...you deal with the mines....we don't have anything to do with you...in fact we are sanctioning you...  ”

Here's a video clip of Ex US Sec of State Hillary Clinton's testimony:

https://youtu.be/XY-BWScpdZw



Summary:

All the evidence suggests that the US policies have significantly contributed to the growth of global terror. I hope the West, particularly the United States as its leaders, will introspect about the West's actions in the Middle East in the past and the dangerous consequences of such actions the world faces today.  I hope the leaders of the West will ponder the unintended consequences before starting more overt or covert wars in the region.

Related Links:

Haq's Musings

Riaz Haq's Youtube Channel

Did the West Sow the Seeds of ISIS?

General Petraeus Debunks Allegations of Duplicity Against Pakistan

Unintended Consequences of Charlie Wilson's War

Jihadis Growing After Afghan and Iraq Wars

US Invasion of Iraq

Global Power Shift After Industrial Revolution

Seeing Bin Laden's Death in Wider Perspective

Straight Talk by Gates on Pakistan

What If Musharraf Had Said No to US After 911? 

Who Are the Haqqanis?

Creation of the State of Israel

Sykes Picot Centenary: Did the West Sow the Seeds of ISIS?

The Middle East continues to threaten global peace a century after British and French representatives, Sir Mark Sykes and Francois Georges Picot, signed the Sykes-Picot agreement named after them. This accord, concluded on May 19, 1916, divided the region extending from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean between the two colonial powers.

Following the fall of the Ottoman Empire after the first World War, the British and the French colonial masters created a variety of states whose borders were drawn with little regard for ethnic, tribal, religious or linguistic considerations.

Today, Daish (ISIS) militants are erasing the border between Iraq and Syria and pushing to get rid of all the region's frontiers created by Sykes-Picot. It is ironic that the Kurdish foes of ISIS share the goal of dismantling the borders that divide ethnic Kurds into several nations today.

The West's actions since Sykes-Picot have further exacerbated the wounds inflicted on the peoples of the region during the European Colonial rule of the Middle East. Examples include the CIA-supported restoration of the Shah of Iran to power, the creation and the unconditional support of the State of Israel, the Suez crisis and the US invasions of Iraq.

In an interview with Vice News, President Barack H. Obama acknowledged that the rise of ISIS was directly linked to the 2002 American invasion and occupation of Iraq during President George W. Bush's administration.

 “Two things: One is, ISIL is a direct outgrowth of Al-Qaeda in Iraq that grew out of our invasion,” Obama said in an interview with VICE News. “Which is an example of unintended consequences. Which is why we should generally aim before we shoot.”

In an earlier testimony to the US Congress, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said very candidly that "the terrorists we are fighting today we funded 20 years ago".

I hope the Sykes-Picot centenary causes the West, particularly the United States as its leader, to introspect about the West's actions in the Middle East in the past and the dangerous consequences of such actions we together face today.  I hope the leaders of the West will ponder the unintended consequences before starting more wars in the region.


Related Links:

Haq's Musings

Unintended Consequences of Charlie Wilson's War

Jihadis Growing After Afghan & Iraq Wars

US Invasion of Iraq

Global Power Shift After Industrial Revolution

Seeing Bin Laden's Death in Wider Perspective

Straight Talk by Gates on Pakistan

What If Musharraf Had Said No to US After 911? 

Who Are the Haqqanis?

Creation of the State of Israel

Pakistan and Iran Figure in Biden-Palin Debate

Sarah Palin, the Republican candidate for vice president, went head to head with a much more experienced Democrat vice presidential hopeful Joe Biden in their only debate tonight. While she may have lacked on substance, she was quite effective with her folksy manner and charm that has endeared her to small-town America. She was able to hold her own in articulating and defending McCain's policy positions regarding Pakistan and Iran, the two important foreign policy challenges facing the next administration. At the same time, Joe Biden, often described as a gaffe machine, was able to avoid looking patronizing or disrespectful toward Sarah Palin.

Here is the debate transcript as it relates to foreign policy:

IFILL: Let's move to Iran and Pakistan. I'm curious about what you think starting with you Senator Biden. What's the greater threat, a nuclear Iran or an unstable Afghanistan? Explain why.

BIDEN: Well, they're both extremely dangerous. I always am focused, as you know Gwen, I have been focusing on for a long time, along with Barack on Pakistan. Pakistan already has nuclear weapons. Pakistan already has deployed nuclear weapons. Pakistan's weapons can already hit Israel and the Mediterranean. Iran getting a nuclear weapon would be very, very destabilizing. They are more than - they are not close to getting a nuclear weapon that's able to be deployed. So they're both very dangerous. They both would be game changers.

But look, here's what the fundamental problem I have with John's policy about terror instability. John continues to tell us that the central war in the front on terror is in Iraq. I promise you, if an attack comes in the homeland, it's going to come as our security services have said, it is going to come from al Qaeda planning in the hills of Afghanistan and Pakistan. That's where they live. That's where they are. That's where it will come from. And right now that resides in Pakistan, a stable government needs to be established. We need to support that democracy by helping them not only with their military but with their governance and their economic well-being.

There have been 7,000 madrasses built along that border. We should be helping them build schools to compete for those hearts and minds of the people in the region so that we're actually able to take on terrorism and by the way, that's where bin Laden lives and we will go at him if we have actually intelligence.

IFILL: Governor, nuclear Pakistan, unstable Pakistan, nuclear Iran? Which is the greater threat?

PALIN: Both are extremely dangerous, of course. And as for who coined that central war on terror being in Iraq, it was the General Petraeus and al Qaeda, both leaders there and it's probably the only thing that they're ever going to agree on, but that it was a central war on terror is in Iraq. You don't have to believe me or John McCain on that. I would believe Petraeus and the leader of al Qaeda.

An armed, nuclear armed especially Iran is so extremely dangerous to consider. They cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons period. Israel is in jeopardy of course when we're dealing with Ahmadinejad as a leader of Iran. Iran claiming that Israel as he termed it, a stinking corpse, a country that should be wiped off the face of the earth. Now a leader like Ahmadinejad who is not sane or stable when he says things like that is not one whom we can allow to acquire nuclear energy, nuclear weapons. Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong Il, the Castro brothers, others who are dangerous dictators are one that Barack Obama has said he would be willing to meet with without preconditions being met first.

And an issue like that taken up by a presidential candidate goes beyond naivete and goes beyond poor judgment. A statement that he made like that is downright dangerous because leaders like Ahmadinejad who would seek to acquire nuclear weapons and wipe off the face of the earth an ally like we have in Israel should not be met with without preconditions and diplomatic efforts being undertaken first.

IFILL: Governor and senator, I want you both to respond to this. Secretaries of state Baker, Kissinger, Powell, they have all advocated some level of engagement with enemies. Do you think these former secretaries of state are wrong on that?

PALIN: No and Dr. Henry Kissinger especially. I had a good conversation with him recently. And he shared with me his passion for diplomacy. And that's what John McCain and I would engage in also. But again, with some of these dictators who hate America and hate what we stand for, with our freedoms, our democracy, our tolerance, our respect for women's rights, those who would try to destroy what we stand for cannot be met with just sitting down on a presidential level as Barack Obama had said he would be willing to do. That is beyond bad judgment. That is dangerous.

No, diplomacy is very important. First and foremost, that is what we would engage in. But diplomacy is hard work by serious people. It's lining out clear objectives and having your friends and your allies ready to back you up there and have sanctions lined up before any kind of presidential summit would take place.

IFILL: Senator?

BIDEN: Can I clarify this? This is simply not true about Barack Obama. He did not say sit down with Ahmadinejad.

BIDEN: The fact of the matter is, it surprises me that Senator McCain doesn't realize that Ahmadinejad does not control the security apparatus in Iran. The theocracy controls the security apparatus, number one.

Number two, five secretaries of state did say we should talk with and sit down.

Now, John and Governor Palin now say they're all for -- they have a passion, I think the phrase was, a passion for diplomacy and that we have to bring our friends and allies along.

Our friends and allies have been saying, Gwen, "Sit down. Talk. Talk. Talk." Our friends and allies have been saying that, five secretaries of state, three of them Republicans.

And John McCain has said he would go along with an agreement, but he wouldn't sit down. Now, how do you do that when you don't have your administration sit down and talk with the adversary?

And look what President Bush did. After five years, he finally sent a high-ranking diplomat to meet with the highest-ranking diplomats in Iran, in Europe, to try to work out an arrangement.

Our allies are on that same page. And if we don't go the extra mile on diplomacy, what makes you think the allies are going to sit with us?

The last point I'll make, John McCain said as recently as a couple of weeks ago he wouldn't even sit down with the government of Spain, a NATO ally that has troops in Afghanistan with us now. I find that incredible.

Palin argued that Biden is a Washington insider who has disagreed with Obama on many crucial policy issues and voted differently from Obama over the years. She said Biden's positions have been closer to McCain's than Obama's on Iraq. I agree with Palin's assessment that Biden voted for Iraq war and only starting opposing Iraq war after things started go badly there to avoid taking responsibility for failure. In fact, he not only voted against the surge in Iraq, but he made the case for effectively dividing Iraq into three countries and existing from there. Division of Iraq would have been extremely destabilizing for the entire region, with southern Iraq aligning with Iran, and Kurds demanding freedom of Kurds in Turkey, Iran and Syria to join with northern Iraq. While attacking Obama and Biden as liberal Democrats aligned completely with their party, Palin emphasized the maverick image of John McCain and her record as a reformer within the Republican party. I believe Palin was successful in blunting Biden's attempts to link John McCain with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

Overall, Palin came through as a genuine people's person while Biden did well by showing his deeper knowledge and long experience, ready to be vice president and, if necessary, president.

The Afghan War: Is it Dangerously Escalating?

With America's Iraq front relatively quiet, the world's attention is beginning to turn to the forgotten war in Afghanistan grabbing the spotlight. Some of the recent headlines proclaim as follows:

Monday, March 17, 2008
A suicide bomber in southern Afghanistan killed seven people, including three civilians and three NATO soldiers, as the Afghan military and the ...
Source: Bloomberg

Monday, March 17, 2008
Despite New Highways, Afghans Drive at Own Risk.
Afghan drivers say the road, and other highways like it, are more like the Wild West.
Source: NPR

Monday, March 17, 2008
Missile Strikes Kill 20 In Pakistan;
Parliament Convenes amid Tensions with Musharraf;
110 Arrested in Connection with Bombing of FBI Agents
Source: Informed Comment

Monday, March 17, 2008
Air strike kills 9 militants following bombing in Pakistan, U.S. says
Source: Reuters

Sunday, March 16, 2008
Missiles from an unmanned drone flattened a suspected militant safehouse Sunday in Pakistan's tribal area along the Afghan border, killing 20.
Source: Associated Press

Thursday, March 13, 2008
Taleban Calling the Shots: In a country that is nearly wholly reliant on wireless communications (for lack of any land-line infrastructure), the main mobile networks (all privately run) have begun switching off service at night after attacks on 10 cell towers, the latest on Tuesday night. Score this round for the Taliban.
Source: Foreign Policy Passport

May 13, 2007
Scores of civilian deaths over the past months from the heavy U.S. and allied reliance on airstrikes to battle Taliban insurgents are threatening popular support for the Afghan government and creating severe strains within the NATO alliance.
Source: International Herald Tribune

Most observers, including this scribe, see these headlines as a sign of dangerous escalation of the war in Afghanistan with growing likelihood of expanding into Pakistan and affecting the entire region. Not only are the Taliban resurgent in Afghanistan, they are boldly attacking with impunity inside Pakistan under the new energetic leadership of Baitullah Mehsud.

There are parallels here between the Afghan war and the war in Indochina which began in Vietnam but grew to engulf the entire region including Cambodia and Laos. In Indochina, the US became frustrated with the lack of progress against the Viet Cong and blamed the existence of Viet Cong sanctuaries in the neighboring countries. This was followed by the US invasion of both Laos and Cambodia, resulting in more than a million deaths in carpet bombing. A similar situation is developing here, if you substitute the Viet Cong by the Taleban. The growing US frustration against the Taleban is creating a dangerous situation with the US mounting more and more cross-border attacks into the tribal region of Pakistan.

In spite of their differences with the Bush policies in Iraq, the leading US presidential candidates seem to be in agreement with attacks on insurgent targets in Pakistan, paving the way for a possible "Gulf of Tonkin" type resolution in the US Congress. This situation makes it very likely that the war in Afghanistan will become a regional war outlasting several US administrations, just like the Indochina war did in the 1960s and the early 1970s. With the presence of three nuclear powers in this region, this time the regional war could be catastrophic for the entire region and the world. In such a situation, the US may not be able to pull out like it did in Vietnam. The US policy makers would be well advised to tread with care as they contemplate their policies and actions to deal with the Afghan insurgency.

Conspiracy Theorists on the Internet Outage

Iran has been completely cut off. Israel, Iraq and Lebanon are not affected at all.
With several undersea cables cut within days, the rest of the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia including India and Pakistan are having serious Internet problems. Is all of this just a coincidence? These questions are being raised in various ways and reported by Jerusalem Post and CNN on the causes of this massive outage. Many find it difficult to accept the ostensible reason: Ships dragging anchors cut all of these cables. It seems to be too much of a coincidence. The conspiracy theorists of all stripes are having a field day while others are calling for a serious investigation into the causes to prevent such outages in the future.
Regarding the latest status in Pakistan, blogger Masud Reza is reporting as follows:
"PTCL and TWA-1 both have arranged for additional capacity on SMW4 segment 1 from SingTel. PTCL has successfully brought an STM-4 and three STM-1s in operation whereas TWA1 has been able to acquire four STM-1 circuits from SingTel.
So for PTCL users, things should be near to normal now and for TWA1 things should improve dramatically."
With increasig dependence of the world on the Internet connectivity, such incidents of outages take on special strategic significance. In some instances, Internet connections represent the lifelines of global companies with operations spread over Middle East, Asia and Latin America. World trade and global investments also take a beating in the absence of the Internet. Globalization, whether you like it or hate it, relies greatly on the Internet connectivity. Regardless of the conspiracy theories and theorists, there is clearly a need to understand and improve the reliability of the Internet.

Alan Greenspan's book tour

Former Federal Reserve Chief Alan Greenspan has been promoting his book "The Age of Turbulence" for the last couple of weeks. Among other things, he is talking about his reasons for supporting the Iraq invasion and his assessment that the Chinese stock market is a bubble waiting to burst. On the question of his support for Iraq invasion, he explains that he was convinced Saddam Husain would block the Strait of Hormuz if not removed from power. I think he's just flat wrong on this reasoning.Other than the US or Europeans, the only power that had the capacity to close the Strait is Iran. The removal of Saddam has, in fact, strengthened Iran significantly and made it more likely that the Strait would be closed in the event of war in the Persian Gulf involving Iran.
On the question of Shanghai bubble, he is more qualified than most but I still think he is wrong. The Chinese economy is very strong and growing rapidly. China is the factory of the world and it is developing a very large consumer class of its own with a pent-up demand not too different from the US consumer demand right after the WW II. So the Chinese markets are backed up a strong and rapidly growing economy to justify high valuation of its stock.