The decision by Formula One to go ahead with the Bahrain Grand Prix has once again thrust the small island state into the international media. Like much of the wider Muslim world Bahrain has seen mass demonstrations over the past year due to the Arab Spring.

What is the reality of Bahrain?

Bahrain is an island off the coast of Saudi Arabia with a population of 1.2 million. Bahrain and Saudi Arabia are linked by a causeway. For most purposes, Bahrain is part of Saudi Arabia. Unlike Saudi Arabia, it is not a major oil producer, but it is a banking centre. It is also the home of the US 5th Fleet, and has close ties to the US. The majority of its population is Shia – over 70%, but its government is Sunni and heavily linked to Saudi Arabia. The Shi’ah population has not fared as well economically as Shia’ah in other countries in the region, and tensions between the government and the public have long existed.

What has led to the current Tensions?

The protests against the monarchy began as the Arab spring was in full flow. Lingering frustration among the Shi’ah majority led many of them to take to the streets in protest. Protests were largely peaceful, until a raid by police on the night of 17 February 2011 against protesters sleeping at the Pearl Roundabout in Manama, where four protesters were killed.^. This galvanized the protests and their message was clear – the end of the monarchy, which has ruled Bahrain since the late 18th century. Protesters regularly occupied the Pearl Roundabout which became the symbol of the protests. On 22^nd February, an estimated one hundred thousand people, one fifth of all Bahrainis, marched. It was this protest that led the international community to take notice.

What is the history of Bahrain? 

Until the middle ages Bahrain was composed of Al-Ahsaand Al-Qatif(both now within the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia) and the Awal Islands (now the Bahrain Islands). The region stretched from Basra in Iraq to the Strait of Hormuz in Oman. This was Iqlīmal-Bahrayn‘s “Bahrayn Province”.

In 1521, the Portuguese  seized Bahrain, the Portuguese were then expelled from the islands in 1602 by Abbas I of the Safavid dynasty of Iran, who declared Shia Islam the official religion of Bahrain. The migration of various clans from Qatar to Bahrain including the Al Khilafa clan led to the overthrow of Safavid influence. In the early 19th century, Bahrain was invaded by both the Omanis and the Al Sauds. In 1802 it was governed by a twelve year old child, when the Omani ruler Sayyid Sultan installed his son, Salim, as Governor in the Arad Fort.

In 1820, the Al Khalifa tribe gained power and entered into a treaty with Britain, by then the dominant military power in the Persian Gulf. This treaty granted the Al Khalifa the title of Rulers (“Al-Hakim“) of Bahrain.

In the 1830’s the Al Khalifa family signed the first of many treaties establishing Bahrain as a British Protectorate. Similar to the binding treaties of protection entered into by other Persian Gulf principalities, the agreements entered into by the Al Khalifa’s prohibited them from disposing of territory and entering into relationships with any foreign government without British consent in exchange for British protection against the threat of military attack from Uthmani Khilafah. Eventually Britain forced the Uthmani Khilafah into a treaty recognising the independence of Bahrain.

Is there any International aspect to the crisis?

Every problem Bahrain faces is due to international powers, both past and present.

Today Bahrain continues with its 1991 defence agreement with the US granting the Americans full access to Bahraini military facilities and ensuring the right to pre-positionmaterial for any future crises. Bahrain is the headquarters of the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet.

However, Bahrain remains the British protectorate that it has been since the 19^th century. This is why the monarch of Bahrain, Sheikh Hamad ibn Isa Al Khalifa, is an invited guest to the Queen of England’s diamond jubilee celebrations later this year. It is also the reason why the British Prime Minister David Cameron rolled out the red carpet for the crown prince of Bahrain, Sheikh Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifa, only weeks after he had overseen the violent crackdown of protestors in the Bahraini capital Manama, with the aid of Saudi and other GCC troops. He then met the King personally in Downing Street six months later, who visited to get “British advice” on how to implement reforms in the country.

In the period soon after the height of the protests in 2011 the British government approved the sale of more than £1 million worth of military equipment to the Bahraini regime. This included licenses for gun silencers, weapons sights, rifles and other equipment, all of which could conceivably be being used against their own population. Not a single export license to Bahrain was rejected, despite a crackdown on protestors denounced by international human rights organizations. In other words, Britain has been, and continues to, provide the weapons that could be used by the regime in their crackdown against opposition.

Policing expertise has also been exported to Bahrain, with former Scotland Yard “counter-terrorism” chief John Yates being currently employed to advise the Bahraini regime on “police reform”. (Yates, resigned in disgrace from Scotland Yard for his role in the Murdoch media phone hacking scandal). His employment by the Bahraini regime follows in the tradition of Britishex-spooks being given a job by the Khalifas, with Ian Henderson – formerly a Colonial Police Officer responsible for suppressing the Mau Mau uprising in Kenya – hired as the head of state security in Bahrain for more than three decades.

Why did Saudi Arabia send over 1000 troops to the country during the peak of the protests?

On 14 March 2011, at the request of the Crown Prince, GCC Saudi Arabian troops entered the country and opened fire on the protesters, several of whom were killed. Both Bahrain and Saudi Arabia have treated their shi’ah populations with much content. Both countries use sectarianism to remain in power and create a cohesive society by blaming every ill in their country upon the Shi’ah in order to shore up support from their Sunni populace.

An uprising by the Shi’ah in the region would have had serious implications as the Shi’ah in Eastern Saudi Arabia – neglected by the Saudi monarchy mainly reside amongst Saudi’s coveted oil fields. Any uprising by the Shi’ah could be exploited by Iran and spread to Saudi’s Eastern provinces which is dominated by Shi’ah, this is why the Saudi very quickly answered the Crown prince’s plea for help.

How much of a problem is sectarianism?

The crisis in Bahrain is between the monarchy and the Shi’ah. It is due to the neglect and oppression of the monarchy that oppressed Muslims like the wider Muslim world have been forced to take to the streets. Colonial strategy historically was to put a minority in power over the  majority, so they would always need foreign help. Britain left a minority Sunni in power over a majority Shi’ah in Iraq, similarly in Syria the minority Alawi’s were put in power over a majority Sunni.

The problem in Bahrain is foreign interference and insincere rulers, sectarianism in in some cases has been stoked to maintain the status quo.

Can the monarchy be overthrown?

This would appear to be highly unlikely currently. As the intervention by Saudi Arabia shows, it is in the interests of many powers in the region and outside the region to keep the monarchy in power as it protects their interests whilst oppresses its own people. It would take a sustained attack in Manama the capital of Bahrain, which would need to be taken over by opposition forces as this is the engine for the island country. At the same time opposition forces would need to withstand any foreign intervention, which would be extremely difficult as the island country is surrounded by the Persian Gulf, which would be difficult to defend against for long, as it is international waters.

Since the Arab Spring began in January 2011 various countries in the Muslim world have seen uprisings and Syria is no different. The scenario that has played out in Syria is no different to the other countries. Bashar al Assad launched a massive crackdown on his people employing shelling on towns, besieging them and sending in tanks. Assad’s security services continue to systematically torture, rape and kill people whom they believe are opposed to the regime. However the Assad regime has failed to quell the uprising and has been on the receiving end of an increasingly armed resistance.

Where do matters currently stand in Syria?

Currently matters stand at a stalemate. The Assad regime, in spite of employing tactics’ that would not even be fit for war, has been unable to quell the uprising, which has now spread to numerous areas across Syria. Whilst the Ummah in Syria has been very brave in challenging the Assad regime the armed resistance has lacked the strength to launch a sustained assault on Damascus.

What is the role of the International community in the Syria crisis?

As the killings escalated some in Syria turned to international help against the regime and this has now placed the solution to the crisis in international hands. The international community has put forward a number of solutions to the crisis. The US has shifted from publically backing Assad as a ‘potential reformer’ to publicly denouncing the regime — but all the time doing nothing to destabilise their vital interests.

It would appear Russia and China attempted to complicate the US plan in Syria by opposing attempts to pass a vague resolution and then using this as a cover for militarily intervention in February 2012. It was under the guise of imposing no fly zones in Libya that the West armed the Benghazi rebels, trained them, France, Britain and the US then cultivated links with different personalities to maintain influence after the overthrow of Gaddafi.

Both Russia and China generally oppose the West and use the forum of the UN to oppose Western planes. Such positions are generally weak and the veto to the UN resolution in early 2012 was no different. Aside from a naval refuelling facility in Syria, Russia lacks any political influence in country and so its stance was in reality a weak attempt to influence the Syrian crisis.

What has been the role of the Muslim countries?

The role of the Muslim countries in the region has been to implement foreign solutions.  This has generally been the case in the region as most of the nations in the region generally play the role of surrogate, alternating between the US and Britain.

Turkey has been housing the defectors from the Syrian army who have now formed the Free Syrian Army (FSA). Turkey regularly implements US plans in the Middle East as can be seen by its actions with regards to Israel and the two state solution. Qatar of late has become active in the regions issues, it became the staging ground for Libya with regards to arming the rebels and housing them for negotiations. Scrutinising Qatar’s actions shows it has taken up many of the solutions developed by the UK and worked to implement them.

Similarly the Arab league like always has been a toothless organisation, but on this occasion it has got involved in implementing US aims in the region. The Arab league observer mission was another strategy amongst a number of strategies by the US to give al-Assad more time to quell the uprisings. Assad’s regime however continued its massacres even in the presence of the Arab League monitors. The Arab league monitors were provided transport and security by the Assad regime. It was the regime that escorted them around Syria.

The credibility of the monitors quickly evaporated after many in Syria were counting on it to expose the crimes of the Assad regime. In the end the Arab league monitors colluded with Assad by constantly arguing it needed more time to carry out its mission. Muhammad Ahmad Ad-Daabi the head of the delegation, whose hands are still dripping with the blood of the people of Darfur when he was the head of military intelligence constantly called for more time and concluded that Homs was not under attack – all of this was when images beamed around the world of the massacres taking place at the hands of the Assad regime.

What has been the US role in the Syria crisis?

After months of the US backing the Syrian regime through only calling for reforms, giving ample time for the regime to end the revolution, Assad failed in subduing the Ummah and the US started the process of his eventual demise. The US immediately called for the opposition to unify so a new ruling council could be formed, whom the US could deal with, just as in Libya with the National Transitional Council. Mark Toner, the US State Department’s deputy spokesman, told the CNN that “a real opposition to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was beginning to form after five months of pro-democracy protests. We have seen the Syrian opposition begin to take shape, begin to stand up and become more cohesive and become more broadly representative… of Syrian society.” This was despite the fact that the factions the US was speaking with did not represent the Syrian people.

The US and the Western powers publically supported the opposition in the hope that they would overwhelm the regime. However differences between the opposition factions have hampered progress and as a result the various strategies to deal with the Syrian crisis have come thick and fast but have not shown much progress.

The US very quickly backed the Syrian National Council (SNC), which was established and led by the Paris-based dissident Burhan Ghalioun and included the Muslim Brotherhood. This council is composed mainly of foreign dissidents who went into exile due to the Assad regime. The council is composed of various groups secular and Islamic with many vying for eventual power in a new Syria. These exiles have been all too keen to spend time grandstanding in Western capitals and networking with Western diplomats. However after nearly a year of meetings in southern Turkey they are as divided as ever.

The US also attempted the National Co-ordination Committee (NCC), an opposition bloc that still functions within Syria and is led by Hussein Abdul Azim and other longstanding dissidents, some of whom are wary of the Islamists within the SNC. This faction has largely called for reform in Syria.

The US tried to join them together in an agreement, in the hope that such a partnership would give it traction with the people of Syria and so it could gain momentum in weakening and removing the Assad regime. This strategy failed as such factions have little support from the people of Syria

It appears the US is utilising other countries and regional surrogates in creating the conditions that will eventually lay the ground for a Syria without al-Assad, but one which continues to serve US interests. This will most likely be through keeping the Alawites in power, but without Al – Assad. The US has for the moment engaged in indirect efforts rather than direct military intervention and this may be due to it being election year in the US.

The US is supporting the embryonic opposition, who have been meeting for over 6 months in Turkey – a country that regularly implements US plans. Similarly France and Britain have also got involved in Syria by mediating between the opposition and the Assad regime. Russia also entered the fray to mediate between Assad and the Syrian opposition. All these powers are attempting to shape events in Syria where they are attempting to gain some influence.

Whilst the media has defined the international response as the US-EU on one side and Russia and China on the other, in reality Russia and china have virtually no political influence over the Syrian regime, Russia specifically has attempted to use the instability to influence the outcome in Syria in a way to gain influence in the country – its attempts however have been weak. In reality the struggle is by the US to protect its interests in the region and the EU looking to complicate US plans in order to gain some influence in Syria.

How important in Syria in the region?

Syria may be depicted as an international pariah state that supports Hizbullah and Palestinian militants. However, away from public scrutiny the US government views Syria as an important surrogate that is needed in the region. In Iraq the Syrian regime protected US interests by stemming the insurgency and constructing America’s political architecture. Syria played an active role in infiltrating the Sunni insurgents. After the fall of Saddam, many Iraqi’s fled Iraq and sought refuge in Syria. Syria set up militant training camps to recruit and train Iraqi refugees into fighters with the explicit purpose of infiltrating the Iraqi resistance, providing real-time intelligence to US officials. This fact was recognised by the baker-Hamilton enquiry in 2005.

On the Palestinian issue Syria has engaged with Israel on the two-state solution, including the Golan Heights – a US solution for the region. Whilst such talks have been on and off, the Syrian regime nevertheless, through peace overtures to Israel, facilitated America’s stranglehold over the region.

Israel’s Haaretz exposed in 2007 that between September 2004 and July 2006, the Syrian and Israeli representatives reached a ‘formulation for peace’ through secret talks. The Assad regime was willing to sacrifice Hamas, its alleged ally, in an attempt to appease Israel in the agreement. These negotiations continued unhindered under Turkish mediation between 2008 and 2010, despite Israel’s Operation Cast Lead in 2009 that led to the death of more than a thousand civilians in Gaza. This willingness on the part of the Assad regime to make peace with Israel, normalise relations with it and recognise its existence paints an image contrary to the popular rhetoric of the Syrian regime. And it is for this very reason that Israel’s leading security and political officials have expressed great concern at the thought of the Assad regime collapsing. Israel’s prominent daily newspaper, Ha’aretz, ran an editorial immediately after the start of the Syrian uprising declaring Assad to be “Israel’s favourite dictator of all’ and that ‘it seems Assad has wall-to-wall support here, as though he were king of Israel”.

What is the reality of the current Kofi Anan led ceasefire?

UN resolution 2042 which was approved by the Security Council calls for a ceasefire and the presence of UN observers to oversee the ceasefire. This solution is just another nominally useless proposal as the Assad regime continues to massacre its people. Like the Arab league observers before them their security is provided by the Syrian intelligence services, who take them around Syria and keep them away from areas were the regime shells the population. This attempt would again appear to be another attempt to delay matters so the opposition can be strengthened.

Conclusions

It should be remembered that through the involvement of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) the resolution to the Syrian crisis has been taken from the hands of the Muslims and is now in the hands of the superpowers, who themselves are all competing with each other. The US has been unable to cobble together a replacement for Assad and this is leading to other powers to get involved in the resolution to the Syria crisis, which will complicate US aims in the country.  It appears the West is backing the FSA to weaken the hold of the Assad regime and is investing time and training to the FSA in order to achieve this. It is likely the Assad regime will respond in equally brutal fashion. This will lead to Syria descending into another Iraq where it may become impossible to distinguish between who is attacking who as such attacks will inevitably lead to mass casualties. It should be remembered that such a murky scenario was used in Iraq by the US to gain control over the country. Syria’s decent into civil war may eventually be the justification for military intervention by the West.

Since the Arab Spring began in January 2011 various countries in the Muslim world have seen uprisings and Syria was is no different. The scenario that has played out in Syria is no different to the other countries. Bashar al Assad launched a massive crackdown on his own people employing shelling on towns, besieging them and sending in tanks. Assad’s security services continue to systematically torture, rape and kill people whom they believe are opposed to the regime. However the Assad regime has failed in quelling the uprising and has been on the receiving end of an increasingly armed resistance.

Why has there been an increase in violence in Syria?

Bashar al Assad and his father before him maintained their authority by support from a minority of the Syrian population — the Alawites, the Assad clan is also Alawi. This situation arose when the departing French, looking to continue their colonial influence in the country but without physically occupying the country, left Syria in the hands of the minority Alawites, who would always be dependent upon a foreign power for their own security. Soon after this the US was able to gain influence over the country as French influence waned.

The Alawites have maintained their control of Syria through ensuring the rulers are always from amongst them. Successive rulers have thereafter used brute force to deal with any dissent. In 1982 Hafeez al-Assad massacred the people of Hama when they rose up against him.

Ever since the Arab spring began Bashar al Assad has responded only with brute force. Assad’s security services even carried out massacres on funeral processions taking place due to the killings of Assad’s security forces.

The uprising in Syria has now passed its first year and to some extent is in a stalemate, the Syrian regime has failed to halt the uprising. This is leading to al-Assad carrying out more massacres and using tactics that would embarrass any dictator.

Is there any international aspect to the Syrian crisis?

The competition in the Middle East by the world’s powers has not spared Syria and is at the heart of the current massacres taking place in the country. The oppression and brutal rule over the Sunnis in the country is a legacy of colonial rule. Successive Syrian regimes have as a result remained loyal to various Western powers and played the role of surrogate.

Syria may be depicted as an international pariah state that supports Hizbullah and Palestinian militants. However, away from public scrutiny the US government views Syria as an important surrogate that is needed in the region. In Iraq the Syrian regime protected US interests by stemming the insurgency and constructing America’s political architecture. Syria played an active role in infiltrating the Sunni insurgents. After the fall of Saddam, many Iraqi’s fled Iraq and sought refuge in Syria. Syria set up militant training camps to recruit and train Iraqi refugees into fighters with the explicit purpose of infiltrating the Iraqi resistance, providing real-time intelligence to US officials.

On the Palestinian issue Syria has engaged with Israel on the two state solution, including the Golan Heights – a US solution for the region. Whilst such talks have been on and off, the Syrian regime nevertheless through peace overtures to Israel facilitated America’s stranglehold over the region.

Between September 2004 and July 2006, the Syrian and Israeli representatives reached a ‘formulation for peace’ through secret talks. The Assad regime was willing to sacrifice Hamas, its alleged ally, in an attempt to appease Israel in the agreement. These negotiations continued unhindered under Turkish mediation between 2008 and 2010, despite Israel’s Operation Cast Lead in 2009 that led to the death of more than a thousand civilians in Gaza. This willingness on the part of the Assad regime to make peace with Israel, normalise relations with it and recognise its existence paints an image contrary to the popular rhetoric of the Syrian regime. And it is for this very reason that Israel’s leading security and political officials have expressed great concern at the thought of the Assad regime collapsing. Israel’s prominent daily newspaper, Ha’aretz, ran an editorial immediately after the start of the Syrian uprising declaring Assad to be “Israel’s favourite dictator of all’ and that ‘it seems Assad has wall-to-wall support here, as though he were king of Israel”.

Since the Taif agreement in 1989 in Lebanon the Syrian military presence directly contributed to the protection of US interests, by weakening the other factions that were supported by Europe. The insinuation of Syrian officials in the assassination of Rafiq Hariri in 2005 and subsequent demands for Syria to withdraw its troops presented fresh challenges to American interests in Lebanon. Ever since, Syria has used Hizbullah to weaken pro-EU politicians, which subsequently protected US interests.

With such a loyal surrogate in Syria, for nearly all of 2011 when the Assad regime carried out systematic massacres against its own people the US merely called for restraint and the possibility of him reforming. Hilary Clinton explained the American stance in an interview with Lucia Annunziata of Italy’s ‘In Mezz’Ora,’ in May 2011“the difference between the situations in Syria and Libya is that the Syrian government might still come around and pursue a reform agenda,” Clinton was asked whether the US was applying a double standard when dealing with Libyan leader Col. Muammar al-Gaddafi and other Arab dictators who are killing their citizens, such as Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Clinton explained that she still held out hope that the Syrian government would institute reforms that could satisfy the demands of protesters and end the government-sponsored violence against civilians. There was no hope for that outcome in Libya, she said. “There are deep concerns about what is going on inside Syria, and we are pushing hard for the government of Syria to live up to its own stated commitment to reforms,” she said. “What I do know is that they have an opportunity still to bring about a reform agenda. Nobody believed Qaddafi would do that. People do believe there is a possible path forward with Syria. So we’re going to continue joining with all of our allies to keep pressing very hard on that.” Clinton argued that the United States and its international partners have acted aggressively in the case of Syria, but admitted that acting against the Assad regime is more complicated, in many ways, than organizing action against the Libyan regime.

Are America and the Western powers not also supporting the Syrian opposition?

After months of the US backing the Syrian regime through only calling for reforms, giving ample time for the Assad regime to end (kill) the revolution, Assad has failed in subduing the Ummah and it appears the US has started the process of his eventual demise. The US immediately called for the opposition to unify so that a new ruling council can be formed, with whom the US can deal with, just as what happened in Libya with the National Transitional Council. Mark Toner, the US State Department’s deputy spokesman, told the CNN that “a real opposition to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was beginning to form after five months of pro-democracy protests. We have seen the Syrian opposition begin to take shape, begin to stand up and become more cohesive and become more broadly representative… of Syrian society.”

The Western powers are supporting the opposition in the hope that they will overwhelm the regime. However differences between the opposition factions have hampered progress and as a result the various strategies to deal with the Syrian crisis have come thick and fast but have not shown much progress.

The West very quickly backed the Syrian National Council (SNC), which was established and led by the Paris-based dissident Burhan Ghalioun and included the Muslim Brotherhood. This council is composed mainly of foreign dissidents who went into exile due to the Assad regime. The council is composed of various groups secular and Islamic with many vying for eventual power in a new Syria. The Syrian National Council (SNC) is in reality the Syrian Dissident Council. These exiles have been all too keen to spend time grandstanding in Western capitals and networking with Western diplomats. However after nearly a year of meetings in Southern Turkey they are as divided as ever.

The council’s primacy has been challenged by the National Co-ordination Committee (NCC), an opposition bloc that still functions within Syria and is led by Hussein Abdul Azim and other longstanding dissidents, some of whom are wary of the Islamists within the SNC. The NCC has not received the international recognition as the SNC.

Both factions have been reluctant to work with the Free Syrian Army (FSA), a group of army defectors seeking to topple the Assad regime by force. Based in Turkey, its fighters have launched attacks on security forces in the north-western province of Idlib, around Homs and Hama, and even on the outskirts of Damascus. In January 2012, residents of Zabadani, a mountain town 25 miles north-west of the capital, said it had been ‘liberated’ by FSA fighters. Days later, defectors seized control of Douma, a suburb six miles from Damascus, for a few hours. The FSA’s leader, Riyad al-Asaad, claims to have 15,000 men under his command, though analysts believe there may be no more than 7,000. They are also still poorly armed, and many have only basic military training.

The Arab league, which is composed of states that are as bad as al-Assad have attempted to protect their thrones thorough acting collectively against Syria. In November 2011 member states led by Qatar and Saudi Arabia voted to suspend Syria. The League later imposed economic sanctions when the Syrian regime blocked the deployment of an observer mission. Under intense pressure from the US Damascus eventually allowed in the observers in December 2011, but they failed to halt the crackdown.

It appears the US is utilising other countries and regional surrogates in creating the conditions that will eventually lay the ground for a Syria without al-Assad, but one which continues to serve US interests. The US has for the moment engaged in indirect efforts rather than direct military intervention and this may be due to it being election year in the US.

The US is supporting the embryonic opposition, who have been meeting for over 6 months in Turkey – a country that regularly implements US plans. Similarly France and Britain have also got involved in Syria by mediating between the opposition and the Assad regime. Recently Russia has also entered the fray to mediate between Assad and the Syrian opposition. All these powers are attempting to shape events in Syria where they are attempting to gain some influence.

The US appears to be doing exactly what is did in Egypt – wait and see if the existing regime will hold out, give it enough time to survive. At the same time cultivate links with the opposition to ensure it comes out on the right side as events descend to chaos.

What is the reality of Free Syria Army (FSA)

The Free Syria army is composed of defected officers from the Syrian national army. Colonel Riad al-Asaad, the highest ranking officer who defected from the national army is the leader and has called for more officers to defect. The FSA is very similar to the Benghazi rebels who whilst originally successful in holding out against Gaddafi’s forces and even mounted attacks and captured some towns from Gaddafi’s forces, in the end they were unable to maintain any sustainable attack and lost most of the captured towns until Western involvement, training and arms came their way.

The FSA has until recently conducted armed struggle against the Assad regime and is also now being trained and armed by Western forces. Reports from British military sources confirm that: “British Special forces have met up with members of the Free Syrian Army (FSA)… The apparent goal of this initial contact was to establish the rebel forces’ strength and to pave the way for any future training operations. … More recent reports have stated that British and French Special Forces have been actively training members of the FSA, from a base in Turkey. Some reports indicate that training is also taking place in locations in Libya and Northern Lebanon. British MI6 operatives and UKSF (SAS/SBS) personnel have reportedly been training the rebels in urban warfare as well as supplying them with arms and equipment. US CIA operatives and special forces are believed to be providing communications assistance to the rebels.” Elite Forces UK, January 5, 2012

Of late it appears the FSA has conducted more specialised attacks including Improvised Explosive devices (IED’s) targeting security facilities and premises. In February 2012 two car bombs struck security facilities showing a high degree of sophistication. Such attacks are a first in Syria for any of the sides involved.

It appears the West is backing the FSA to weaken the hold of the Assad regime and is investing time and training to the FSA in order to achieve this. It is likely the Assad regime will respond in equally brutal fashion. This will lead to Syria descending into another Iraq where it may become impossible to distinguish between who is attacking who as such attacks will inevitably lead to mass casualties. It should be remembered that such a murky scenario was used in Iraq by the US to gain control over the country. Syria’s decent into civil war may eventually be the justification for military intervention by the West.

What was role of the Arab league observers?

The Arab league observer mission appears to have been another strategy amongst a number of strategies by the US to give al-Assad more time to quell the uprisings. Assad’s regime however continued its massacres even in the presence of the Arab League monitors. The Arab league monitors were provided transport and security by the Assad regime. It was the regime that escorted them around Syria.

The credibility of the monitors quickly evaporated after many in Syria were counting on it to expose the crimes of the Assad regime. In the end the Arab league monitors colluded with Assad by constantly arguing it needed more time to carry out its mission. Muhammad Ahmad Ad-Daabi the head of the delegation, whose hands are still dripping with the blood of the people of Darfur when he was the head of military intelligence constantly called for more time and concluded that Homs was not under attack – all of this was when images beamed around the world of the massacres taking place at the hands of the Assad regime.

Why did Russia and China Veto the UN vote?

It should be remembered that through the involvement of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) the resolution to the Syrian crisis has been taken from the hands of the Muslims and is now in the hands of the superpowers, who themselves are all competing with each other.

Sergey Lavrov, Russian Foreign Minister said: “Russia was not going to accept any resolutions that might open the way to foreign intervention or that would pre-determine the political outcome in Syria.” It would appear Russia and China attempted to complicate the US plan in Syria by opposing attempts to pass a vague resolution and then using this as a cover for militarily intervention. It was under the guise of imposing no fly zones in Libya that the West armed the Benghazi rebels, trained them, France, Britain and the US then cultivated links with different personalities to maintain influence after the overthrow of Gaddafi.

Both Russia and China generally oppose the West and use the forum of the UN to oppose Western planes. Such positions are generally weak and the veto was no different. Aside from a naval refuelling facility in Syria, Russia lacks any political influence in country and so this stance is in reality a weak attempt to influence the Syrian crisis.

What has led the current tensions?

The response of the civilian government and the military to certain recent events has exposed their treachery towards Pakistan. This has led to the heightened tensions between the two.

It began in May 2011 when US Special forces captured Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad. The manner in which the American raid was conducted embarrassed the civilian government and the army, who said different things on different days regarding the raid. The civilian government’s position shifted from the violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty to them being fully aware of an impending raid and was thus being complicit. On a number of occasions the President and Prime Minister blamed the army and the nation’s intelligence service – the ISI for the failures. Internally within the army General Ashfaq Kayani personally visited various garrisons and gave explanations in town-hallstylemeetings including at the National Defence University (NDU) and Quetta Staff College in order to pacify angry officers.

Three days after the Abbottabad raid, the oldest brigadier in Pakistan’s army, Brig Ali Khan, was arrested and this was only made public a month later. The Brigadier was invited to a meeting by his former student Lieutenant General Javed Iqbal at the army headquarters. It has been confirmed that General Kayani’s attitude towards the US was criticized by Brigadier Khan. An officer present in the meeting told the BBC that all had been going well until it was Brig Khan’s turn to speak. In his opinion, the culprits who had hidden Bin Laden and allowed the American’s to get away with breaching Pakistan’s sovereignty were to be found within the army. It has now become clear that he had been exerting strong pressure on the top echelons of Pakistan’s military to stopco-operating with American forces in the fight against Taliban amongst army officers who served with the brigadier during his 32-year career. With the possibility of decent spreading across the middle layer of the army and without any specific charges against the Brigadier aside from exposing the army leadership, General Kayani accused the brigadier of having links with Hizb ut Tahrir – the Islamic political party working for Khilafah.

Events further heightened in the Salalah incident when in late November 2011 two Pakistani patrol posts on the Pakistan-Afghanistanborderwere attacked for hours leaving 24 dead. No statement was forthcoming from the Pakistani military aside from a written statement. This led to numerous army officers making public statements against the raid completely going outside official channels of communication, including Kayani himself. The civilian government deflected blame upon the army for the security lapse, similar to what it did with the US raid on Abbottabad.

This incident put the civilian government and military officials at loggerheads as no sooner had the controversy come to public light a Memo from the civilian government to Admiral Mike Mullen became public. The Memo was published in its entirety on Foreign Policy magazine’s website on November 17.The memo requested the Obama administration to convey a ”strong, urgent and direct message to General Kayani and General Pasha to ”end their brinkmanship aimed at bringing down the civilian apparatus.”  The memo made explicit concession to the US in return for cooperation. This was in effect treason.

With the general state of the economy and with continuing support to US aims in Afghanistan by the civilian government and the military leadership, events have reached a watershed where both institutions are blaming the other to shore up their positions as they have all become exposed. In addition to this the army leadership faces huge decent from within its ranks for its cooperation with the US.

What is the West’s role in this crisis?

Foreign interference is fundamentally the problem in Pakistan. Successive regimes, leaders, politicians and army chiefs have protected US interests and weakened Pakistan. Each of the rulers in Pakistan’s recent history have gone further than its predecessor in carrying out US orders. Under General Musharraf the army began carrying out raids in the FATA region at America’s behest. Thereafter under Kayani and Zardari CIA and FBI agents and contractors travel freely in Pakistan – as the Raymond Davies controversy showed.

US officials not only hold regular meetings with Pakistan’s civilian and military leadership but meet with Civil Servants, Corp commanders as well as civil society. The US is deeply involved with Pakistan as it wants Pakistan’s to serve its aims.

How important is Pakistan to the US?

Understanding US aims in the region highlights Pakistan’s importance to America. The US strategy for the region is built upon containing a future threat from China. The US is developing a number of nations around China to ensure the balance of power in the region never becomes firmly in China’s grip. For the Sub-continentwhichborders China the US has focused upon developing India as a rising regional counter weight and turn it into a policeman for the region. In 2003 in her testimony before the sub-committeeon Asia and the Pacific, US Assistant Secretary of State, Christina Rocca, stated, “Soon after taking office, President Bush outlined his vision of a transformed and deepened US-India partnership, one that reflects India’s emergence as a major regional power.”

Under both the Bush administration and the Obama administration a whole host of tools such as aid, loans, using opportunist politicians and Pakistan’s nuclear weapons have been used to weaken Pakistan. Through such tools the US has forced successive Pakistani leaders both military and civilian to normalise relations with India and negotiate over Kashmir. The biggest obstacle standing in the way of US ambitions is the disputed territory of Kashmir. This crisis continues to thwart US policy, as it acts as a continuous strain on the Indian economy and political focus as she spends approximately $1 million a day on monitoring and policing the territory. Hence a solution to this problem is critical for the US to achieve its interests in the region of containing China.

In the more immediate term the US has relied upon Pakistan to conduct is its war in Afghanistan. The US has relied upon the Pakistan army to conduct operations across the FATA region into Eastern Afghanistan in order to break the resistance against US forces. The US has also relied on Pakistani territory for energy and equipment for its troops in Afghanistan. US reliance on the Pakistan supply route for its troops has remained between 50% — 80% of all supplies throughout the war.

America needs Pakistan for negotiations with the Taliban, It was Pakistan that created the Taliban and maintains links with key personnel and any final negotiation depends on Pakistan’s cooperation.

There is much talk in the international media of an imminent coup, how likely is this?

This is unlikely as both General Ashfaq Kayani and the head of the ISI —Lieutenant-GeneralAhmadPasha and both Gilani and Zardari are all loyal to the US and have been so consistently. The position of the civilian government has weakened considerably since the Abbottabad raid and also due to its failure to solve the nation’s problems.

Due to this the government has attempted to deflect attention from its failures by laying blame on the army for the security failures. The government has continued its rhetoric that it was democratically elected and will finish its term and even plans to have a vote of confidence in parliament. It continues to raise the issue of a coup against democracy to deflect from its failures.

The continued collusion of General Kayani with the US is leading to much decent within the army and a coup within the army by lower ranked officers although remote is more likely than the army undertaking a coup against the civilian leadership.

The issue at hand is both the civilian leadership and military leadership has remained loyal to the US. They are all attempting to defend their untenable positions by blaming each other, this is why they are at loggerheads.

Where does the overnight rise of Imran Khan of Pakistan Tahreek-e-Insaaf fit into this?

The emergence of Imran Khan from the wilderness appears not to have happened naturally but appears to be an attempt to change the status quo by the US. Large demonstrations have taken place in historic sites in both Lahore and Karachi which would have needed the signatures of both Chief Ministers in Karachi and Lahore, which are in the hands of opposition parties who would otherwise not allow their areas to be used by an alternative party.

In early December 2011 the news international confirmed that at a PTI’s core committee meeting the PTI’s Punjab president confirmed there is a secret committee functioning to probe the background of its new entrants which include a former ISI official, a retired major general and some Intelligence Bureau staff – i.e. the army.

It would appear from this that the army is backing Imran Khan to replace the PPP led government. This would not be possible for Kayani or Pasha without US approval and would indicate that the US is done with Zardari. With operations in Afghanistan drawing down the need for Pakistan to be on the front lines protecting and implementing US plans is at an end and negotiations with the Taliban will now be seriously pursued. It appears the US doesn’t believe this can be achieved with Zardari as he has always supported US aims to of using the military in the northern regions. It would appear the US needs a credible individual who the Taliban as well as the tribes in the North consider a credible leader.

Zardari has been a very weak leader often relying on his wife’s political personality to gain credibility and confidence amongst his peers and the Pakistani public. Even to this day, Zardari has been unable to exert his presidential leadership and credentials on the country. He spends a considerable amount of time in his fortified presidential palace, unable or unwilling to venture out and build meet the public. His slow response to the Pakistani flood crisis in August 2010, in contrast to Kayani’s quick actions to help those beleaguered, further weakened him and his government. Additionally, the revelations by Wikileaks about Zardari’s support for America’s war against Islam, and the debacle of the Raymond Davis affair has caused his popularity to plummet to an all-timelow, and rendered his government powerless.

In 2011 the US reoriented its posture in both Iraq and Afghanistan from drawing down combat troops to more specialised forces as the use of the military to achieve US aims has run its course. In Afghanistan the US has been looking to secure a host of security and political guarantees to protect its interests and it would appear that Zardari has outlived his use as the US does not see him as part of its negotiation strategy.

What are Imran Khan’s chances?

It is very early to present an analysis on him as elections are due in early 2013, however elections in Pakistan are not based on policy and thus difficult to predict.

It should be understood that Imran Khan’s party – the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf(PTI) is not really a political party, but a one man party, this is why it does not possess any heavy weight politicians. He is one of very few clean politicians who have a good history in Pakistan, due to his fortunes in Cricket. However his party lacks clear direction and this has resulted in Imran Khan turning to established politicians who are dripping with corruption. Since 1996, the PTI has had only one seat in the Pakistani parliament and that is occupied by Imran Khan. Therefore he has had to reach out to other politicians and ask them to join him to strengthen PTI, and thereby give the party a strong chance of performing well in the elections. Already several notable politicians and technocrats from the Musharraf era, as well as infamous politicians from PPP and PML-Nhavejoined PTI. Around 30 politicians from Musharraf’s former party – the PML-QjoinedPTI as was outlined in a report by the Dawn.

All of this has already had an effect on his message as many have wondered how independent he is after allowing many politicians into his party that previously the PTI campaigned against.

The army generally does not have a good history when it attempts to indirectly rule the country. It previously backed Zaid Hamid the former ISI operative and now political commentator. However he gained no traction with the masses and came to be seen as full of conspiracy theories.

Like communism before it, capitalism has failed and no amount of tinkering will repair a flawed system

As many saw in the New Year it was the same time in 1991 that the Soviet Union was falling apart and its ideology of Communism was failing to cater for its adherents. Numerous attempts to reform Communism and the Soviet Union did little to preserve the system of central planning. Liberals in the West argued you cannot reform a flawed system.

Fast forward to 2012 and it appears similar views now ring true for the victor against Communism – Capitalism. It would have been inconceivable just a few years ago that one of the most respected international business dailies would start a series on “Capitalism in Crisis”. However it reflects waning public opinion in the Western world for its long cherished ideology.

The first week of January 2012 has seen a plethora of statements regarding the state of Capitalism, these include phrases such as crony capitalism and moral capitalism. The dogmatic view that has dominated Western economic discourse ever since Adam Smith coined the free market is ringing hollow for many as the financial crisis that began in 2008 gets worse.

Unable to stem the descent into another recession liberals continue to churn out ‘it’s the best the world has,’ as one expert put it: “The market economy is the most successful mechanism for creating prosperity humanity knows. Allied to modern science, it has done more than transform the world economy; it has transformed the world. For the first time in history, the world’s principal states rely on the market economy to develop their economies. Almost as important, they rely on a global market economy.”

It would be more apt to call this system of economic organisation ‘disaster capitalism’ for the trail of devastation it has left in every country it touched. With a global economy of $62 trillion today half of the world’s population – 3 billion people will have nothing to eat – so much for the free market. Capitalism may generate large amounts of wealth, however it has also created history’s greatest ever wealth fault line. Whilst the majority of the world barely survives on a few dollars, the US has most of the world’s billionaires, in what is mankind’s greatest lopsided world economy.

In 2006 the World Institute for Development Economic Research of the United Nations released the culmination of a global study; a number of its findings are staggering. By gathering research from countries all over the world the study concluded that the richest 1% of the world owns 40% of the planet’s wealth and that only 10% of the world’s population owned 85% of the world’s assets.(1)

Richard Robbins in his award winning book ‘Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism’ confirmed this when he said “The emergence of Capitalism represents a culture that is in many ways the most successful that has ever been deployed in terms of accommodating large numbers of individuals in relative and absolute comfort and luxury. It has not been as successful, however, in integrating all in equal measure, and its failure here remains one of its major problems.”

Capitalism faces a number of problems that the financial crisis has brought to the forefront, such problems however are not mere anecdotes but the bedrock of Capitalist economic thought. These include economic growth without boom and bust, economic growth decoupled from excessive debt, equitable wealth distribution and decoupling short term thinking/greed from the financial markets.

Such systemic issues however have been completely neglected and have continually been reduced to reforming excessive boardroom pay, cracking down on corporate price-fixing and reforming the banks. After the worst economic crisis since the great depression many on the right continue to call for more free market and suggest the markets should be left to self-correct. Those on the left suggest more regulation to curtail excessive greed, the restriction of corporate pay and austerity.

None of these reforms in anyway deal with debt fueled growth, bubble economies and wealth inequality. In fact the bankers, Greece and in some cases a market correction are presented as the culprits.

What is for certain is since Adam Smith coined the free market in 1777 the West has suffered a depression, recession, slump, crash and decline every decade. This is because the need for perpetual economic growth creates unsustainable bubbles which lead to boom and bust. The dogma of economic growth has created a wealth distribution fault line where a tiny percentage in Capitalist economies control most of the created wealth.

With the Arab spring reaching its first anniversary and those espousing Islam wining elections with landslide victories, 2012 is crunch year for Capitalism. Various reforms over the last century did nothing to stop the global financial crisis that began in 2008 and continues to drag Western economies down with it. The likes of Obama, Sarkozy and Cameron face the same challenges Gorbachev, Chernenko, and Andropov faced in the 1980’s and that is no amount of reforms will ever preserve a system that is flawed.

(1) www.iariw.org/papers/2006/davies.pdf

On the anniversary of the Arab spring what has changed in the Muslim world?

The Arab spring began in January 2011 and has now reached its first anniversary. The uprisings when they began initially started in Tunisia and then spread to Egypt eventually engulfing most of the Muslim world. After a year, regime change has only taken place in Libya, whilst in Egypt and Tunisia, the rulers may now no longer be in power, but their regimes still remain.

The reason why much of the political architecture prior to the uprisings remains is because of the interference from foreign powers – namely the US. The Arab revolt that started in Tunisia and spread to several Arab countries was manipulated by America to move closer to its goal of creating a new Greater Middle East, where old European powers have marginal influence. The dismissal of Zine El Abidine Ben Ali was not a random event. Rather, it was a synthesis of rampant corruption incubated by 23 years of Western patronage and fused with dire economic conditions made worse by the global financial crisis and bloodsucking IMF structural programs. America is eagerly awaiting similar turmoil to manifest itself in Algeria, Jordan, and the Gulf countries, so that she can engineer regimes that pledge greater loyalty to her hegemony at the expense of Britain and France.

With regards to Egypt, America defused the uprising by disposing of her loyal agent Mubarak and handed the power to the army to rule Egypt on her behalf. The Suez Canal and Egypt’s the pact with Israel remains intact much to the dismay of the Egyptian public. Today, American officials have resurrected outdated plans to devour the Arab world once deemed too ambitious to accomplish and too dangerous to talk about in public.

So whilst the US attempts the hijack the uprising, the Muslim Ummah has thrown away her fear of the rulers who ruled with an iron fist to remain in power. This is the most important aspect that has changed.

Elections are now taking place in Egypt, does this signal the decline of the SCAF’s influence?

On assuming power the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) suspended the constitution whilst both houses of parliament were dissolved, they also declared the military would rule for six months until elections could be held. The prior cabinet would continue to serve as a caretaker government until a new one was formed. Then a constitutional referendum held in March 2011 saw only a 41% turnout to limit presidential terms amongst a host of proposals, many of the groups who initially protested against Mubarak boycotted the vote as it did not go far enough. A vote on a new constitution is yet to take place and this is complicated by the elections to elect a new government.

The Egyptian army since it came to power through the three Officers coup in 1952 has been the de facto rulers of Egypt. They however have allowed a civilian leadership to carry out the day-to-day administration of the country, whilst they have determined the strategic direction of Egypt. When the uprising began the army realised that Mubarak was a liability and in essence a coup was undertaken against him. By April 2011 hundreds of thousands of demonstrators again filled Tahrir Square, criticizing the ruling SCAF for not following through on revolutionary demands. They demanded the resignation of remaining regime figures and the removal of Egypt’s public prosecutor due to the slow pace of investigations of corrupt former officials.

After much delay the election of for a new Parliament started December 2011. The Islamic parties have fared very well. This led to condemnation by the SCAF who viewed the upcoming parliament as “not representative” of the true will of the Egyptian voters, even though they voted for them. Gen. Mukhtar Mulla said that instead of allowing parliament to write the constitution the junta will now appoint a new council of its own to oversee the drafting of the constitution and will “limit” the already mostly powerless parliament.

Since removing Mubarak from power the SCAF has constantly played its cards wrong and this has turned the Egyptian populace against itself whilst initially having such support. The army initially kept Mubarak’s cabinet as a caretaker cabinet and argued this would remain until a new cabinet would be formed after the elections. A government reshuffle then took place as the caretaker cabinet was in reality the armies handpicked cronies. However the defence, interior, foreign, finance, and justice ministries remained unchanged. The army has constantly attempted to placate the protests by making artificial changes, however each of the changes have led to further protests.

The army has made it clear that it plans to maintain its powerful role in Egyptian politics. So whilst the army underestimated how well the Islamic parties would do, it still maintains that, rather then the new parliament will decide the new constitution through handpicking a panel of experts.

Does the victory of the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Nour party now mean the Arab spring has ushered in a new era for an Islamic government?

The Muslim brotherhood and the Nour party have won landslide victories, however their future agenda appears not to be any different to its predecessors. Whilst the Muslim brotherhood are the largest group in Egypt and yield immense power, they have operated from a position of weakness. They have gone out of their way to highlight they are not really calling for Islam and have attempted to appease the global concern about Islam in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood have set up the Freedom and Justice Party and insisted that the Party will be completely separate from the parent organisation. This new party has also stated that it would be prepared to enter into a coalition government with any of the other parties. Hilaray Clinton has said that the Obama administration was “continuing the approach of limited contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood that have existed on and off for about five or six years.” The Nour party has been no different. The spokesman of the Salafi al-Nour Party, Yousri Hammad, was asked in a phone interview with the independent satellite channel al-Nas about controversial statements attributed to party chairman Emad Abdul Ghafour regarding the possibility of holding negotiations with Israel. He said: “We have not received an official request from Israel yet, but if we sit with Israel, it has to be through the Egyptian Foreign Ministry,” he added “Egypt is signatory to international treaties and these have to be respected, This is not my personal opinion or that of the party chairman. It is part of the party’s policies.”

Where do matters currently stand in Syria?

Bashar Al-Assad continues to massacre his own people, whilst the international community looks on. The response by the international community has been largely filled with rhetoric. Whilst many have called for Assad’s removal, the US has called for reforms by the Assad regime.

It is important to remember that whilst Syria is depicted as an international pariah state that supports Hizbullah and Palestinian militants. However, away from public scrutiny the US government has always viewed Syria as an important surrogate that is needed in the region. Syria has safeguarded US interests, which includes the arrest and torture of its own people. In Iraq, Syria played an active role in infiltrating the Islamists and passing on valuable intelligence to the US led coalition and in Lebanon the Syrian deterrent forces (SDF) ensured the protection of US interests with the Taif agreement in 1989 as it became the real power in Lebanon.

The US has pushed the Syrian opposition to maintain dialogue with Bashar al-Assad’s regime and details have emerged of a ‘roadmap’ for reforms that would leave Assad in power despite demands for his overthrow. Hilary Clinton explained the American stance in an interview with Lucia Annunziata of Italy’s ‘In Mezz’Ora,’ in May 2011:“the difference between the situations in Syria and Libya is that the Syrian government might still come around and pursue a reform agenda… There are deep concerns about what is going on inside Syria, and we are pushing hard for the government of Syria to live up to its own stated commitment to reforms,” she said. “What I do know is that they have an opportunity still to bring about a reform agenda. Nobody believed Qaddafi would do that. People do believe there is a possible path forward with Syria. So we’re going to continue joining with all of our allies to keep pressing very hard on that.”

The US has tried to keep Assad in power but has also supported the opposition if he is unable to maintain his grip on power. The Syrian opposition has begun openly seeking international intervention, during a meeting in Antalya, Turkey, in June 2011 Syria’s opposition came together and requested the West to aid Syria as it did in Libya. The US has also called for the opposition to unify so that a new ruling council can be formed, with whom the US can deal with, as is what happened in Libya with the National Transitional Council. Mark Toner, the US State Department’s deputy spokesman, told CNN that “a real opposition to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was beginning to form after five months of pro-democracy protests. We have seen the Syrian opposition begin to take shape, begin to stand up and become more cohesive and become more broadly representative… of Syrian society.” Toner said President Barack Obama’s administration would like to remain in touch with the Syrian opposition as it grows.

In the case of Syria unlike Libya there has been very few calls for military intervention, both France and Britain continue the rhetoric for regime change as the Assad’s regime systematically massacres its own people. Various resolutions from the Arab league in effect give the regime more time to quell the uprising. Syria is in effect in a stalemate, the people are unable to mount a sustainable offensive to overthrow the regime, whilst the Assad regime is unable to completely quell the protests. As pictures continue to beam around the world of the Syrian security services systematically and brutally massacring the protesters and as the regime prepares to carry out a full scale military offensive in towns such as Homs and Daraa. The opposition who are organising into a national council will become much more prominent as the crisis descends into civil war.

Gaddafi was removed from power in August 2011, what is the current status of Libya?

After overthrowing Gaddafi, the National Transitional Council (NTC) has been accepted by the international community as the only representative of the Libyan people, even though in reality it is not recognised by many groups. Comments by both London and Paris since the fall of Tripoli, of peacekeeping forces remaining is an ominous sign that Western interference will remain.

Currently Libya does not have a fully established army. In the aftermath of the downfall of Gaddafi and his regime, Libya still lacks any centralized political authority. The country is still struggling to recover from the month’s long war against Gaddafi, and neither the NTC nor the transitional government it formed in November 2011 constitutes a true, legitimized authority. Power remains in the hands of the armed militias, and none of those are strong enough on their own to begin acting as a national military force. The international community has long viewed the NTC as the embryo of the future Libyan state. Yet at the moment, the NTC counts among its challenges the most basic task of state formation: establishing internal security. The on-going formation of the Libyan National Army is the centrepiece of the NTC’s push to accomplish this task, but so far, all attempts at threatening the militias into subservience have accomplished next to nothing.

It should be remembered with regards to Libya that the US viewed the instability in Libya as an opportunity to gain influence in the country. It made use of Europe’s inability to go it alone in removing Gaddafi to steal Libya from Europe and Britain. The US strategy was to delay matters which would make Europe ever more reliant on US fire power, this stalling allowed the US to cultivate contact with the rebels. This is one of the reasons why it took so long to overwhelm Gaddafi’s forces. The US delayed the launch of the initial invasion and by passing over the operation to NATO it only delayed matters further. A senior European official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to the Washington Post and to avoid antagonizing the Americans, said that Obama’s eagerness to turn over command of the Libyan air operation to NATO in late February 2011 and the withdrawal of US fighter planes from ground-strike missions, had undermined the strength of their united front against Gaddafi.

In Tunisia the Ennahda party won the election, are we witnessing the first Islamic party who will implement in Islam?

Whilst Ben Ali was overthrown many of those individuals who worked with him have attempted to shape post Ben Ali Tunisia and have been in constant contact with France and Britain. This political class attempted to stall the elections as the environment in their view was not right and they would in reality garner very few votes.

When elections did take place in October 2011 it was only for a constituent assembly, this new Assembly had 217 members. Only 50% of the electorate voted with the Ennahdah movement gaining 38% of the total vote. In its attempts the placate international concerns Ennahdah’s Rachid Ghannouchi, explained with regards to establishing the Khilafah: “Definitely, we are a nation state. We desire a state for Tunisian reforms, for the Tunisian State. As for the issue of the Khilafah, this is an issue that is not one of reality. The issue of today’s reality is that we are a Tunisian State that desires reform, so that it becomes a State for the Tunisian People, not against them.” Ghannouchi has been a long term advocate of Islamic reform and along with other leading members of the movement advocates the imitation of the Turkish model of governance.

It appears Ali Abdullah Saleh has finally agreed to a transition deal, does this now mean regime change has taken place in Yemen?

After intense pressure and political wrangling Salah agreed to the GCC deal in late November 2011, which he previously backed away from on numerous occasions at the last moment. The deal hands over Saleh’s powers to Abdrabuh Mansur Hadi, the Yemeni vice-president, to negotiate a power transfer with the opposition in return for a promise of immunity from prosecution.

Even though Saleh will be formally stepping down as president and with elections to take place in February 2012 the political transition in Yemen in no way constitutes regime change. The deal gives Saleh a dignified exit. But one must ask why Saleh has agreed to such a deal after refusing to sign the same agreement on numerous occasions previously? On this occasion it appears the deal would largely leave the regime under his family’s control.

The post Saleh regime is full of his family members with his son Ahmed Ali Saleh, remaining in control over the armed forces. The struggle in Yemen will continue as Saleh attempts to dictate Yemen policy from behind the scenes even though he will formally not be in power. Yemen is another example of where the personnel may have changed but the regime remains in power, setting the nation up for further instability.

The biggest problem with Yemen is the Anglo-American struggle taking place. The British Deputy Foreign Secretary for Middle Eastern affairs Evan Louis while meeting the Yemeni Ambassador in London on 24th November 2009 clarified regarding the situation in Yemen: “What is happening in Yemen is a proxy war.” The US has used the war on terror to undermine Ali Abdullah-Saleh by accusing Yemen of being a hub for Al Qaeeda, Ali Abdullah-Saleh attempted to appease the US with a host of security guarantees which allowed the US to carry out drone attacks in the country. The uprising has given the US the opportunity to remove Saleh, who however dug in his heals with the support of Britain and in the face of demands by his own people to leave. He agreed on many occasions to a transition deal – led by the Gulf Cooperation council (GCC) – another US tool, but  constantly backtracked. The US has continually called for the immediate transition of power in Yemen, whilst Britain has stopped at reforms and has also deployed military assets near the embattled nation.

Why have the secular groups failed in making much progress in elections that have taken place across the region?

The ecular groups have failed to garner many votes in the elections that have taken place and have largely fallen from public eye as the revolution continued to evolve. This has been due to the fact that many secular groups have very little support and as a result have been unable to achieve anything sustainable due to their small numbers.

In the initial days of the Egyptian uprising the Western media gave them much attention due to their ability to harness Social media. However as they interviewed and spoke to such individuals their views for secular change were taken as representative of the masses. Egypt with a population of over 81 million, with its largest city Cairo’s 6 million population, at most 300,000 people were in Tahrir square during the peak of the protests. As the Western media interviewed those who advocated their values, the assumption was this is what the masses wanted. An interesting insight was provided by Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi at the American Spectator: “That Islamism consequently has a significant degree of appeal should not come as a surprise…instead of trying to offer comprehensive alternative policy programs to voters, prominent, Western-educated Egyptians like Mona Eltahawy have become enthralled with spectacles like that of an Egyptian female blogger’s stripping completely naked….in the midst of an Islamist upsurge in Egypt, they can find nothing better to do than to express delight over someone exposing her entire body on a public forum.”

Secular values have very little traction in the Muslim word, whatever the rhetoric is from the Western media. Mohamad Elberadi confirmed that secular groups have very little traction in Egypt in an interview with Britain’s Telegraph: “I should say even if they [secular groups] continued to coalesce into a cohesive bloc, they would not have been able to compete fairly and squarely right now. They don’t have the resources, they don’t know the techniques. … They haven’t connected with the people on the street.”

As one geopolitical analyst put it: “The case of Egypt raises an interesting and obvious question regardless of how it all turns out. What if there are democratic elections and the people choose a regime that violates the principles of Western human rights? What happens if, after tremendous Western effort to force democratic elections, the electorate chooses to reject Western values and pursue a very different direction — for example, one that regards Western values as morally reprehensible and aims to make war against them?…….but the general assertion is a form of narcissism in the West that assumes that all reasonable people, freed from oppression, would wish to emulate us.”

What is the future of the Arab spring?

The Arab spring challenges the existing world order. The people who rose up to over-throw their rulers do possess an alternative system of governance and in 2011 they moved a step closer to taking their destiny into their own hands. Whilst the narrative from the West has been demonstrations equal western values, the success of Islamist parties runs contrary to this. The secular groups who communicated to Western audiences via social media were given the majority of the media airtime. Despite this they remain a tiny minority.

Whilst the Arab spring is still a work in progress and as many of the statements by the Islamic parties leaves much to desire, the role of Islam in society and governance will only increase. Those parties that dilute Islam, will see themselves side-lined as their votes are based upon them remaining Islamic.

2011 was the year a new player entered the global scene. Whilst much will need to happen for the current uprising to turn into an Islamic government, the US and the Western world will have to contend with a rejuvenated Muslim world who have broken the shackles of fear (something the West backed) to take their destiny into their own hands. Whilst it remains to be seen how Islamic the current crop of Islamic parties will be, what is for sure is the Muslim world wants change and that change is not for a four millennia old, foreign system developed in Europe.

2011 will remain long in the memory when the history books are finally written. What has now come to be known as the Arab spring began with a single man in the markets of Tunisia, which then spread to thousands on the streets in Cairo and evolved to hundreds of thousands demanding political change in the Muslim world. The self immolation of Mohamed Bouazizi in Tunisia created a sweeping wave, which crossed the artificial borders in the Muslim world encompassing Egypt, Libya, Yemen and Bahrain until it engulfed most of the Muslim world. 2011’s Strategic Estimate, Khilafah.com’s annual assessment of the global balance of power is dominated by the Arab spring.

We concluded in our 2011 assessment that the US remained the world’s superpower, howeverithadbeenover-stretchedin both the wars it was engaged in after the events of 9/11, this led to a number of nations taking a more confident and in some cases a confrontational approach to the US in the different regions of the world. In 2011, America, the world superpower and the world’s largest economy every year since 1870 had its credit rating downgraded as doubts surfaced about its ability to repay its ever growing debts. Unable to pull itself out of recession and extricate itself from deployments across the world the end of the American century continues to dominate discourse about the American empire.

The challenges to America stem primarily from Russia and China. Both have made significant progress in strengthening themselves in the face of US global domination. Russia continued with its resurgence in its periphery and took a more cooperative approach to strengthening itself which is a departure from the more aggressive policy which has dominated the Kremlin for the last decade. 2011 was dominated by Russia surging ahead with its attempts to modernise and fill the technology gap the nation faces due to the decline it under went after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

China’s economy continued to surge ahead in 2011, however many questions remain on the sustainability of the economic model driving Chinese growth as the global economy fails to grow. China made a number of political moves to strengthen itself in its region and achieved significant milestones by rolling out its first aircraft carrier and developing its first stealth fighter jet.

The global economy at the end of 2011 is in a worse position than it was in 2010. With the European sovereign debt crises spreading and the failure of the world’s premier economies in generating economic growth, a double dip recession dominated the global economy in 2011. This economic crisis has brought the European Union to virtual breaking point as various Eurozone nations came to the brink of defaulting on their debts. 2011 was dominated by Europe’s premier powers attempting to redesign Europe – this has led to the emergence of Germany – a country whose prospects we asses.

Not surprisingly Iran made the headlines again late in 2011 as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released its report about Iran’s attempts to enrich uranium and develop a nuclear device. We analyse this recurring episode in order to separate rhetoric from reality. We also analyse the conception of weapons of mass destruction (WMD’s) their reality and role in the global balance of power.

Issuu

Download book here

America formally ended its eight-and-a-half year military occupation in Iraq on the 15th December 2012 with a flag-lowering ceremony presided over by Defence Secretary Leon Panetta Baghdad. The West led by the US invaded the oil rich nation in March 2003 under dubious claims. Whilst US policy makers continue champion ‘mission accomplished’ former head of the National Security Agency, the late Lieutenant General William Odom, called in 2005 — just two-and-a-half years after the US invasion – ‘the greatest strategic disaster in United States history.’

Whatever comes out from Washington or the Western media we make the following points with regards to America’s imperial adventure into Iraq:

1. The case for war against Iraq was cantered on Saddam Hussein’s possessions of weapons of mass destruction (WMD’s), that could be deployed at a moments notice by a mad man who was hell bent on causing terror around the world and was even linked in some way to the 9/11 attacks. After the invasion, the US created the 1,400-member international Iraq Survey Group who conducted a fact-finding mission to find Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. By 2004 the ISG’s Duelfer Report stated that Iraq did not have a viable WMD program. On September 30th 2004, the US Iraq Survey Group final report concluded that, “ISG has not found evidence that Saddam Husayn (sic) possessed WMD stocks in 2003, but the available evidence from its investigation—including detainee interviews and document exploitation—leaves open the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq although not of a militarily significant capability.” The US then continued to change the reasons for its invasion of Iraq, from the moral right to remove Saddam Hussein to previous UN resolution permitting the use of force to the fact that the Muslims of Iraq wanted the US to invade their country and remove Saddam.

2. Within a few months of the invasion, the US quickly became marred in an insurgency that today has greatly affected US prowess around the world. Evan Kohlmann, a leading expert on the insurgency outlined its beginnings “When the US invasion began in 2003, it was mainly Baathists, ex-Iraqi military, and Saddam loyalists. They were Iraqi nationalists, opposed to foreign occupation, who saw Iraq as a competitor with Egypt for the control of the Arab world. It was an issue of national pride. Video recordings and communiqués were coming out from everybody who had an AK-47. But as the war dragged on, some of these groups started coalescing; others were destroyed. Only the strongest, the most hardcore, the best financed, the people with the most training, survived, despite air strikes and the arrest of their senior leaders by the U.S. military.” The Shi’ah Mahdi Army began launching attacks on coalition targets in an attempt to seize control of territory. The Southern and Central portions of Iraq were beginning to erupt in urban guerrilla combat as multinational forces attempted to keep control and prepared for a counteroffensive. Many from Iraq joined Muqtada al-Sadr. The Mahdi Army area of operation stretched from Basra in the south to the Sadr City section of Baghdad in Central Iraq. Whilst the US had defeated Iraq’s conventional forces in 21 days, it was Iraq’s unconventional forces that humbled the US military machine. In 2006 a Study Group, made up of people from both of the major US parties, led by former US Secretary of State James Baker and former Democratic congressman Lee Hamilton, concluded that “the situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating” and ”U.S. forces seem to be caught in a mission that has no foreseeable end.” US claims that the Iraqi people wanted them to invade began to ring hollow.

3. When the Baker-Hamiltin report was released to congress in December 2006 the US was well and truly drowning in Iraq and comparisons were being made with Vietnam. It became clear to all that the US had massively underestimated the enemy and whilst it had rapidly removed Iraq’s conventional forces the unconventional elements in Iraq had brought the US army to a stalemate. Whilst the Baker-Hamilton report proposed engagement with Iran over Iraq, engagement with Iran had already begun, in order to contain the insurgency. Iran initiated its proxy the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI) a group created in Tehran with full backing in 1982. Abdel Aziz al-Hakim its supreme leader until his death in 2009, gathered the major Shi’ah factions to partake in Iraq’s US constructed government, this left the US with an insurgency around Baghdad to only contend with.

4. Rapprochement between both Iran and the US was confirmed by Ahmadinejad, in his interview with the New York Times during his visit to the United Nations Summit in September 2008: “Iran has extended its hand of cooperation to the United States on the issue of Afghanistan…and our country has given assistance to the US in restoring peace and stability in Iraq.” The US through promises of positions in government, bribes and rewards managed to co-opt many of the Shi’ah factions give up violence and take part in the American constructed political setup. The role of Iran was outlined by an Iraqi official at the time “There is no doubt the Iranians have recently applied influence and leverage over Jaish al-Mahdi to contain and limit its operations inside Iraq,” Barham Salih said in an interview to IPS. “This is a welcome sign. But I’ll be very frank with you: the very fact that Iran can turn on and off the activities of Jaish al-Mahdi is one of concern to me as an Iraqi official.” Without Iranian support, Iraq would have become America’s new Vietnam. Whilst on the surface Iran-US relations appear to be strained as the US continues to ratchet up the nuclear enrichment issue whenever it suits them, both nations behind the scenes view each other through another lens. Both Iran and the US have the same interests in the region and have worked together in Afghanistan for some time. Iran could have brought the US to its knees, but its pragmatic rulers have turned out to be no different the other rulers in the Muslim world who have betrayed the Ummah time and time again.

5. Iraq’s first parliamentary elections in 2005 institutionalised sectarian and ethnic differences. In this way the US could always rely on support from different groups within Iraq who will remain divided and will always cut deals with the US in return for promises of power. Parliament was split between the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA) led by the SCIRI and the Democratic Patriotic Alliance of Kurdistan (DPAK). This precarious settlement between these two groups meant Sunni resistance was contained and the US argued the elections had credibility due to the participation.

6. The US constructed a political system in Iraq which will protect and maintain its interests. America has merely replaced a brutal system with a corrupt system that recognises the ethnic and sectarian breakdown of Iraq. This will keep Iraq divided forever and as the jockeying for the March 7th 2010 elections has shown democracy has created fertile ground for polarised politics instead of dictatorial politics. Democracy rather than solve nationalism, tribalism or sectarianism, in reality recognises such corruption and incorporates it into a system of parliamentary politics allowing various factions to fight and jockey for their petty interests. This means in the long run violence will continue as a means to settle ethnic differences – which would suit the US as an acceptable level of chaos and violence justifies continued US interference. Similarly Iraq’s oil auction through Service Contracts (ST’s) that the Iraqi government agreed with various international oil companies has left the control over the Iraqi oil firmly in the hands of the Iraqi government. The oil companies have been contracted by the Iraqi government as service providers only. In this way America has full control over the Iraqi government, which means that through the established ST’s America has maintained full control over the Iraqi oil industry.

7. The Iraq war has undermined the US forever, whatever its rhetoric regarding the end of the occupation. The US has been exposed for throwing aside international law in a colonial pursuit and then concocting lies in order to justify invasion. During the invasion the US violated human rights as well as the rights afforded to prisons in Guantanamo Bay and in the infamous Abu Gharib prison. The Haditha killings, the use of White phosphorus, the Mahmoudiyah incident, the torture and killing of prisoners of war and the Mukaradeeb incident where 42 civilians were bombed and shot in a wedding party are publicly known war crimes. These state-crimes in fact symbolise American’s invasion and brutal occupation and not exaggerated claims of mission accomplished. Alongside this more than 100,000, quite possibly 200,000 or more innocent Iraqi civilians lost their lives under US watch. US policies after the invasion to disband the Iraqi army caused a vacuum, which was then filled with violence.

8. The war may be at and end but US interference and colonial agenda is set to remain in Iraq. The US is merely reorienting its presence in Iraq as it no longer needs a large combat force in the country, which attempts to survive daily IED attacks. A smaller more specialised force can protect US interests. The reduced level of troops is possible in tandem with the expanded diplomatic mission because the US has been largely successful in its intentions in Iraq, setting in place the intended political, military, and economic elements for Iraq to remain firmly within American sphere of control. As the New York Times reported in September, the debate over specific numbers and figures is unimportant. “The administration has already drawn up plans for an extensive expansion of the American Embassy and its operations, bolstered by thousands of paramilitary security contractors.”

The US has today replaced a dictator with a system built upon ethno-sectarian differences which is institutionalised for decades to come. As the US attempted to extricate itself from this conflict which has gone well beyond what the US contemplated, the US is finding a resurgent Russia reclaiming back the former Soviet Republics and a confident China expanding its supply lines across South-East Asia all the way to Africa. The US position is considered untenable and overstretched and this has led Russia and China to be much more confident in challenging US prowess around the world. We also find that the US today is more and more reliant for the help and cooperation of Muslim rulers in the world whether it is in Iraq or Afghanistan, in order to achieve its aims. Their treachery has given the US the much needed support it required in its time of need. Whilst Obama may claim Iraq as his victory, globally US prowess has been permanently damaged.

Details have not for the first time resurfaced again of a possible air attack on Iran’s nuclear installations. These specific leaks have emerged from the forthcoming International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report, which is due imminently. Whilst Khilafah.com have addressed the Iran-USnuclearstand-offpreviously, with an up-tickin rhetoric we thought it would appropriate to outline our view on the issue.

It should be remembered that the current intensification all takes place around the IAEA’s report which will apparently say more explicitly than previous IAEA assessments that Iran is indeed actively pursuing a nuclear programme.

There is a regular escalation of rhetoric each time a report is on the verge of release on Iran’s nuclear programme. Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons is not new and in fact has been under way since the 1960’s. Iran has for the moment not tested a nuclear device, because building a Nuclear weapon requires a comprehensive commitment from any nation for its national resources to be deployed in such a manner. It is not just about one faculty, it needs an industrial base. A nuclear program requires long term facilities, which are very energy intensive, years of experimentation, fissile material and high grade industrial machinery.

The NuclearNon-proliferationTreaty (NPT) was carved out in 1968 and Iran became a signatory in 1970. It is well known that Iran under the Shah had begun its nuclear activity in collaboration with French and German companies.

Khomeini halted Iran’s nuclear activity in 1979, whilst Rafsanjani, when he came to power resumed Iran’s nuclear programme in 1995. The nuclear programme continued during the reformist period (1997–2005) under Khatami. It was in 2003, after the occupation of Iraq that a number of exiled Iranian’s made public that Iran was pursuing a secret and unsafe nuclear programme and was hiding the programme from the inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Based on this, the chief of IAEA, Mohammed el Baradai prepared a report and presented it to the IAEA. This is when the Iranian Nuclear Crisis gained momentum.

During the rule of Khatami in 2003 an ‘additional protocol’ was signed which allowed, IAEA inspectors to carry out checks without notice as Iran could be hiding a number of installations during planned and scheduled inspections.

Iran ceased Uranium enrichment for the sake of negotiations, however the Troika’ of Germany, France and Britain refused to guarantee Iran’s right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Iran therefore resumed its uranium enrichment programme.

The US, since this crisis began has done everything it can to sabotage a possible solution. Whilst the European ‘Troika’ are engaged in negotiations with Iran to find a solution to the problem, the US has constantly delayed a possible solution. Whenever the negotiations reached a point of near-solution, US officials would issue a statement with an implied warning that the US had all options open to it – even after the Troika made progress on a solution. The nuclear issue achieves a number of regional interests for the US. Firstly it shows Iran that the US is prepared to use other means if it does not play ball. The bellicose language has also helped the US aggressively push its missile shield programme in face of stiff Russian opposition. Additionally, it enabled the US to enter into security pacts with the Gulf States who view Iran as a threat to their security and to acquire nuclear energy from the US. It has also forced the Israelis into a security pact with the US.

The current uptick in rhetoric is being driven by Israel and those on the right of the political spectrum in the US who have always viewed the use of US military personal and equipment to as the best means to control Iran. Israel has consistently taken an aggressive stance towards Israel as an Iranian state with nuclear weapons completely alters the balance of power in the region away form Iran.

Any attack on Iran would require a surprise attack covering a large area. The problem with any attack on Iran is that Iran has numerous tools at its disposal. Iran can cause significant problem for the US in Iraq through its proxies especially as the US attempts to withdraw its troops. Iran’s ballistic missile’s can target both American and Israeli targets across the region and many missiles will likely be launched before all their mobile launchers can be pinpointed and destroyed by the US let alone Israel.

Iran’s best deterrent is its ability to conduct guerrilla warfare in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz. Iran can deploy naval mines, shore-basedanti-shipmissiles and small boat swarms. This would have a much wider impact then a military conflict because when 40% of the world’s oil trade is disrupted the financial markets would go into freefall, ushering in another global recession. This is Iran’s real nuclear option.

Aside from all the rhetoric, the US and Iran have cooperated on a number of issues which has protected American interests in the region These include supporting Hamas and Hezbollah in the Levant, strengthening the Iraqi government through the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI) and stabilising Afghanistan. Official contact has gradually grown since the end of the Bush term. America has even snubbed Israeli previously to attack Iran. America played down Israel’s show of air power over the Mediterranean in November 2008 and has refused to sell the powerful GBU-29bunker-bustersbombs.

With regards the threat of crippling sanctions, no sanctions regime is water tight. The real vulnerability in the sanctions comes from Russia. Iran has become a major pressure point in Russia’s ongoing geopolitical tussle with the United States, and Moscow has signalled in a number of ways that it isn’t going to be shy about using its leverage with Tehran to turn the screws on Washington. Moscow has a list of core demands that revolve around the basic concept of the West respecting Russian influence in its former Soviet periphery. As long as the United States continues to rebuff these demands and write off Russia as a weak power, the Russians not only can refuse to participate in sanctions but they can also blow the entire sanctions regime apart. The more bogged down the United States is in the Islamic world, the more Russia weakens the US.

The debate about Iran being independent and potentially Islamic or even a Shi’ah state, Iran is nothing other then pragmatic without any consistent basis from where it derives it’s polices. Iran saved Iraq from becoming America’s Vietnam and whilst traditionally the reformists reached out to the West both the conservatives and the reformists are in bed with the US. The Muslims of the region and beyond have been manipulated before and served as US pawns to bring down the Soviet Union. Today, Obama and some of his advisors believe that this feat can be repeated against Russia and China. The Muslim Ummah must learn from its past experience.

Since the summer of 2011 various US officials have made statements about the drawdown of US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. These wars which have now lasted longer than WW2 and are considered by many an analyst to have set in motion the end of the American century.

With an escalation in suicide attacks in Afghanistan, an uncooperative Pakistan (according to US officials) and with Iran firmly in control of Iraq, one would consider the withdrawal of US forces as something contrary to protecting US interests. After incurring astronomical costs in maintaining the US war machine in the Muslim world we witnessing the end of the US in the region? Has it been defeated?

In both Iraq and Afghanistan the US has achieved its short to medium terms aims, not without many problems en route. The current events are a reorientation of US resources in order to secure its longer term strategic interests in the region.

Iraq

The US had its eyes on Iraq and its coveted oil fields going back to George Bush senior. 9/11 finally presented the Neocon government the justification to launch a full scale invasion and implement regime change. A strategy of using military force to enforce ‘democracy’ on the region ensued and after a month of fighting the US occupied the country and withdrew half its troops. It was after this the Shi’ah in the South of Iraq launched there insurgency, whilst the Sunnis around Baghdad made the US occupation a living nightmare. Within a few months of the invasion, the US very quickly became marred in an insurgency that today has greatly affected US prowess around the world.

By 2005 the US was well and truly drowning in Iraq and comparisons were being made with Vietnam. It became clear to all that the US had massively underestimated the enemy and whilst it had rapidly removed Iraq’s conventional forces the unconventional elements in Iraq had brought the US army to a stalemate. A position from which the US was never going to win the war, but it was a war it was not prepared to lose either.

It was at this juncture the US began discussing selective engagement with Iran. Whilst the Baker-Hamiltonreportto congress in 2006 contained such a proposition, engagement with Iran had already begun, in order to contain the Shi’ia insurgency.

The US turned to countries surrounding Iraq to save its self from bleeding to death. Iran’s proxy the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI) a group created in Tehran in 1982 gathered the major Shi’ah factions to partake in Iraq’s government, bringing to an end the insurgency in the South. Syria played an active role in infiltrating the Sunni resistance against the US in Iraq and passed on valuable intelligence to the US led coalition. Syria’s influence over the Sunni resistance fighters that operated in Iraq was emphasised by the Baker-Hamiltonreport.

Similarly Turkey played a central role in ensuring the US constructed architecture came together. Turkey had a policy of maintaining contact with all groups in Iraq.MoqtadaAl-Sadr‘s held numerous in Ankara focused on the political process in 2009, the deadlock after the March 2010 elections saw PrimeMinisterNourial-Maliki, the leader of ISCI and Iyad Alawi travel to Turkey in order to gain its support in forming the new government. Similarly the Semi-autonomousNorthernIraqhas seen over $5 billion in investment from Turkey.

In this way the US was able to stem the insurgency, construct a political system, which the various factions have now entered and through which they will fight for their interests. This allowed the US to withdraw its troops in stages as the insurgency was stemmed.

The US has achieved its strategic interests in controlling the flow of Iraqi oil. This is through the nature of the agreements to extract oil in the country. Usually governments and oil companies agree to so-called“Production Sharing Agreements (PSA).” Under a PSA, a government gives the oil company the rights to a certain share of the proven crude oil reserves, in return for pumping up (extracting) crude oil. Governments usually grant oil companies a share of the crude oil in the range of 30 — 70%. However the contracts in the case of the Iraqi crude oil are ‘Service Contracts (ST).’ Under the ST an oil company is only contracted by the government to perform the service of pumping up the crude oil. For each barrel it pumps up, the oil company is then awarded a remuneration fee. But ownership of the crude oil remains in the hands of the government. In this way Iraqi oil remained within the control of the US sponsored Iraqi government that is dependent on the US. The US controls Iraq’s converted oil fields by ensuring no other nation gained access to the oil.

With the day-to-daypoliticsfirmlyin the hand of proxies of Syria, Iran and Turkey, this allows the US to consolidate its position in the region. Combat troops are now no longer needed in Iraq and a smaller more specialised force can protect US interests. This is why the US drawdown in Iraq saw thousands of troops renamed as transition troops rather than combat troops in 2010.

The reduced level of troops is possible in tandem with the expanded diplomatic mission because the US has been largely successful in its intentions in Iraq, setting in place the intended political, military, and economic elements for Iraq to remain firmly within American sphere of control. As the New York Times reported in September, the debate over specific numbers and figures is unimportant. “The administration has already drawn up plans for an extensive expansion of the American Embassy and its operations, bolstered by thousands of paramilitary security contractors.”

The US plans to maintain as it does in many other countries, large embassies staffed by civilians and military personnel overseeing the training and equipping of Iraq’s security forces for an indefinite period. The State Department is expected to have up to 17,000 employees and contractors for this ongoing diplomatic presence, which has been described as necessary to provide “situational awareness around the country, manage political crises in potential hotspots such as Kirkuk, and provide a platform for delivering economic, development and security assistance.” Providing housing, workspace, medical facilities, and security for a legion of civilian workers requires exorbitant funds, expansive land use, and construction not yet finalized in most areas as well as security contractors to protect them.

Afghanistan

America had its eyes on Afghanistan well before the events of 9/11. When troops were deployed to Afghanistan the Bush administration maintained a very small military footprint and this is what set him apart from the Obama administration that escalated the US military footprint. Both administrations planned to use Pakistan to win the war in Afghanistan in order to maintain America’s long term presence in Afghanistan in order to:

1. Prevent Russian and Chinese domination of Eurasia

2. Prevent the emergence of the Khilafah State

3. Control the hydrocarbon resources of the Caspian Sea and the Middle East

4. Control the security and the transit of hydrocarbons from the Caspian Sea and the Middle East

Obama’s strategy, which called for a massive escalation was in reality just another in a number of nominally different strategies announced throughout the decade of war. All of them had roughly the same theme, more troops and more attacks, and had the same results, an ever worsening security situation.

Through using Pakistan as well as Iran in its solution for Afghanistan the US under Obama executed plans for a long term strategic presence, from large combat force to small focussed special operations force. US bases will also remain within the country which the US has secured. The US is in the process of expanding the Bagram, Kandahar and Mazar-E-Shairfmilitarybasesin Afghanistan with an allocation of over $300 million. The expansion of US military bases in Afghanistan is running counter to the commitment to begin withdrawing troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2011.

A large CIA and Joint Special Operations forces (JSOC) presence will remain in the country for the foreseeable future. Lt. Gen. John Mulholland, a former colonel with US special operations forces told the New York Times in August “We’re moving toward an increased special operations role,” together with US intelligence, “whether it’scounterterrorism-centric, or counterterrorism blended with counterinsurgency.”

The problem the US has faced in Afghanistan unlike in Iraq is that it has been unable to placate the Taliban into its political system and has thus relied on the corrupt and inept Hamid Karzai. Bombing Afghanistan to the stone age has failed. Whilst a combination of bombing and negotiations is also not working. The debate between negotiations and military strikes continues to divide the US government. There continues to be indifference in the Afghan strategy between the military-intelligenceand the Obama administration. The military and the CIA have argued strongly against negotiating with the Taliban. In June 2010, CIA director Leon Panetta declared publicly, “We have seen no evidence that they are truly interested in reconciliation where they would surrender their arms, where theywoulddenounceal-Qaeda, where they would really try to become part of that society.”

Several current and former American officials say the United States hastriedthisbomb-them-to-the-bargaining-tableapproachbefore. In the 1990s, it helped drive Serbian leaders to peace talks in Dayton, Ohio, but it has resulted in little so far with the Afghan Taliban. Mulla Umar confirmed in his Eid al fitr message that negotiations are taking place.

The Obama administration’s December 2010 strategy review produced a potential alternative to thatmilitary-CIAapproach. An intelligence assessment circulated just as the 50-page classified review of progress in Afghanistan and Pakistan was being completed concluded that Pakistan was not likely to agree to carry out a major military operation against the Haqqani group, regardless of US pressures. It also suggested that, without such a change in Pakistan’s policy, the US military strategy in Afghanistan couldn’t succeed. That strengthened the hand of those who had been sceptical about the military’s approach to the problem. The result, according to sources familiar with the document, was that the strategy review suggested the need for a ”political approach” to the insurgency in general and the Haqqani network in particular.

Hilary Clinton confirmed that in her visit to Pakistan in October 2011 she used her meeting to reassure the Pakistanis that they would play a central role in such reconciliation talks. “We’re at the point where Pakistanis have told us they’re going to squeeze the Haqqani network,” a senior administration official said. “They’re satisfied they’ve got a way forward on reconciliation. They’ve got a role to play.” That first exploratory meeting was held secretly in the United Arab Emirates between a midlevel American diplomat and Ibrahim Haqqani, a brother of the tribal network’s patriarch. Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, the head of the ISI, brokered the meeting.

It appears the US is looking to divide the insurgency by negotiating bilaterally with the Haqqani network and Mullah Umar’s Taliban. This process does not require a large military footprint which allows Obama to make good on his election pledge of withdrawing American troops from both theatres. Whether the US can placate the Taliban remains to be seen.

Conclusions

The US is not about to abandon its strategic interests but changing the manner in which it plans to achieve them as during its decade of war various challenges and obstacles presented themselves that led to a change of strategies and how US interests would be protected. The US quickly abandoned its aim of setting up a democracy in Afghanistan as the Taliban launched its insurgency to having a client state with an acceptable dictator.

The withdrawal of US troops is primarily for Obama to re-runas US president as the US caucuses start in January 2012, with elections in December 2012. The US with the help of its regional surrogates who have protected US interests in return for crumbs have allowed the US to not be embarrassed or bleed itself to death. The US is confident that it can achieve its interests with a smaller more specialised force alongside thousands of contractors. The New York Times reported in October 2011 that the Obama administration is planning a massive troop surge into Kuwait and the surrounding region, as well as a majornavalbuild-up in international waters in the area. The US most certainly has no plans to abandon its strategic interests in Eurasia.