Nucleus of Indian Foreign Policy: Isolating Pakistan & Beyond!

By Shahzad Masood Roomi

Indian Prime Minister’s visit to the US was yet another vivid display of Indian foreign policy which is being driven by the Hindutva-inspired ultra-nationalism and hegemonic mindset where Pakistan is being considered an ultimate challenge in Indian ambitions of becoming a regional power hence needs to be dealt with.

While addressing to joint session of the US congress on 8^th of June, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi made it crystal that the idea of isolating Pakistan, under the pretext of harboring terrorism, is the nucleus of Indian foreign policy but that is not the only objective India is eying as far as “fixing” Pakistan is concerned. India wants world against and at war with Pakistan. The text of Modi’s speech leaves very little to imagine other than that, this has become ‘the strategic’ goal of India. 

Inching Towards Showdown

By Tariq Niaz Bhatti

Recent elimination of Mullah Akhtar Mohammad Mansour, Amir of Afghan Taliban in a Drone strike speaks of US administration frustration in the ongoing protracted war in Afghanistan. Reportedly it was daylight Drone attack but a close look at the scattered evidence on the site of incident, tells a different story, a mismatch to the official version. But alleged drone strike vindicates the US unilateralism; the reluctance to be bound by rules made for others. The New World Order and its enforcement requires Imperial US power to be used to secure economic, political and military gains and ward off security threat to its economic and military interests all over the globe. Hence, the US forces are found operating in Syria and Iraq to recapture the areas lost to self-proclaimed Jihadist groups like ISIS and are planning to send troops in Libya to stabilize the security situation there.

Chabahar Port- A joint Iran- India Initiative to Outsmart Gwadar

By Tariq Niaz

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited Iran in late May and signed a series of twelve memorandums of understanding (MOU) which centered upon the Iranian Port of Chabahar. In addition to bilateral MOUs, PM Modi also signed a trilateral transit agreement with Iran and Afghanistan which allows Indian goods to reach Afghanistan through Iran. The expanding Indian economic cooperation with Iran reflect on its changing foreign policy initiatives in the fast evolving geopolitics of the region and its response to much hyped China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and development of Gwadar Port in Baluchistan. 

India's Maritime Strategy: Fishing in Troubled Waters

 

By Shahzad Masood Roomi

India has finally decided to fish in troubled waters of South China Sea in order to showcase her maritime power projection capabilities. According to media reports, the Indian Navy’s Eastern Fleet has sailed out, on 18th May, on an "operational deployment" to the South China and North West Pacific. This operational deployment is significant development in the contentious geography of South China Sea which has become hotbed of strategic maritime competition between China and the US and her allies. 

"Zarb-e-Azb is Not Only an Operation But a Wholesome Concept", Gen Raheel Sharif

BY NewsDesk

Pakistan Army chief, Gen. Raheel has declared that operation Zarb-e-Azb is not only an operation but a wholesome concept. "Ladies and Gentlemen, Op Zarb-e-Azb is not only an operation but a wholesome concept. It ultimately aims at breaking the syndicate of terrorism, extremism and corruption.", he said. He was addressing to a seminar held at a hotel here in Gawadar.

RAW's Baluchistan Project

By Shahzad Masood Rooomi

Pakistani intelligence operatives, on Thursday, arrested Kal Boshan Yadav a serving Indian Navy commander level officer from Baluchistan near Pak-Afghan border. He was given a fake identity of Hussain Mubarik Patel in Pakistan by Indian foreign intelligence agency, Research and Analysis Wing (RAW).

Has World Just Avoided Yet Another Middle Eastern War?

Shahzad Masood Roomi

Security situation all over the world is nothing short of chaotic and patience on all matters related to national security now a days often fizzle out very quickly particularly when it involves states like Iran and the US. Both these nations have a historic luggage of bitter bilateral relations on many issues. Though the situation improved considerably after Iran reached an agreement with 5+1 nations on its nuclear program but like it has been said earlier, it is not easy to react to any aggressive posturing with patience with a history of bitterness.

Why Saudi Led Military Alliance Is Not a Good Idea, Strategically!

By Shahzad Masood Roomi  

Though the contours of recently formed 34-nation strong military alliance by Saudi Arabia are not clear so far, but the way it has been announced and the way US and UK are reacting on it is something which gives rise to some critical questions;

1. What will be mandate of this alliance as far as territorial integrity of member states are concerned?

2. What will be the formula of sharing the troops in its operations?

3. How the alliance members would decide to conduct an operation or against it if there is a dead lock between the member states?

4. Who will bear the expenses of operations of this alliance?

5. Why this alliance has a clear sectarian overtone in its formation? Why Iran and Syria are not part of it?

6. How this alliance would overcome the impression of being a Sunni alliance especially in Iran and Syria?

7. Which terrorist outfits apart from ISIS this alliance has identified as threat and with which criteria?

8. How can Saudi Arabia unilaterally include or exclude countries in this alliance? Has Saudi monarchy given that mandate by rest of the Muslim World?

9. Adel al-Jubeir, the Saudi foreign minister, said the coalition would share intelligence and deploy troops if necessary. If that is the case, why there was no meeting of all military or intelligence chiefs from member states? How this understanding was reached (if there is an understanding at all)?

10. The way US and UK have welcomed the announcement of this alliance, it implies that now ‘troops on ground’, in Syria, would be from Muslim nations. Who they will be fighting against and under what mandate?

These questions are critical. Each and every one of them and needs to be answered honestly and urgently. This requires an in-depth analysis of this Saudi idea of forming a Sunni military alliance and possible strategic repercussions it can have for Muslim World and for Saudi Arabia itself.

ANALYSIS:

Saudi Foreign minister, while talking to media in Paris, also sighted “the threat of terrorism and state failure on the rise, and a growing leadership vacuum in the Arab and Islamic world” as primary drivers behind Riyadh’s announcement of this military alliance. Question remains, if Riyadh is so concerned about these things within Muslim world, why no initiative has been taken by Saudi government to form a body to seek the root causes of these threats and to contemplate strategies to mitigate the threats by developing solutions for long term instead of trying to play leader by an attempt to “institutionalizing cooperation in combatting terrorism”?

As it is evident that there are too many questions which need to be addressed and answered else this military alliance would fail even before its very first operation. Furthermore, the impression that Saudis are forming this military alliance on the behest of US and the West must be eradicated through transparent announcement of scope, goal and rationale of this alliance.

Ironically, Pakistan has announced to be part of this alliance but at the same time has also said that the quantum of its participation will be determined later on when more details about the objectives of this alliance would be available. Clearly, by blindly accepting to be part of this military alliance, Pakistan has made a desperate attempt to not to disturb Saudis this time like it did to them on Yemen issue.

But question remains is it a wise strategy? Not at All!

Pakistan is venturing into a military alliance whose actions in Middle East could have serious sectarian backlash at home and then there is our own precarious security profile which already presents a bleak law and order and security situation where the state is struggling to grapple with its own internal and external security challenges. With a restive Afghan border in the west, a belligerent India on the east, Baluch insurgency in the southwest and urban law and order break down in Karachi in the South, it is very difficult to fathom that how Pakistan will manage to help this military alliance expect intelligence and knowledge sharing.

Strangely enough, UN is not even concerned and this leads to a bigger question that why an issue like terrorism is not being debated at the global forum like UN? There is no definition of terrorism. There is no consensus over the root causes of global terrorism. There is no classification about types of terrorism (like state-terrorism, Non state actor-terrorism, financial-terrorism etc.) so that, in order to find its solution, policymakers and academics can understand what lies within these definitions and categorization. It is my firm belief that unless and until this debate is not initiated in the UN, global terrorism will prevail. Muslim world is the most affected part by terrorism and yet the silence and inaction, within Muslim comity of nations, on taking the issue of global terrorism to the UN is complete and total. Completely ironic!  

“The Saudis feel they are under attack from the media suggesting they are responsible for Daesh (Isis),” said Mustafa Alani of the Gulf Research Centre, which often reflects thinking in Riyadh. “They felt a need to answer this not by counter propaganda but by a realistic project.”

And then there is an equally important question is of terrorists’ ideology which is not being addressed or even debated anywhere in the world not even within Muslim World. And among other factors, this is yet another reason why this military alliance by Saudi Arabia is not a very good idea to combat ISIS. What Saudi strategic community (if there is one) is not realizing is that in modern incarnation of warfare (4^th and 5^th generation warfare) the ‘narrative’ is the ultimate weapon which lies at the heart of any effective response strategy against organizations like ISIS who harvest its power from distortion and misinterpreting of the Islamic political ideals like Caliphate. But it seems that even after witnessing the failure of military-oriented strategies of the US and West in the Middle East, Saudi intelligentsia is advising for a similar military-oriented response strategy.

The Guardian’s Middle East editor, Ian Black has quoted Mustafa Alani of the Gulf Research Center, which often reflects thinking in Riyadh, saying, “The Saudis feel they are under attack from the media suggesting they are responsible for Daesh (Isis). They felt a need to answer this not by counter propaganda but by a realistic project.”

 “The nature of terrorism is changing. It is not only hit-and-run. It is not only suicide bombings. Its objective now is state-building. If you want to fight Daesh in Iraq you can’t send police or security people. You need to send real military forces.”

If Gulf Research Center is really that influential as being claimed by Ian Black, then it is evident that major flaw is within Saudi strategic community who is not addressing the core issue of ideology and propaganda but is suggesting a more kinetic approach to handle terrorism; a failed strategy to start with!

Actually this military alliance is an attempt by Saudi Arabia to position itself in the Middle East as a leader against growing influence of Iran and to dispel the impression that Saudis have a role in rise of ISIS. If Saudis will try to achieve these geopolitical goals through this military alliance it is again a plan destined to be doomed sooner than later. Saudis should have learned from Russia how to deploy the media to counter the propaganda and present their own narrative across the globe. There is no scarcity of resources to Saudi government. But it seems that Saudis are more interested in power display to both Iran and to strengthen its authority among ‘Sunni Muslim states’ after it is diminishing within ‘Muslim World’.

Last but not the least, if at any point in near future, this alliance decides to send forces to Syria there would always be a high probability that the entire Muslim world will indulge into a grand sectarian war where Iran, Syria, Iraq will be on one side and this Saudi military alliance on the other. Zionist forces will be more than happy to push the regional scenario in that direction as well because this will make their plans to redraw the map of Middle East much easier.

These are distressing times for Muslims. There is a complete and total collapse of leadership in Ummah due to which it is heading towards an implosion which will only result in formation of many smaller and weak countries based on ethnic, sectarian and linguistic divide and a very powerful Israel!

It is a very realistic near future scenario for the entire Muslim World, Pakistan must initiate aggressive military-diplomacy in order to warn Riyadh about its dangerous miscalculations on strategic issues. So far, Pakistan has done good to not to say a straight no to Saudis in order to prevent a more aggressive response from Arab world like we saw from Abu Dubai after Pakistan refused to send troops to Yemen but no way Pakistan can afford to let Riyadh go with this self-destruct strategy of forming a Sunni only military-alliance to counter Iran under the pretext of fighting terrorism. This is a dangerous trap set for the every noticeable Muslim nation. Time to act is Now!

US Special Forces in Syria, Implications for Region and Turkey

By Shahzad Masood Roomi

Back in 2013, the US president announced that he will never send US troops in any open ended conflict like Afghanistan and Iraq. Irony is, he announced to do the same just a few days back when he told the world that US is to send Special Forces in Syria. Though the US authorities have made it clear more than once that these forces will have no combat role (but only assist and advise) but it is obvious that this move would only escalate the conflict now even more as now the Russian forces have weakened the Syrian rebel groups including ISIS. Any intervention of the US Special Forces to do the same would be strategically a futile practice.  

What does all this mean for the region? but a more important question remains that why the US President had to announce the plans to send troops in Syria after making prior commitment of not sending more troops in open ended conflicts? Another related question is why President Obama announced boot on Syrian ground after Russia has weakened many of the Syrian armed groups and Syrian army is gearing up for a decisive operations to take back important towns from ISIS? What does actually the US is trying to achieve here? All these questions are intriguing for anyone interested in Syrian conflict and Middle Eastern geopolitics.

Regional Implications

There are number of theories circulating in open source domain to answer the question that who actually is pulling the strings in Washington to force Obama to make US fight more wars and to worsen its standing even more among Muslim populace? Few think that it is Israel or Military Industrial Complex ... but all the policy decisions in Washington are not being made by either of these. The fact is Israel and Russia had agreed to coordinate military actions on Syria even before Russia actually started military operations there. For Israel, the more immediate threat is Hizbollah, not Assad. 

Since the onset of Russian military campaign in Syria, the Western media has reported that Russian jets are actually hitting hideouts and strongholds of Syrian rebels which were armed and backed by the US. 

Actually, the US has plans to rearm and regroup all the proxies against Russia in order to maintain the firm grip on the region. This perpetual war in Syria, which is now expanding towards Turkey, is nothing more than extension of geopolitics by other means; both for Russia and the US. Neither is interested in eliminating Islamic State or other groups. They are nothing more than proxies in this brawl between two powers. Perhaps this is why the US rejected the Russian offer to conduct joint ops against ISIS.

This explains why fewer than 50 special forces personnel are being sent to Syria and to be “headquartered” in northeastern Syria with a “wide range of groups,” including Syrian Arabs, Turkmen, and Kurds, according to a senior US defense official. While the forces will be fully equipped to defend themselves, the official said Friday, their mission is “strictly advise and assist.”, reported by Defenseone military intelligence website.
But the most important and relevant passage of the report read something like this:

"A senior Obama administration official told Defense One in a statement earlier Friday that more F-15 strike fighters and A-10 Warthog close-air-support jets are on the way to Incirlik Airbase in Turkey. The senior defense official said a dozen A-10s are already at Incirlik, and they’re finalizing a package of roughly the same number of F-15s. The aircraft will support an effort to “thicken” air operations in northern Syria and to secure the border between Syria and Turkey."

Implications for Turkey:

Clearly, Turkey is already facing a rise in unrest and chaos with fears of further violence within her borders as it has made a similar arrangement with the US as was made by Pakistan on Afghanistan. Now Syrian fighters would be driven into Turkey (may be under the garb of being refugees just like many Afghan terrorists ended inside Pakistani camps for Afghan refugees). Only advantage Turkey has is a completely manned border. But how this can protect Turkey from any chaos or internal security risks, being posed by this perpetual state of war in Middle East, is yet to be seen!

It will be wiser to Turkey to pen and announce the terms of engagements for these US operations from her soil. Pakistani governments maintained duality on this issue (ensuring support to the US on drone strike privately and protesting on the same publicly and in the end, Pakistan had to pay a lots of civilian lives as well), it is hopped that Gen. Raheel told the same to his Turkish counterpart the same during his visit to Turkey!

So, What is fundamentally Wrong in Middle East?

The chaos in the Middle East is nothing new. It is only its present violent incarnation which is being broadcast world over is something making it look like a new phenomenon. Within US, there are strong voices telling President Obama that Diplomacy, not US 'boots on the ground', is still the best option in Syria and in retrospective analysis of Middle East Chaos it is obvious that Washington's choice to solve political issues through military strategy alone has transformed a region, infested with ethnic tensions, into an imbroglio. Sooner the US revisit its approach better it would be not just for the region but for the entire world as well.

Latest Scuffle Between China and the US

(IHS Jane's) The Pentagon has confirmed that an "unsafe" encounter occurred in mid-September when a US Air Force RC-135 Rivet Joint reconnaissance aircraft was intercepted by Chinese fighter aircraft over the Yellow Sea.

The latest incident follows one in November 2014 when a People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) Shenyang J-11B interceptor performed what US officials called a "dangerous" manoeuvre close to a US Navy Boeing P-8A maritime patrol aircraft in international airspace off Hainan Island in the South China Sea.

Speaking at a regular briefing in Washington, DC, Pentagon press secretary Peter Cook confirmed that a RC-135 was intercepted on 15 September by a pair of Chinese Xian JH-7 fighter-bombers in international airspace over the Yellow Sea.

Cook added that the intercept happened about 80 miles east of the Shandong peninsula, and that "one of the manoeuvres conducted by the Chinese aircraft during this intercept was perceived as unsafe by the RC-135 air crew" although he stressed that there was no indication that a near collision had occurred.

The intercept was originally reported by the Washington Free Beacon website, which described the JH-7 as having "crossed very close" to the nose of the RC-135.

Analysis:

With global power transformation acceleration, the existing global power is reacting to the overtures being made by inspiring global power. US and Chinese strategic interests are heading towards a collision course with the rise of Chinese military power. The US is desperate of keep an eye on Chinese development along the entire Pacific Rim of Indian Ocean but Chinese are now openly confronting such US moves.Question remains if any of these two major economies and militaries can afford such head on collision? Whatever may be the outcome of any such eventuality for both of these, it certainly would be catastrophic for the entire Asia.

Pakistan Has Second Strike Capability

(Dawn News) Former defence secretary retired Lt Gen Naeem Khalid Lodhi has claimed that Pakistan possesses second strike capability against India.

He was speaking at a seminar at Strategic Vision Institute (SVI), an Islamabad-based think-tank that works on strategic issues.

The issue of second strike capability came up in the context of the conventional superiority enjoyed by India and the options for Pakistan.

The second strike provides a military the capability to hit back at an enemy in a situation where its land-based nuclear arsenal had been neutralized.

The former defence secretary said that despite the growing conventional imbalance, Pakistan had certain strengths including the nuclear parity with India and credible nuclear deterrence.

The nuclear deterrence, he said, had been augmented by the second strike capability, efficient delivery systems and effective command and control system.

He did not explain any specifics about the second strike capability, which could be sea, air or land based.

It is still unclear if Pakistan was any closer to the submarine based ‘assured second strike capability’ for stable deterrence, particularly at time when India has already made the moves towards it.

Discussing Pakistan’s second strike capability, President SVI Dr Zafar Iqbal Cheema said that Pakistan had improved its second strike capability.

Pakistan’s second strike capability, Dr Cheema said, has been augmented by deployment of Hatf-VII/Baber nuclear capable cruise missile that is launchable from aircrafts and conventional submarines. It is further fortified by the deployment of Hatf-VIII/Ra’ad air launched cruise missile, he added.

Technically speaking, he maintained, the best mode of second strike capability is submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), which neither India nor Pakistan have deployed as yet.

Security & Threat Matrix Comment:

"Though it is known fact since the establishment Naval Strategic Force Command (NSFC) in 2013 that Pakistan has been working on second strike capability, this is first time a former defense secretary has disclosed that it is not only there but is also being enhanced."

Iran's Desire to Join CPEC, A Big Dent in Indian Foreign Policy

“Pakistan has invited Iran to become part of the CPEC and help strengthen border markets, upgrade railways, build warehouses and open/upgrade border crossing points,” sources of the Ministry of Commerce revealed to Pakistani media.

It is notice worthy that two countries are already in process to chart out a long term strategic plan to enhance bilateral trade. Pak-Iran Joint Working Group and Technical Committee on Trade is contemplating this plan. The prospects for progress on this plan has been further increased as Iran has entered a landmark deal with world powers on her nuclear program which in turn has paved the way of lifting the sanctions against Iran.

Last meeting of Pak-Iran Joint Working group was held in August where they agreed on the need of implementing the bilateral Preferential Trade Agreement (PTA), including promotion of transparency and establishment of a mechanism that issues prior notification.

Pakistan has stressed the need of establishing regular freight train service between Zahedan (Iran) and Quetta (Pakistan). Some progress has been made in this regard as well during the latest meeting but the frequency of operations of this freight train will have to be increased and Iranian inclusion in CPEC would contribute chiefly in achieving that. This will also make these freight operations more economical by introducing concessionary fares as has been proposed by Pakistan already.

“The Iranian delegation will convey all proposals and suggestions to the authorities concerned in their country and inform about the decisions later,” said the official in the Ministry of Commerce.

According to the official, Iran has also shown interest in linking itself with the CPEC to expand its border markets with regional countries.

Implications for Indian Foreign Policy in Iran:

Now this is a big dent to Indian efforts to isolate Pakistan in the region. Iran is approaching China for assistance and cooperation along with seeking some Chinese investment in Iranian infrastructure. Earlier, on 2 Sep. it was reported that Iran has agreed to becoming part of China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). In fact, under the present geopolitical milieu, both Iran and China can work together. China can give investment and economic boost to Iran while Iran can provide access to Turkey and Europe by acting as land bridge. In this scheme, Pakistan will serve as pivot. It is high time for New Delhi to revise its strategy against Pakistan otherwise there are all the indications that it will be India who will remain isolated in Chinese driven Asian integration via infrastructure development!

Afghanistan: Choosing Between War and Peace

by Shahzad Masood Roomi

Finally, Afghan peace process has  initiated after vigorous diplomatic efforts by Pakistan and China. First meeting between the representatives of Afghan government and Taliban held in hill town resort in Muree on Tuesday. According to the statement issued by Pakistani foreign office, both sides have agreed to continue the talks after fasting month of Ramadan. But as the peace talks took start in Pakistan, voices advocating the continuation of military discourse have also begun to emerge.

Former US military commander in Afghanistan,  David Petraeus has put forward a case of keeping the US forces on ground in Afghanistan on permanent bases just like Japan and Germany. His article which can be accessed here proposes the idea of permanent US military bases in Afghanistan  as the only viable option to ensure the safety of Afghanistan and world at large. He concluded his assessment in the following words;

"Yes, such an operation would have real American costs — perhaps $5 billion to $10 billion a year in U.S. military expenses, on top of $2 billion to $3 billion to help sustain Afghan forces at roughly current size, and undoubtedly some U.S. casualties. But compared with the investment to date, of well over 2,000 American lives and nearly $1 trillion in expense, and compared with the specter of another major terrorist attack against the U.S. homeland devised or launched out of a South Asian terrorist sanctuary, such costs are bearable — and the right call for this nation."

A number of caveats challenge this assessment of former US military general and it would be prudent to analyze the fluid Afghan political landscape in order to asses if this approach would bring any stability in war torn country and the region as has been claimed by Gen Petraeus.

ANALYSIS:

1. War itself is just politics by other means. So, one way or other, it is always a political conflict which becomes a peg to a military conflict. But so far, the US strategic community is not ready to accept this reality. There is a clear strategic division on this among US policy and opinion makers.

2.  Historically, Afghanistan has remained a complex political entity with its own internal ethnic and tribal strife. But ironically, this seemingly divided nation has demonstrated a remarkable cohesion against the external invaders. This unique paradoxical national behavior has stunned all the invaders.

3.  Lately, there has been a realization within the US policymakers that a never ending war in Afghanistan is futile not only for US/NATO forces but US political strategy home and abroad. There is no longer any clear military objective for US/NATO forces in Afghanistan after ending their combat missions last year. After utter failure in the Middle East, the US foreign policy cannot afford the baggage of yet another strategic failure of a prolonged war. The US government wants to end the war so that a political victory can be declared.

Lately, it has also been admitted in principle by the US policymakers that destroying the Afghan Taliban completely may not be possible as Afghan Taliban are as much a political entity as the are a military one. This explains why US supporting the Pak/China led peace initiative.

4. Pakistan has learnt its lesson hard way and eventually has realized the fact that it is time Islamabad let Afghans settle their issues by themselves. Peace initiative by Islamabad and Beijing has just broken the ice but how things will proceed from this point on wards wholesomely depend on Taliban and Afghan government. Due to the policy option Pakistan chose after 9/11, the role of ISI has reduced considerably in Afghan Taliban's decision making. Now, ISI is acting a sole facilitator in this entire peace process. Good news is that for the first time in last 14 years, Afghan Taliban are in talking to Kabul government. Though right now both camps have adopted maximalist  positions and reconciliation seems distinct possibility, yet both the camps have agreed to continue the negotiations after first round.

5. Americans, along with Chinese, are also part of this peace and reconciliation process as observer. This means this peace process is NOT moving forward without the US being on board. All the stakeholders are looking for a break through.

6. The demand of David Petraeus has no political backing after the US has withdrawn majority of the US forces in Afghanistan and Obama wants to bring all the US forces home before end of his run as President in 2016.

7. Permanent bases in Afghanistan would only deter the idea of peace initiative and putting the war to an end to declare a political victory. Logically any permanent military base would become a target of insurgents and Taliban perpetuating the conflict which would defeat the purpose of peace talks apart from destabilizing the region particularly Afghanistan itself.

8. Latest attacks on Kabul indicate that the US forces have actually failed to meet their primary goal of destroying Taliban during the last 14 years and that was the situation with 130,000 US troops on ground whereas now this number has gone down to 12,000. With this strength, the US forces would be stretched extremely thin in various parts of the country, particularly in North, where Taliban have gotten a strong military footprint. Attacks on Kabul would continue as well.

9. Permanents bases in Afghanistan may deny Taliban's return in Kabul but their presence would keep preventing any Afghan government to work. Ashraf Ghani knows this very well and this explains why he agreed to Pak/China led peace initiative to succeed. Taliban's onslaught can be deter through political discourse as well and after 14 years of war, this is what the US, Afghan government and ISI have realized.

10. If the objective of this proposal is to save the human and financial investment which the US has made in order to weaken the Al-Qaeda political discourse is a more promising discourse and it is high time and all the stakeholders give it a chance.

11. But, still there is no guarantee that these talks would bear any fruit as Taliban are divided on the issue of talks and there are number of actors who do not see a political settlement in Afghanistan a good omen for their objectives. Afghan government factions consisting on former Northern Alliance are also not happy with the prospect of a political share of Afghan Taliban which might be given to them if talks succeed. Private military contractors and the US MIC would also advocate continuation of military solution in Afghanistan.

Conclusion:

This is obvious that in every possible scenario involving permanent military bases of the US on Afghan soil would only contribute to perpetuate the conflict which, in the long run, would not serve anyone's interests. So opting for a negotiated solution of this prolonged duel remains only feasible discourse for all the stakeholders involved in this conflict. 

Afghanistan: Need of a Global Response Sans Military Option

By Shahzad Masood Roomi

“Let me be clear: we will be relentless in rooting out terrorism, whosoever its sponsors, external or internal. Any effort to destabilize parts of our country or to attack its territorial integrity will be responded to forcefully.”
....

"Peace and security in Afghanistan could best be achieved through a process of national reconciliation 
undertaken and led by Afghans themselves."

Analysis:

Aforementioned statements were made by Pakistan's permanent envoy to UN, Dr. Maleeha Lodhi while addressing to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). The views of Pakistani ambassador reflect the geopolitical reality that for a peaceful Pakistan a peaceful Afghanistan is necessary. 

Usually it is said that Pakistan itself has intervened in Afghanistan for the longest period of time. Though true, this historical fact needs to be examined through the lens of geopolitical realities which shaped the strategic thinking within Pakistani security establishment. Fact remains that  since the last 40 years, Pakistan has been forced to intervene in Afghanistan just to ensure its own internal and external security. This intervention was the outcome of the events triggered by external forces (first Russia and now the US) and it will continue until the presence of Extra Regional Forces in Afghanistan. 

Today, Afghanistan needs help from global community to overcome the mammoth challenges BUT without any military intervention. This help must be political, financial and diplomatic and Afghans must be given a chance to workout a political solution for themselves and this can only happen after the expulsion of US/NATO military from there. 14 years of senseless war in Afghanistan has failed to make Afghanistan a secure place for world. As Pakistan has revisited its Afghan policy and has departed from its 1980's Afghan policy, it is time for the world community and dominant players in it to revisit their approaches towards Afghan situation. Pakistan has learned the harsh lesson that only a stable Afghanistan with native political model can ensure the security of Pakistan's western front and internal axis. 

Pakistan and Afghanistan are increasing their mutual cooperation in intelligence sharing, as mentioned by Dr. Lodhi as well in her speech, but the fact remains that the Afghan question is not just a bilateral one, its is a global question demanding global response where solid results would become visible only after a global realization that Afghanistan is a sovereign state not just a geostrategic battlefront!

Against this backdrop, the above mentioned statement of Ambassador Lodhi indicates in right direction but there is a lot more to be done by Pakistani foreign office and diplomats in other parts of the world. Understandably Pakistan is shaping its foreign policy towards achieving that goal but considering the prevailing bitter geopolitical realities it will be only prudent to think that this is going to be a harsh slog for Pakistan but this is a must to do task for the sake of our own security and prosperity and failure is not an option here!   

Iran: Upping the ante in Iraq against ISIS

Reportedly, Iran has deployed its Fajr-5 artillery rockets, Fateh-110 missiles, and their launchers in Tikrit to fight against ISIS. This move is part of Iran’s escalation in Middle East chaos. Question remains, Is there any actual threat to Iran from ISIS or this decision is based only on geopolitical needs of Iran for which she needs the US help i.e. Nuclear talks, relaxation in oil export sanctions, etc. It seems that this Iranian decision is being derived by Tehran’s political reasons.

It is notice worthy fact that in Iraq and Syria, only Iranian militias and troops keep fighting against ISIS while the US keep supplying weapons to ISIS as Iraqi troops continue to surrender without fighting giving up their weapon stockpiles to ISIS? i.e. as it took place in Falujia and Ramadi.

Though the Americans are showing great concern over Iran’s intervention in Iraq no step has been taken so far to prevent Iran from escalating the situation in Iraq. It seems that certain forces are actually encouraging Tehran to escalate the crisis and be part of it.

In this regard NY Times story titled ‘’Iran Sent Arms to Iraq to Fight ISIS, U.S. Says’’, published on 16th March, contains Gen Martin E Dempsey ‘s statement of Marach 3rd which he gave while appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee. “This is the most overt conduct of Iranian support, in the form of artillery and other things.”, he alluded to the deployment of the rockets and missiles.

Tehran is very confident so far about its geo-strategy in the region it is evident that Iran would never able to sustain a prolonged high intensity conflict in Iraq, Syria and possibly in Yemen. This move by Tehran would only intensify and complicate the chaos in Middle East further. It could easily lead to an outright sectarian war.

So, is Iran falling into trap set for it in Iraq? How Iran will be able to terminate the war that she is going to intensify and amplify? What would be the sectarian implications of growing interference of Iran in Iraq?

By looking at the US strategy to “fight” ISIS it is evident that after arming various armed gangs in Middle East including ISIS, now Iran has been lured in this chaos.

Apart from these concerns, there is a strong possibility of spill over of this war inside Iran. It is known fact that CIA has used organizations like Jindullah against Iran from Pakistan in the past!

ISI - NDS Deal & Indian Worry!

By Shahzad Masood Roomi


“MoU signed by ISI and NDS includes intelligence sharing, complementary and coordinated intel operations on respective sides.”

This is what ISPR's official statement reads on twitter.com regarding recently signed deal between Pakistan's ISI and Afghan NDS to jointly fight against terrorism through coordination and intel sharing. There is NO mention of any country in this statement. 

Today. Indian National Security Adviser (NSA), Ajit Doval had following to say about this deal.

"What Pakistan wanted was to take assurance and pressurize Afghanistan that they will not allow their territory, to be used for any security related work by India. That is the crux of it. This is based on a faulty assumption that India probably uses Afghan soil or Afghan nationals, for its security purposes," 

ANALYSIS:

In the complex security scenario, such deals among the most adversely affected nations is nothing surprising even though both have long history of mistrust on security related issues, but the way Indian NSA has reacted raises many questions on the true nature of Indian involvement in Afghanistan.

If India is not involved in supporting any kind of terrorism in Pakistan using Afghan soil, then why to object a deal which is purely against the terrorists like Taliban, Al-Qaeda etc. the groups who are common enemies of both Pakistan and Afghanistan. But as now the Indian apprehension about a security related agreement has been confirmed, it is only natural to assume that India actually "do" have role in creating security related troubles in Pakistan's Western provinces.

The statement of Indian defense minister, in which he has hinted at using terrorists to fight terrorism also endorse this assertion!

Apart from that, an essential element of deal between ISI and NDS is the accord for provision of joint probe of the terrorism suspects and this explains why Indian security establishment is so worried about this deal. This will eliminate the fog of uncertainty and mistrust between NDS and ISI which hitherto has helped the hostile entities to conceal their covert ops in the region which might be the part of their larger strategic plans.

A heated debate is already taking place within the Indian strategic community on the possible implications of this deal for the strategic interests of India in Afghanistan. And the most important question being asked after this deal between Pakistani and Afghan intelligence agencies is, Has India lost Afghanistan to Pakistan?      

Yemen Crisis: Dangerous Miscalculations

By Shahzad Masood Roomi

As Pakistani Prime Minister and COAS are in Riyadh in a bid to cool tempers in the Gulf kingdom over Pakistan's refusal to provide troops for war in Yemen, the situation in Yemen is getting worse by the day. The visit is being seen as an attempt by senior political and military leadership to make Saudi ruling elite understand that why Pakistan could not join Saudi offences in Yemen. The outcome of this tour would play a critical role in discourse of Saudi actions in Yemen. But regardless of the outcome of the PM's visit, it is obvious that the conflict in Yemen has grown too big for the Saudis alone to resolve it and bring it to a logical termination. So what went wrong in Saudi strategic thinking regarding Houthis in Yemen?

This is what happens when strategic miscalculations are made while weighing the policy options. Unfortunately, Saudi Arabia is not the only country in this crisis which made dangerous miscalculations. Pakistan’s political leadership also failed to analyze the situation and potential outcome scenarios and now consequently another diplomatic crisis has emerged at the bilateral level between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia on this issue of Yemen.  

Saudi Arabia launched indiscriminate bombing campaign in Yemen against the Houthis rebels (Iranian Proxies) without much intelligence collection about their strengths & weaknesses and without identifying and categorizing the key targets for air campaign. Next, the Saudi ruling monarch assumed that Pakistan, Turkey and Egypt would come to help and fight their war in Yemen. But to their utter surprise none of these transpired.

Houthis proved too defiant for Saudi air assault and this is not the first time the futility of applying the air power alone has been proven. Earlier, the US campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq met early tactical wins but later on proved too costly for Washington as senseless aerial bombing in Afghanistan and Iraq turned large portion of local populace in these countries against the US. The price of these air-power oriented military campaigned is being paid by US troops on ground (which like Saudi operation joined the campaign after the aerial assaults) and the policymakers who have no idea how to bring these two protracted wars to an end with face saving exits. Saudis have committed the same strategic blunder here. Instead of studying the aftermath of American air campaigns, they repeated the same mistakes.

After a month of bombing the Saudis were convinced that they have forced the Houthis to come to the negotiation table but today, according to BBC, Saudi-led coalition warplanes have struck Houthi rebels across Yemen in fresh raids, two days after announcing the end of a month-long air campaign.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32430003

While according to Fox News, Yemen's defiant Shiite rebels press their offensive as Saudi Arabia launches airstrikes

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/04/23/yemen-defiant-shiite-rebels-press-their-offensive-as-saudi-arabia-launches

It left the fate of "Restoring Hope", which was announced on Tuesday after a month of bombing, hanging in balance as it looks like Saudi led coalition is again back to square one.

Saudi air strikes are being complemented by artillery support as well. But due to lack of clear target identification and damage assessment the completion of the objectives remains uncertain and elusive.

How the outcome of this new round of aerial bombing is going to be any different from the previous one? This is the question no one in Saudi led coalition has any answer of.

Military sales of weapons to from the US and Russia to the Gulf States is also fueling the fire. According to the Guardian, "Security experts express fears for region’s stability amid record weapons sales from west and Russia’s missile deal with Iran." An estimated $18 Billion have already been spent on weapon imports by Gulf States with Saudi Arabia and UAE remain the biggest buyers of western weapon systems.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/23/the-18bn-arms-race-middle-east-russia-iran-iraq-un

All these rapid developments are not only shrinking Saudi options in Yemen but this fluid strategic milieu is creating problems for Pak-Saudi bilateral relations as well. In Pakistan, both the political leadership and the masses are clearly divided on the Yemen issue while Pakistan Army remains seriously concerned about this fast unfolding scenario. This is why from the onset of this crisis, Pakistan Army leadership showed concerns over this crisis.

A faction in Pakistani policy analysts and experts of defense and security considers that PM Nawaz Sharif made a mistake while assuring Saudi king full support without consulting with army leadership.

http://www.dawn.com/news/1172460/nawaz-assures-saudi-king-salman-of-pakistan-army-support

And the way the stance of both Pakistani government and the Saudis dignitaries (visited Pakistan frequently in recent weeks) has been changed over the time, it is evident that the assumption of Prime Minister Nawaz assuring Pakistan Army's troops to Saudi king is not off the mark. The fact that PML(N) government was unwilling to reveal what exactly Saudis had demanded from Pakistan Army also amplify this assumption. 

An info-graphic appeared in one of the leading Arab news agencies at start of the Yemen war 2015, showing Pakistan as a part of Saudi air campaign. Pakistan never joined Saudi coalition forces; not so far! 

During the first few days of the conflict, the news given by the entire Arab media was that Pakistan wanted to be involved in Saudi led campaign in Yemen. Then it was reported that Saudis wanted a 3-4 year deployment of a full Pakistan Army corps under their command. (Pakistan has 9 active corps. 7 defensive while two strike crops. While a specialized nuclear strategic force command handles country’s nuclear arsenal). After few days, Arab media and few of their Pakistani supporters start giving impression that all Saudi Arabia had ever asked for was political support only and that they were not interested in any Pakistani troops. Then Pakistani parliament debated on the issue and news is that any threat to Saudi sovereignty would provoke a strong action from Pakistan but Pakistan would not send any troops to Yemen or Saudi Arabia unless that threat is materialized. This stance by Pakistan drew severe criticism from Saudi Arabian allies especially from UAE.

But if we analyze the Saudi request of putting Pakistani troops under the Saudi command closely, it has a major intrinsic problem with it which Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif could not realize, and that is the demand of giving Pakistani troops under the Saudi military command.  Pakistan was fully aware that Hothis would be never able to mount a serious threat against Saudi Arabia so the resolution included the possibility of sending troops to Saudi Arabia.  But the problem is when command and control of the troops will be changed all Pakistani units will receive their commands from Saudis and not from Pakistani commanders. Riyadh would be controlling the deployment of these troops not Rawalpindi. Once under Saudi authorities, Pakistani troops will be storming to Yemen. There is no doubt about it! This is something Pakistan Army is fully aware of and the potential outcome for troops back at home as well.

The fact is that Pakistan Army cannot afford to plunge into an overseas crisis with complex geopolitical and sectarian dynamics regardless of true nature of Saudi demand about Pakistani troops. But at the same time, Pakistan can also not afford to turn away a strategic partner like Saudi Arabia. There are ways in which Pakistan Army can help Saudi forces in their operations against Houthis. Pakistan Army can share its experiences against the asymmetric militants. But the best thing that Pakistan can do is honestly tell the Saudis about the strategic, operational and tactical miscalculations they have made during the last six months on Yemen.

There cannot be any better choice for this job than General Raheel Sharif. He has fought Pakistani case through military diplomacy in Afghanistan and now the bilateral relations between Pakistan Army and Afghan Army are taking a new turn in positive direction. If Pakistan Army has learnt its lessons regarding Afghanistan and now it is pursuing other options to protect the same vital national interests for which it supported militant factions against Kabul previously, convincing our Saudi friends on the same strategic mindset regarding Yemen must not be impossible. But before telling Saudis about using soft-power in Yemen, Pakistan Army needs to tell the same to Pakistan's own political elite particularly to ruling PML(N). Apart from that, Pakistan must declare its policy regarding the holy cities of Makkah and Madina to end any possible strategic confusion in this regard.