ANALYSIS: Gen Raheel and Saudi Led Islamic Military Alliance

By Shahzad Masood Roomi

Pakistan media is buzzed with the news that Gen. Raheel Shareef, COAS Pakistan Army, has been asked by the Saudi led 34 countries alliance to become its commander in-chief after his retirement which is due November later this year. Source of information according to Daily The News International is "US military and political sources."

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.

Burgeoning Security Turmoil in Turkey

Just days after a deadly suicide bombing in Istanbul, Kurdish separatists wrecked havoc on a police complex in southeastern Turkey. The deadly attack left at least six people dead and dozens other wounded. Turkish officials have declared the attack "the most sophisticated" one since violence flared up between insurgents and the Turkish state in July, last year.

Syrian Conflict Enters In Disturbing New Phase

By Shahzad Masood Roomi

Just days after the fateful incident of Russian SU-24, Syrian conflict is taking a rather uglier turn as more disturbing events are unfolding. 

In the latest developments, Syrian government has accused US led coalition warplanes of attacking a Syrian Army Camp in Deir ez Zor province. The incident is first of its kind which has taken place amid ongoing allegations and counter-allegations between Turkey and Russia triggered in the aftermath of SU-24 downing row and can very easily trigger a new round of more kinetic confrontation between US and Russian led alliances.

The Syrian government has said that 3 people were dead while 13 got injured and number of military vehicles were destroyed. According to Syrian government, the coalition jets fired nine missiles at an army camp in the Deir ez Zor province, which remains mostly under the control of Islamic State. 

The Syrian Foreign Ministry has filed an official protest with the UN Security Council regarding the US-led coalition’s airstrikes on Syrian troops, Syria’s SANA official news agency reported Monday.

“Syria strongly condemns the act of aggression by the US-led coalition that contradicts the UN Charter on goals and principles. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has sent letters to the UN Secretary General and the UN Security Council,” SANA quoted the foreign ministry as saying.

US and Coalition Rejects Allegations:

The US and allied nations’ coalition has denied the Syrian claims.

Brett McGurk, Obama’s envoy to Syria, on his Twitter account, said that there had been no coalition strikes anywhere within 55 kilometers (35 miles) of the said camp.

"Reports of coalition involvement are false," he wrote in his tweet.

Apart from him, the coalition spokesman Colonel Steve Warren also commented on Syrian allegations saying, ”We’ve seen those Syrian reports but we did not conduct any strikes in that part of Deir ez Zor yesterday. So we see no evidence,” 

The Deir ez Zor province is situated in eastern Syria, and is largely controlled by Islamic State (IS). The region is of significant strategic importance to the terrorist group, as it contains a number of oilfields, which are a major source of revenue for IS.

Syrian government is declaring the US led coalition bombing in Syria against ISIS as illegal. According to some unconfirmed reports, President Putin has reportedly already declared the Syrian crisis a beginning of World War III and forces have been ordered to prepare for a global scale conflict. 

In another related development, Iraq has given Turkey an ultimatum of 48 hours to leave Iraqi territory while Turkey has said that it has right to protect its soldiers. This ultimatum comes after Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu's letter of his Iraqi counterpart Haider Al Abadi in which it is promised and assured that there will be no deployment of Turkish forces in Iraq until Baghdad's concerns are addressed. 

ANALYSIS:

If this string of events prolongs it can easily get out of control and no one will be able to prevent a regional conflict at much larger scale. The region is slowly drifting towards a larger conflict. with UN clearly finding itself irrelevant. These are perilous trends for peace and security. Any regional conflict triggered from Syria, would not only jeopardize global peace but would also destroy UN as global conflict resolution body.

It seems all the major stakeholders fighting against a common threat of IS have a complete diplomatic breakdown and events like Su-24 downing and alleged US coalition strike on an Syrian camp can easily send wrong signals regarding the intentions of opposite alliance. It is time that countries like Pakistan or China who are not involved in this mess take some initiative to salvage the prospects of peace. Any forum can be utilized for such an diplomatic incentive but whatever has to be done it must be done on war footings. Trends in Syria are obviously turning disturbing it not alarming!

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.

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!

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.

Yemeni Kids: A Global Tragedy is in Making

By Shahzad Masood Roomi

In ongoing conflict in Yemen, local kids have emerged the most adversely affected faction of the Yemeni society. So far, UNICEF has confirmed the death of 77 children and 44 others have been reported injured since March 26. According to UNICEF,  these numbers are only those where the ffatalities have been confirmed but the true toll was likely far higher.But this is the obvious aspect of this crisis, the real tragedy of Yemeni kids is far worst than this.

It is said that killing other human beings are difficult only for the first time. Once committed, this heinous crime takes away the humanity of the perpetrator turning him into something complete different in very negative sense i.e. a murderer, terrorist, serial-killer etc.

In Yemen, a similar tragedy is in making on a grand scale.According to UN officials, children make up a third of fighters in the armed groups in conflict-wracked Yemen. “We are seeing children in battle, at checkpoints and unfortunately among [those] killed and injured,” Julien Harneis, Unicef’s representative in Yemen, told AFP during a stopover in Geneva. It is usually argued that this young lot with arms is manifestation of the tribal culture but today's modern wars are not tribal fu   a 10 years old "fighter" can never know what he is fighting for when the conflict is too large and complex for him to comprehend. Generations of kids were turned into ruthless fighters in Africa and now the entire continent is in flames. Northern Africa (Egypt, Libya), Western Africa (Sierra Leone, Ghana, Nigeria), Horn of Africa (Somalia), even the islands like Comoros witnessed the worst violence. The Collapse of governments in these region might be a reason for these societies to disintegrate but it is unfathomable  that if it is known that today, in Yemen, every third fighter is an under age child, why there is no rush for a decisive push for ceasefire or UNSC intervention like it has done in many parts of Africa? 

Answer is not very difficult considering the dynamics of Real Politics which are controlling or at least manipulating this local conflict. This unfortunate generation of Yemeni kids is just the victim of this brutal vying of national interests. Evidently, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is waiting for any of its permanent member to move a resolution to put  this unfolding tragedy in Yemen to an end but unfortunately, it seems that this conflict either does not affect their interests (as yet) or they are part of this conflict and want it to continue whatever the cost may be. Whatever might be the case, this lost generation of Yemeni kids would eventually seek other ventures in other parts of the world.

On the Question of Pakistani Troops involvement in Yemen

There is no doubt that the conflict in Yemen has strong sectarian overtones in its implications. This is more accurate in context of Pakistan where government finds itself in a strategic dilemma of choosing to join Saudi led coalition fighting in Yemen or Not. But this must be understood that there are other dynamics of this conflict. Most important of them is the poor track record of Yemeni governments towards various ethnic factions of the society. The history of Yemen prior to 1990 when the country was united, is also important. South and North Yemen had conflicting foreign policies and were part of opposing blocks during the Cold War era. The crisis of Yemen is manifestation of years of real politics revolving around power grabbing catalyzed by foreign interference.

Ironically, with just few exceptions, the commentary and analysis of the crisis revolves only around Sectarian implications which Pakistan possibly can face as a consequence of any decision Islamabad is about to take on the Saudi request of sending the troops. All the other aspects are being overlooked in this debate. Furthermore, Pakistan has not announced any decision in this regard so far. All the news in international media are based on pure speculations. There is a higher probability that Pakistan will play a role similar to 1997 OIC summit when Pakistani PM Nawaz Sharif arranged one-to-one meeting between then Saudi Crown Prince, Abdullah and Iranian President Rafsanjani. This is the best possible discourse for Pakistan right now.

Any participation in the active war in Yemen against Shia rebels or ignoring the Saudi request all together would not serve Pakistan's interests. It must be cleared that Pakistani troops participating in join military exercises with their Saudi counterparts have nothing to do with Pakistan's decision regarding Saudi request contrary to what has been reported by some Arab media houses in this regard.

Pakistan's Policy Option on Yemen Conflict

Shahzad Masood Roomi

Since last two days, Pakistan has been engulfed in a hotted debate on weather it should accept the Saudi Arabian request of sending its troops to protect the Kingdom. So far, Pakistani government hasn't replied to this request and the matter is being examined as per foreign office spokesperson's remarks.

Pakistan must take a clear stance and adopt a out of box strategy in Yemen crisis. So far, the government is sending only ambiguous messages. The large part of media is reporting that the decision of sending troops to Saudi Arabia has been made already but the Defense Minister is negating these reports by issuing statement which are being perceived very differently in media circles.

“Pakistan will stand by Saudi Arabia by all means if the kingdom’s territorial sovereignty is in danger.”, Defense Minister Khawaja Asif said.

Pakistan simply cannot afford to become a party in this conflict as Pakistan has close ties with both Iran and Saudi Arabia and any strategic miscalculation in this conflict can open a Pandora's Box with long term security implications for Pakistan especially on internal front.

But question is, can Pakistan remain isolated in this scenario and play neutral? Unfortunately, the answer is No because Pakistan is already part of this conflict on internal and media front. So Pakistan will have to play a role. Now question is; How?

The best course Pakistan can take is to engage Riyadh and Tehran aggressively to pacify the underlying larger historic conflict between the two. Yemen is just another manifestation of this old duel between Shia Iran and Salafi Saudi Arabia. Though there are other political and social factors are also involved but at its core this is emergence of hibernating sidewinder of sectarianism which is poisoning Muslim societies all over the world. The rise of Iraq's Sunni insurgency which was hijacked by Khawarij were also an outcome of this sectarian war.

Muslims all over the world are very emotional about the security of sacred places in Makkah and Madina. Pakistani nation is no exception in this regard. But the policies of Riyadh, just like Tehran, has compounded the situation in Middle East to such an extent that Muslims all over the world are being affected.

Pakistan's best policy option is to deploy its diplomatic prowess in this conflict including media and military diplomacy with only point agenda to make it clear that who is actually benefiting from this war and whose interests are being served. The real beneficiaries of this war are the Zionist forces of Israel who are looking to expand their political influence in the region.

Poll: Should Pakistan get involved in Yemen?

As crisis in Yemen is getting complex and compounded, the Saudi government has officially ask the Pakistani government to send troops and participate in action against Houthis rebels in ongoing war in Yemen. Pakistani government is yet to make an official decision on this sensitive request.

Saudi Arabia has a special status among general masses in Pakistan and an overwhelming majority would like Pakistani troops protecting the sacred land but this crisis in Yemen has very delicate sectarian dynamics as well. Keeping that in mind, it would not be an easy decision to make for government. Sending troops to fight Yemeni rebels would mean very different for both Sunni and Shias in Pakistan as this crisis in Yemen is outcome of a bloody proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Keeping this scenario in mind, what you think, how Pakistan must play its role in this crisis ( if any)?

Fundamental Strategic Imperative for Muslim Word

By Shahzad Masood Roomi

This cold blooded execution of Palestinian youth by young IS executioner is yet another stern reminder about many aspects of fight against IS and nature of this threat.

So far, the US led coalition is only targeting the physical infrastructure (even execution of that remains debatable) but all important ideological aspect is being ignored in this strategy. Even Iraqi national army is addressing the problem as a mere political issue whereas in reality, this phenomenon of Khawariji trends in the Middle East has a history of more than 1300 years.

Now in 21st century, this phenomenon has become even more complex due to inclusion of propaganda component where internet is playing a crucial role. A role that was not even imagined when this wounder invention was made in late 20th century. Now, terrorists are deploying this medium as tool for their strategic communication tool to instill fear and despondency among masses around the world.

Another disturbing aspect of this particular video is showing of 10 years old executioner. This shows the indoctrination strategy of IS which is not unprecedented, TTP in Pakistan and Boko Haram in Africa also use similar tactics using young boys with fragile minds and limited conscience about value of human life. This is an aspect which must will have to be addressed by religious leaders of Muslim worlds. Conventional armies and weapons cannot these aspects of modern Khawarijism.

Now when this has been confirmed that the executed captive of IS was indeed not a Israeli spy but a Palestinian youth who joined IS in zeal. It is time for the Muslim intellectuals and scholars to instigate the debate on the 'reconstruction of strategic thought' inline with the requirements of modern times to end the confusion in young minds around the Islamic World about tactics of so-called Islamic groups like IS, TTP and Boko Harm and their relevance (or irrelevance) to Jihad, Qital and Khilafat. Prevention of intellectual hijacking of Islam is a critical imperative in modern geopolitics if we want to save other Mohamed Said Ismail Musalams from becoming victim of ISIS religious propaganda.

(Shahzad.leo@gmail.com)

IRAQ: Battle for Mosul Begins in Tikrit

After 9 months of non-stop violence and anarchy in the country, finally, Iraqi government has decided to launch first major offensive against ISIS to recapture Tikrit city in Salauhddin Province of the country, located North to capital Baghdad. Tikrit was overrun by the ISIS last year. The city holds importance for being hometown of previous Baathist leader of the country, Saddam Hussian. According to Iraqi and Iranian media, Qassem Soleimani - commander of the Quds Force covert operations unit in Iran's Revolutionary Guard - was in Salahuddin province to help coordinate the operation.

Some 30,000 troops backed by air power and artillery fire power are going to initiate operation from various directions. This operation is critically important for any future operations to capture ISIS stronghold Mosul located further North to Tikrit. The US forces think the major US/Iraq offensive to retake Mosul can begin in April or May but that time table depends upon the outcome of Tikrit operation by Iraqi forces who have already captured a nearby oil refinery town of Baiji. The road leading to Mosul passes through Tikrit.

Interestingly, the US air power would not assist the Iraqi forces during the operation in Tikrit. It is unclear right now if the Iraqi forces alone would be able to get Tikrit back. It must be noticed that all previous operations to get the town back have failed resulting in large number of death casualties of Iraqi troops. In this backdrop, the absence of US air power is not only perplexing but dangerous for fresh offensive as well. The second caveat to the success of this operation remains inclusion of Shia private militia. Since the last year, ISIS massacred large number of Shia fighters in the same area of Salauhddin province and now the Shia fighters are looking to avenge that bloodshed. This may create serious problem for operational integrity of the offensive.     

Russians, Americans and Middle East!

Shahzad Masood Roomi

The contours of Russian future policy towards the Middle East and the US were made clear by Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov’s, address to the UN annual session. He raised concerns over the current US policy against ISIS in Iraq and Syria and proposed a new inclusive and academic approach to address the problem.

“We propose to launch under the auspices of the UN Security Council an in-depth study on the extremist and terrorist threats in all their aspects across the MENA area. The integrated approach implies also that the longstanding conflicts should be examined, primarily between Arab nations and Israel."

He also pointed out longstanding issue of Palestine as the core reason behind the regional unrest.

“The absence of settlement of the Palestinian issue over several decades remains, as it is widely recognized as one of the main factors of instability in the region that helps the extremists to recruit more and more new Jihadists.”

 Most importantly, he raised some serious concerns over Obama’s new Syrian strategy against ISIS which rely on airstrikes and using local rebels against ISIS.

“We warned against a temptation to make allies with almost anybody who proclaimed himself an enemy of [Syrian President] Assad: be it Al Qaeda, Jabhat an Nusra and other ‘fellow travellers’ seeking the change of regime, including ISIS, which today is in the focus of our attention.”

Analysis:

This is something we don't often see from Russians. A diplomatic assault against the entire narrative of the US about ISIS. Washington never consulted with UN about attack on Syria and the reasons for not doing so are also obvious. In the presence of China and Russia, every move to seek a US planned military intervention would have vetoed. Reasons behind relying more on regional allies than on NATO are also obvious. The US and Europe don’t want to face any retaliatory actions by remnants of ISIS even if they succeeded in crushing the main body of this outfit. Apart from this obvious reason, inclusion of Islamic states is critical as it provides a moral and religious narrative in support of this fight against ISIS. Recent verdict by 100 top Muslim scholars is being consider a big moral victory for ongoing campaign against ISIS.

But still this military campaign is against the international law and norms as it has no UN mandate and is pursued under a pretext which is often challenged on the geopolitical grounds. This argument that whatever is transpiring in the Middle East, including the rise of entities like ISIS, is manifestation of geopolitical maneuvering has its own merits. According to the critics of the US policy, this is where the Russians are taking moral high ground in a bid to make the legitimacy of the entire anti-ISIS campaign questionable particularly after Obama's over-militarized strategy for Syria.

For now, the US and allies have a strong pretext of attacking ISIS in Syria and Russians are not in position to do anything more than using diplomatic means and international relations norms to question the legitimacy of Obama's new war in Syria. But Washington has already played that card preemptively "denouncing Russian aggression in Europe" which led Russians to consider cease fire in Ukraine and now Moscow is trying to rectify her mistakes but at the same time cannot allow NATO to expand too close to its borders. But that concern is not immediate one. Till Russia and Ukraine reach a settlement there would be no serious challenge to the US campaign in Syria. The scenario is changing fast in Ukraine as an initial cease fire has been reached which includes formation of a buffer zone. Question is, what if this new US campaign in Syria turns into another protracted war just like Iraq and Afghanistan something accepted even by the State Department as real possibility? What if Russia give her Ukrainian adventure a quick closure?

If that happens one thing is certain that Russian response to American interventionism against Moscow's allies would not remain confined to diplomatic and media overtures. From recent statements of Russian foreign minister it looks like Moscow is looking for a closure in Ukraine and European sanctions against Russia are also driving Moscow to look for a settlement in Ukraine. Despite these sanctions, Russians are well aware of the limitations of NATO. Almost entire Eastern Europe depend onRussian energy supplies particularly in winters. US cannot push too far with sanctions against Russia. This limits US diplomatic and political options against the Russian overtures. 

In 2012, The Economist, published following map showing the gas supply to Europe and it is self explaining about how much Europe needs Russian gas supplies.

On the other hand, any prolonged war in the Middle East would dent the US narrative. Civilian casualties would escalate as Washington is going to rely too much on airstrikes, at least in initial stages of war. The US faced international embarrassment over killings of innocent civilians in FATA region of Pakistan despite the fact that all the governments in Islamabad actually never resisted the US drone strikes. In the presence of a hostile government in Syria, it would be even more challenging for the US and her Gulf allies to justify each and every air strike and still ending the war soon. Any attack on Syrian military infrastructure would complicate the problem further, a scenario Washington would like to avoid but not sure for how long. By looking at the strategic flux the region is going through, one thing is certain that the chaos in Middle East is certainly a manifestation of international geopolitics and is bound to be compounded in coming weeks and months!  

Obama’s anti-ISIS policy: Through Geopolitical Lens!

Shahzad Masood Roomi

President Obama has recently announced a new strategy to fight the ISIS in Iraq and Syria. US House of Representative has approved the policy as well. Before analyzing this strategy, let's quickly skim through the main vertexes of "new" American strategy to "degrade" and "defeat" ISIS.

1. Significant expansion of the aerial bombing campaign in Iraq
2. Training and equipping of the Iraqi army and the Kurdish Peshmerga.
3. Bombing in Syria
4. Supporting, arming and training moderate rebels against Syrian government of Bashr al Asad.
5. Getting a coalition of European and regional allies on board in the fight against IS.
6. No boots on ground.

Would this policy yield anything positive for regional peace? Very unlikely! The fundamental flaw with Obama's entire anti-ISIS strategy stems from the failure of previous attempts to eradicate terror groups through air power campaigns and policy of using non-state actors as has been rightly identified by analyst Tim Fernholz in following words:

"The legal justification the Obama administration relies upon for its war powers is the same one that justifies air strikes against extremist groups in Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan—failed or failing states where US counter-terror policy relies on dubious local allies and drone strikes to manage extremist groups. That may well be the future in Iraq and Syria".

Supporting non-state actors and bombing unconfirmed "terrorist targets" will never bring peace in any restive state. The failure of CIA's ever expanding drone wars provide an irrefutable testimony of this assertion. But a careful analysis of the US/West's anti-ISIS strategy leaves very little doubt that bringing peace in Syria is not among the real objectives of this wired "peace" strategy.

Apart from raising questions on overall strategy, one must be intrigued to investigate the criteria Washington is using to profile the Syrian rebels as "moderates" and "hardcore". We have been listening about moderate Muslim, moderate rebels and even moderate Islam. But no one in Washington or in the entire western media and intellectual circle shed any light on the definition of these "moderate rebels". As there is no clear definition or criteria exists to profile any group's tendency to do violence and terrorism it becomes an impossible task to identify such groups unless they have been identified already; an a possibility which hitherto cannot be confirmed.

How to distinguish between hardcore and Moderate rebels? Major policy flaw in Obama Strategy

Plans to arm and train such non-state actors in Syria leaves very little doubt in assertion that Obama's anti-ISIS plan is actually a recipe of complete security disaster which eventually would become a device to alter the map of Middle East once again after 100 years of World War I.

These concerns over Obama's policy and persistent fervor of White House to pursue this policy despite the above mentioned concerns demand to investigate this crisis and its response strategy through the lens of geopolitical developments taking place in the region as global powers compete to protect their strategic interests in the region.

China and Russia opposed American plans of removing Bashr Al Asad regime through a military intervention. US/NATO had to postpone their plans after Russia announced to send her naval fleet in the region. Ironically, ISIS has provided the US with a narrative which would not only enable Washington to prevent any diplomatic pressure from Russia and Iran against the planned invasion in Syria but would also create a conducive environment for regime change operation in Syria as well. This regime change operation is critical in the grand scheme of things and is part of new strategic US plan for the region. After 9/11, the US planned to launch a massive regime change campaign in seven Middle East states including Syria. This revelation was first made public by the former NATO commander General Wesley Clark in 2007. This assertion is further supported by the fact that now many experts within the US intellectual circles believe that it was Obama administration which made ISIS such a dangerous threat not only for the region but also the US interests as well. Albeit, their definition of the US interests in the region mainly revolves only around the lives of the US citizens.

Former NATO Commander - General Wesley Clark 

There is a third and more ominous view point as well in this regard. Many experts believe that the US policy is leading the entire region towards a new and more intensified conflict. This argument has its own merit and seems to be based on more realistic assessment. Syrian regime is an old Soviet/ Russian ally and this is why the US wants to through it out as revealed by General Clark as well. Russians on their part, would certainly respond to any such attempt by the US and for Iran and China it would be impossible to remain isolated in this entire conflict. In her initial response to Obama’s new Syrian strategy, Russia has warned that US air strikes against militants in Syria would be a "gross violation" of international law. Russia has asked the US to seek mandate of UN Security Council for any such attack something the US will never consider considering possible Russian veto to any such coalition. Iran, another Russian ally in the region, has already termed this anti-ISIS coalition as failure without its inclusion in it. This involves Saudi Arabia and other Sunni gulf states in this conflict as well.

In this geopolitical backdrop, the most fundamental question which still remains unanswered in the entire US Syrian policy is how today’s moderate rebel would not become a threat to regional stability and Syrian integrity tomorrow even if this policy pays off and root out ISIS successfully, regardless from the future of Bash Al Asad regime? Obama has not answered it neither those in Gulf States who thinks that ISIS would be eliminated and peace would be restored in the region. Ground reality, on the other hand is starkly obvious. Obama’s new policy may end one monster but it certainly would create another! This is exactly what transpired in Iraq after Saddam.

This time, Gaza fighting is 'proxy war' for entire Mideast

Josh Levs, CNN

"This is unprecedented in the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict," says CNN's Ali Younes, an analyst who has covered the region for decades. "Most Arab states are actively supporting Israel against the Palestinians -- and not even shy about it or doing it discreetly."

It's a "joint Arab-Israeli war consisting of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia against other Arabs -- the Palestinians as represented by Hamas."

As the New York Times put it, "Arab leaders, viewing Hamas as worse than Israel, stay silent."

One of the outcomes of the fighting will likely be "the end of the old Arab alliance system that has, even nominally, supported the Palestinians and their goal of establishing a Palestinian state," Younes says.

"The Israel-Hamas conflict has laid bare the new divides of the Middle East," says Danielle Pletka, vice president of foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. "It's no longer the Muslims against the Jews. Now it's the extremists -- the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, and their backers Iran, Qatar and Turkey -- against Israel and the more moderate Muslims including Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia."

"It's a proxy war for control or dominance in the Middle East," says CNN's Fareed Zakaria.

To understand why and what all this means, we need to begin with understanding of Hamas.

Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood

Hamas, which has controlled the Palestinian government in Gaza for years, is an extension of the Muslim Brotherhood. To many Americans, the brotherhood is familiar for its central role in the power struggle for Egypt. But it's much larger than that.

"The Muslim Brotherhood is international, with affiliated groups in more than 70 countries, including Saudi Arabia and the UAE," says Eric Trager of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

The Arab Spring showed the region that uprisings can lead to the Brotherhood gaining power. So it's a threat to the governments it opposes.

"Israel's ongoing battle against Hamas is part of a wider regional war on the Muslim Brotherhood," says the Soufan Group, which tracks global security. "Most Arab states share Israel's determination to finish the movement off once and for all, but they are unlikely to be successful."

"From the perspective of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the UAE and some other Arab states, what the Israeli Prime Minister is doing is fighting this war against Hamas on their behalf so they can finish the last stronghold of the Muslim Brotherhood," Younes says.

"Arab governments and official Arab media have all but adopted the Israeli view of who is a terrorist and who is not. Egyptian and Saudi-owned media are liberal in labeling the Muslim Brotherhood as 'terrorists' and describing Hamas as a 'terrorist organization.' It's a complete turnabout from the past, when Arab states fought Israel and the U.S. in the international organizations on the definition of terrorism, and who is a terrorist or a 'freedom fighter.'"

Egypt

Egypt's new President vowed during his campaign that he would finish off the Muslim Brotherhood. Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, the former military chief, deposed Egypt's first freely elected leader, President Mohamed Morsy of the Muslim Brotherhood, last year following mass protests against Morsy's rule.

El-Sisi was elected officially in June.

"In Egypt you have a regime that came to power by toppling a Muslim Brotherhood government," says Trager. "It's therefore in an existential conflict with the Brotherhood. So it doesn't want to see Hamas, the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood, emerge stronger in a neighboring territory."

Egypt also has another reason to stand against Hamas: rising violence and instability in Sinai, the northern part of Egypt that borders Israel and Gaza. Hamas' network of tunnels includes some in and out of Egypt used to smuggle goods include weapons for attackson Israeli civilians.

 Read the complete article

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/07/31/world/meast/israel-gaza-region/index.html