Posts by PramodSedhain:

Opportunity of Iran’s nuclear deal

March 20th, 2015

 

By Pramod Raj Sedhain.

 



Despite deep differences over Tehran’s nuclear program, the six international power nations have come closer than never before. The P5+1 nations (Britain, China, France, Russia, the United States and Germany, plus Iran) have settled some of the significant issues but differences on some issues still remain. Both sides are keen on finalizing the 12-year standoff over the Iran’s nuclear program. Two deadlines to strike a deal have already been missed and broader negotiation deadline draws closer. U.S.-Iran top diplomats held intensive and lengthy discussions to reach an agreement over the 15 months of standoff with a third set for the end of March. Without successfully conclusion of the political agreement of principles, it will not govern the comprehensive deal but attainment of an agreement within the deadline seems not easy.

The ongoing negotiation between the two sides has narrowed down the differences with significant progress. However, the scale of Iran’s uranium enrichment and the timetable for the lifting of Iran’s sanctions are still disputed issues. Iran has suspended some of its enrichment programs while the United States extended the November 2014 deadline to till June, 30 2015. Iran wants to lift sanctions swiftly and demanded to own its uranium enrichment capability.

Likewise, the U.S is in favor of gradual lift of the sanction. Tehran and the six world powers failed to work out a permanent nuclear deal within November 2014 deadline. But there are issues that need to be addressed. In November 2013, Iran and the world powers signed the interim deal in Geneva. They decided to extend the deadline to reach a high-level political agreement by March 1 and to come up with a complete technical detail of the agreement by July 1.

Iran and western nations are seeking to seal a high-profile deal that means a high opportunity and challenge to both U.S. and Iran. Despite the hard- liner’s objection, Iranian nuclear decision-making process is very clear after Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei expressed optimism over the final deal. U.S. President Barack Obama too is committed towards reaching a final deal on the issue. The government is the supreme authority to trustworthiness but the challenges it to neutralize some of domestic upsets and other scenario.

U.S. and Iran’s negotiators have been trying to find out a pragmatic deal to avoid any future destructive war in the Middle East. In the U.S., 46 Republican senators signed against the Iran’s nuclear deal but different polls suggest that the Americans want to reach a deal with Iran’s nuclear program. A recent CNN/ORC poll shows sixty-eight percent of Americans favor the ongoing negotiations. Likewise, a recent survey of University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation Polls suggests that not only Democrats but even the Republicans in the Congress are in favor of the deal. Only 36 percent favored increasing sanctions in an effort to end the program.

Negotiations between United States and Iran were never better in the past. But the time has changed with Iran led by reformist President Hassan Rouhani who is the former head of nuclear negotiating team (2003-2005). During the Iran’s former reformist president, Mohammad Khatami’s period EU 3 – Britain, France and Germany insisted to resolving the nuclear deal but did not succeed. President George W Bush blamed Iran as a part of an “axis of evil.”

Iran branded U.S. as a “Great Satan”. Despite the harsh rhetoric, Bush’s administration also made efforts to deal on Iran’s nuclear program. Even hardliner past President Bush had changed his previous policy and told the UN General Assembly, “We work toward diplomatic solution on this crisis and as we do live in freedom, America and Iran can be good friends and close friends for peace”. He also wanted mutual gestures and tactical partnership in Afghan war in 2001 and Iran war in 2003.

Iran’s hardliner President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad replaced experienced nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani. Ali Larijani had held intensive and diplomatic talks with EU foreign policy chief. Larijai also visited Europe to New York for negotiation efforts. In New York, he met with EU as well Russian and Chinese foreign ministers. He also held first-ever direct talks with US foreign Secretary Condoleeza Rice before the General Assembly started. Iran’s new open-minded government’s start of pragmatic ability is a good gesture for a compressive deal. U.S. too wants diplomatic solution rather than another costly and bloody war.

It is too early to say that Iran’s nuclear deal will reach a conclusion since swift lift of sanctions depends upon Iran’s steps.  Despite the cold relations, West and Iran have been open a secret channel of communication and both sides need to seek rapprochement of their relations. Relationship between the two sides is interesting because of the mentality of psychological war. Interestingly, both sides want to implement their respective agenda and influence in the region.

Comments Off on Opportunity of Iran’s nuclear deal

Need of collective crusade against Boko Haram

March 8th, 2015

By Pramod Raj Sedhain.

 



Nigeria-based terrorist group Boko Haram is no longer limited to a regional threat but has spread its terror activities elsewhere. Terror group leader Abubakar Shekau released an audio statement pledging strong alliance with Islamic State (IS) beginning with their anthem. In July 2014, Abubakar released a 16-minute video supporting and praising ISIL’s head Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, al-Qaeda’s head Ayman al-Zawahiri and Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Omar. He pledged allegiance with all terror groups . However, nexus Boko Haram’s latest move has been an alarming sign to the entire world.

Boko Haram has, of late, spread to Nigerians neighboring states, including Cameroon, Chad and Niger by increasingly using brutal methods like IS terrorists in Iraq and Syria. Boko Haram slaughtered and beheaded number of civilians and released propaganda following the footsteps of IS. This group declared a caliphate in areas it controls in northeast Nigeria. Boko Haram is trying to increase its influence by imposing caliphate in countries like Chad, Niger and Cameroon.

This notorious group holds influence in strategic bordering areas such as Nigeria’s border with Chad, Niger and Cameron. It controls routes that are vital for supply of arms as well as linking up with global terrorist cells. Terrorists’ physical connection and collective operation proximity is not an issue of lesser concern for Libya, Niger, Mali, Sudan or Somalia. Weapons, including armored personnel carriers, pickup trucks, rocket-propelled grenades and assault rifles from Libya have already reached to the hands of these terrorists. In Libya, IS terrorists have already gained the ground and took to barbarism. Boko Haram too adopted IS terror group’s banner and anthem.

Regional effort to battle against Boko Haram has seen series of successes. However, international support has to be ensured to push them back. In fact, Nigeria has stepped up collective efforts to counter Boko Haram. But collective regional military campaign needs western air raids against Boko Haram terrorists. For this, increased coordination of regional countries is a must. Failing to tackle this terrorist outfit through collective effort could be a solution. Or else, Boko Haram can become the biggest challenge similar to IS in Iraq and Syria. It is high time that the regional nations took strong and effective measures with a collective strategy to counter their common threat.

Combating Boko Haram terrorists cannot be possible without using proper and pronominal collective force. Nigerian army, known as one of the best in Africa, has not been able to put all its efforts to countering Boko Haram terrorists. It is due to equipment shortage, corruption, less mobility, limited logistic, lack of intelligence gathering capability and less motivation. More training and equipment is necessary for the regional army. Limited local support has been the biggest challenge to the world’s eight largest UN peacekeeper contributing Nigeria.

Boko Haram’s capability and violence have been growing deadly in recent times. Africa’s most populous and largest economy faces this dangerous threat. Failing to eliminate this outfit will lead to instability in the entire African region. After controlling several north-eastern Nigerian towns, this group opened the frontier to attack neighboring Cameroon. Their criminal tactics of suicide attacks, bombings, massacre, assassinations and abductions have crossed the boundary. Indiscriminate violence, fear, threat are their ideology and have been spreading day by day. Kidnapping, ransoms, robbery, extortion and trafficking have been Boko Haram’s financial source. The group has established connections for drug smuggling and poaching to generate money which is similar to other extremist Islamic terrorist groups.

If the West cannot shift its support in this regional collective operation against Boko Haram, it will be too late and dangerous. Suspected terrorists’ hideouts, weapon depot, training camps and command centre needs to be targeted at the earliest time possible. Decisive action is the need of the hour to control further escalation of their terrorist activities. Terrorists have shown their capability in multiple fronts, including their engagement of mass abduction, including the kidnapping of 219 Chibok school girls. After the month of mass abdicated in May 2014, France hosted a summit for regional effort but did not directly engage against the terrorist group.

Boko Haram (meaning ‘western education is forbidden in the nation) was founded in 2002. Since 2009 they have been waging insurgency to create Islamic state. During an operation against Boko Haram’s heartland city of Maiduguri, almost all militants were killed, including its founder and even seized the group’s headquarters and weapons. After this success, the Nigeria government declared that the Boko Haram has been finished. However, this in fact was not true since several survivor militants who fled to Algeria and believed to have reached Somalia and even Afghanistan for training returned, regrouped and re-launched terror attacks. Their capability and recruitment increased after several ethnic groups extended their support. Nigerian government declared emergency in three north-eastern states in 2013.

Over a half decade of growing conflict, innocent civilians were killed at an unprecedented level and displaced more than 1.6 million people. Nigerian leaders did not have the morale to fight back such big terrorist problem. Over 62% of Nigeria’s 170 million people live in extreme poverty. Around 24 percent unemployment Boko Haram-controlled area have less than 15 percent literacy rate, according to media reports. Terrorism problem in Nigeria cannot be solved by sole militarily. Anti-terror campaign needs political willingness, corruption control and more opportunities in all regions.

Greater instability and chaos has furthered chaos because of which election insecurity as well political rivalry have been on a rise. Deep-rooted corruption and mismanagement has frustrated the people. Nigeria’s political parties and prominent political leaders do not trust each other. Longstanding ethnic and religious tensions, extreme poverty, deep-rooted corruption in all sectors, lack of job opportunity for youth, less literacy as well divided between south and north for power and resources are some of the country major problems. Western analyst estimates that the group has controlled the territory nearly the size of Belgium. Smugglers in the lawless parts of the vast Sahel region are easily getting Boko Harm weapons and logistics. Such increasing danger and threat should not be underestimated and needs swift international humanitarian intervention to preserve future terror tragedy.

Comments Off on Need of collective crusade against Boko Haram

Ukraine revolution in one year: Far from over

February 24th, 2015

By Pramod Raj Sedhain.



The Euro Maidan Revolution’s first anniversary has been commemorated on the backdrop of civil war and nations divided over various issues. Uprising in the heart of the Ukraine’s capital Kiev’s Independence Square changed the regime but the country faced an unprecedented bitter proxy war between Russia and West. Ukraine revolution has witnessed the consequences thus entering the bloody and costly civil war. It was hoped that the revolution would create a better Ukraine but regretfully it turned out to be disastrous inciting the first ever dangerous geopolitical clash since the end of Cold War.

After the revolution turning into the worst bloodshed, six-hour long meeting and negotiation between European Union (EU) and Russian envoys reaching a decision with President Viktor Yanukovych and opposition leaders to sign a pact on 21 February 2014. But aftermath the successful deal, the opposition overthrew the Moscow-friendly President Yanukovich. He then fled to Russia and branded it a “coup”. Moscow too had a similar position and its own geopolitical strategic assessment.

As a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, Russia used all its influence, which Ukraine took its stand. Ukraine did not have any systemic solution of such a complicated challenge. Even its Western supporters were not very keen to protect it. Western nations failed to support Ukraine’s territorial integrity and faced a devastating impact in the geopolitical game. Europe is still dependent on Russia and they did not want to military support in Ukraine. Due to the immense pressure of the United States, the EU increased economic sanctions against Russia. They, however, are not ready for militarily support. But Russian troops amassed on the country’s eastern border might move anytime if they see a big geopolitical threat.

Following the regime change in Kiev, unmasked militia took control of the Crimean Peninsula. After a referendum on 16 March, Russia annexed Crimea on 18 March. Ukraine seemed to face bitter blow since it lost the industrial region that provided about 16 percent of gross domestic product, according to Reuters news agency. Russian strategists prepared all range of options since the Orange Revolution in 2004 but the West did not have any strategic viable option in Ukraine. Ukraine’s parliament put a ban on Russian language triggering demonstrations in cities across eastern and southern Ukraine, including Donetsk, Luhansk, Kharkiv, and Odessa that eventually started the war. Hopes to create better Ukraine turned terrific and bitter civil war. The country has been struggling against worse circumstances.

Yanukovych political stronghold in eastern Ukraine has been under the control of the rebels. This has virtually Russia’s full-scale influence. Likewise, the western part of the country has been under western influence. The West and Russia have been using their sphere of influence and leverage in the divided country. After President Yanukovych got closer with Russia, pro-western protests sparked in the capital. The western nations want Ukraine out of Russia’s orbit while Russia has been trying to get rid of Western influence in Ukraine.

Across eastern Ukraine, pro-Russian separatists moved into government buildings in April 2014 raised the Russian flag a Kiev ordered an “anti-terrorist operation” but conflict did not prevent . Economy progress, opportunity, hope and future are lost and much of the industrial town was in ruins. After lost the sizable territory, Ukrainian forces are demoralized and weary and Rebels’ started self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic. Resolving an ongoing crisis in Ukraine is limited and Moscow and western strategic calculation is far gap.

Ukraine’s incompetent political system and miscalculation has led to unfortunate circumstances. Despite the political and security control, the new leadership adopted a sudden u-turn. Without effective control over the country that could retreat in every sense, including politically, militarily or economically. The country’s new leadership in power failed to deal the complex situation and crisis triggering ethnic fighting in the eastern region.

Ukraine’s leadership has failed to address the principle demands of its people. The country’s conflict is far from solution. The leadership could resolve the crisis but since it has favored closer ties with EU and US by totally underestimating Russia, chances to address the conflict remain slim. Ukraine’s failure to control the border and rebellion will incite the country’s division on ethnic base.

Anti-government separatists have upper hands in two regions Donetsk and Luhansk. They are in total control of these regions. The rebels have already controlled the strategic Debaltseve city and might open coastal front by the Sea of Azov to heading strategic port of Mariupol. Government-held cities too are still under threat. After a year of fear, mistrust, tears and shadow, people have very little hope. More than 5,600 people have been killed in the fighting since mid-April last year. The country’s crisis has become even worse than before indicating deadly battlefront.

New ceasefire deal reached in Minsk for the second time but failed to make any major breakthrough. Implementation of the agreements is not an easy task. Now that, the best way out would be to deal the issue practically with mutual trust rather than militarily. The Western-backed Ukraine wants to regain its control over the rebel held territory while the rebels seem to be more dependent on Moscow. Such strategically geopolitical goals between the rival powers have different influence, equation and aim at fueling new crisis.

If Minsk cease-fire agreement will collapse, the Ukraine government has rare option to full-scale mobilization of troops in the war-torn region. However, winning the war would be difficult since it cannot stop the rebels’ advancement because it is sure that Moscow would back the separatist forces. Martial law might be used as what President Petro Poroshenko publicly said. But such a hardest approach cannot be the remedy.

Such move will be swiftly responded by Moscow with full scale support of the rebels since they are already in control of major strategic grounds across the eastern part. The U.S. considers to flow arms to Kiev while Russian response could be out of control. In such a scenario, what one can easily consider is that the new round of flare-up in a conflict and flow of heavy weapons flow will see more complicated situation in the coming days. Therefore, lasting peace in Ukraine is far from the ground.

Comments Off on Ukraine revolution in one year: Far from over

Why should Japan join anti-terrorist coalition?

February 18th, 2015

By Pramod Raj Sedhain.

 



Terrorist group, Islamic State beheaded Japanese freelance journalist Kenji Goto and another Japanese national Haruna Yukawa that drew international condemnation. Japan applied all available options but could not save these two innocent people from the hands of barbaric terrorists. Japan now has the right of military retribution against those responsible for the terrorist acts. These enemies of humans, the Islamic extremist group will only listen to the voice of force. To be more precise, military response would be the retaliation.

Japanese military interference will be the best option to drive out the Islamist terrorists for the world’s safety. Brutal barbaric group poses great threat to international peace and security. For instance, Egypt immediately retaliated following the beheading 21 of its citizens by the Islamic State terrorist’s branch in Libya. Egypt’s air force carried out aerial bombing in Libyan city of Surt on Islamic State targets. Jordan has already carried out bombing raids against the Islamic State in Syria in retaliation for burning to death of a captured Jordanian pilot. Following the path of Egypt and Jordan, Japan too should not delay in launching air strikes against the terrorists.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is keen on changing the American written 1947 (after World War II) constitution especially about amending defensive military to forbid the use of armed force to settle disputes (Constitution Article 9) and allow it for overseas action is an extensive political debate in Japan. Success of such revision will not only pave the way towards projecting Japan’s military power to the world but will also demonstrate a bigger role in global affairs. Japanese people support the initiative for the drastic change to allow the use of military against terrorism.

After killing two innocent civilians by terrorist group, Japan has seen unprecedented levels of growing concern about terrorism threat. Japanese military engagement overseas is the most sensitive political issue inside Japan but policy makers are under pressure for preventing citizen life in emergency situations and growing terrorist pose challenges. Japan has been playing an active role in peacekeeping, and is also a provider of huge humanitarian relief, benefiter of financial aid in developing nations and engager of economic security worldwide. It, however, needs to have active military engagements for global security. Proactive pacifism will succeed without adoption of all necessary measures either politically, diplomatically, economically and militarily.

Japan’s commitment of $200 million as part of humanitarian aid for anti-Islamic State effort is a good gesture. But it is still not a significant support for military assistance. Japan is one of the prominent coalition nations among the 62 countries, according to U.S. State Department (Sep 2014 published list). Japan needs to mobilize troops to fight terrorism under the umbrella of US-led coalition. Overseas operation needs more intelligence-gathering capabilities and experience rescue operation and coalition is ready to help for anti Islamic State battle.

Japan has been stepping up its humanitarian support to anti-IS coalition but it still needs direct military involvement against Islamic State. U.S.-led anti-terrorist coalition has continued aerial attacks in Iraq and Syria but Japan has not yet joined it militarily. Japan needs to take revenge by providing air support and direct military equipment to anti-IS coalition. Emergence of Islamic State is a threat of whole human civilization and massive military response is needed to eliminate this terrorist outfit. It is time for Japan to begin measures to fight against terrorism such as launching airstrikes against Islamic State target in Iraq and Syria.

Japan is a country with advanced societies and still not a potential target point for the terrorists but Israeli media reported that nine Japanese citizens joined the Islamic State. Japan has 0.1 percent Muslim population and still prevents radicalization but future threat should not be underestimated. Destruction of terrorist safe havens is the responsibility for all nations having military capability. Beyond the borders operation is not an easy task for Japan but capable air force pilots can easily airstrike or hit terrorist targets as what coalition nations are doing. Eliminating the global threat of terrorism is the responsibility of capable Japan. Japan’s defense strategy does not need to involve in the worldwide crises but should urgently authorize to use force to join anti-terrorist campaign to eliminate potential terrorist threats.

Comments Off on Why should Japan join anti-terrorist coalition?

Geopolitical significant of the Korean Peninsula

February 12th, 2015

By Pramod Sedhain.

 



Rival imperialist’s ambition to control the Korean Peninsula has seen a history of confrontations. In fact, Korean Peninsula has been a historic war-point and the intention to control it has been the beginning of wider campaign to dominate the Asian region. Sphere of influence over Korean Peninsula since centuries has seen several direct clashes for geopolitical interests. Korean ground has witnessed history of China-Japan war, Russia-Japan War as well as U.S-China war serving various strategic purposes and historic engagements.

Peninsula’s geographical position has attracted great powers for geopolitical factors. Five thousand years long unified history has divided foreign geopolitical interest with same bloodline Korean people separating with each other each with a political and geographical boundary. Great historic empire’s power interest and ambition led to rivalry in Korea resulting to unexpected wars and destructions in the past.

We need to understand the history to better know the present significance of Korean Peninsula. Japan invaded Korea in 1592 and the military conflict ended with truce in 1596. After invading the newly unified Japan over Korean Peninsula, China involved in it. The Japanese were forced to withdraw. First military stalemate completed after a brief period of peace. Japan then invaded Korea in 1597 and withdrew in 1598.

Japanese withdrawal from Korean Peninsula happened due to the death of Toyotomi Hideyoshi in September 1598. But new governing body of Japan ordered to withdraw their force. Japan’s occupation was not only a threat to the Korean ruling dynasty but it equally worried China’s ruling future. Final peace negotiations took several years but these were in favor of both monarchies in Korea as well as China. Both the regimes were in favor of consolidating their power at home. Joseon Dynasty Korea and Ming Dynasty China cooperated with each other while Japanese supply lines and empire ambitions were jointly checked by both monarchies.

Empire Russia and Japan expansionist policy settled their first war in 1903 inking a negotiation. But the negotiation was not implemented. Both nations wanted total sphere of influence over Korean peninsula for their geopolitical interests. Russia did not want to leave their strategic navy and maritime trade through Korean port while Japan did not allow other to control its strategic water gateway. Control by the city of Port Arthur was the key reason for the immediate war that led to the Great Asian War of the 20th century.

After the collapse of Russia-Japan neutral buffer zone negotiation, a navy war broke out in 1904. Empire Russian legacy sharply damaged after it lost the Korean Peninsula war with Japan. Russia had a huge influence in the Korean regime. Therefore, it did not want any third country’s entry into its umbrella nation. Russia and Japan engaged in a costly and bloody war to control the strategic Korean Peninsula. Korea’s loss resulted to reassessment of Russian empire’s legacy and suffered a heavy price. Japan’s victory, on the other hand, proved its reputation worldwide. The war transformed the balance of power in East Asia and a new empire began from the Korean War.

This was the first time in the history that an Asian country defeated European power. Japan started its Asian empire from Korea. During the war period, Japan got the support from USA and Britain while Russia was backed by France and Germany. Russia had lost two of its three fleets. Only its Black Sea Fleet remained. American President Theodore Roosevelt’s mediation effort ended the war with Treaty of Portsmouth signed on 5 September 1905. Russia’s loss in Korean peninsula war ended in losing all its past glories, credibility and even led to domestic upheaval. Without controlling the peninsula, Japan’s operations capacity far from the border was impossible.

Japan established full control of all the territory and trade as well as forced the annexation of entire Peninsula in 1910. During the First World War, Germany defeated Japan taking the places from its sphere of influence and occupation in China and other Pacific territories. Japan’s 35 years colonial rule over Korea ended with the Japanese unconditional surrender on September 2, 1945.

In November 1943 Cairo conference, allied leaders’ committed that Korea shall become free and independent. But the war did not end here. Reoccupation of the Korean peninsula by foreign forces continued for their own geopolitical interests. New power emerged in Korea with United States and Russia trying to prove their influence. After America’s atomic bombing in Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, Soviet Red Army immediately invaded Manchuria to support communist guerrilla. Soviet occupied northern half and later America entered the southern side with both agreeing to create the 38th parallel that led to formally separation of North and South.

An initiative to hold general and free elections failed because of the disagreements between Soviet Union and Unites States for their respective geopolitical interests. America and Russia did not want to form unified government thus forming two governments in the North and South, which led to their grip of influence. After the installation of the Pro- communist in North and Pro-West government in Korea, the Soviet Union troops withdrew in 1948 and U.S. in 1949.

North Korea made a surprise attack on South Korea for crossing the 38th Parallel on June 25, 1950. Communist troops swiftly took over the South’s capital and rapidly advanced to control the entire Peninsula. South’s army defeated the North’s troops was advance in all fronts included the successfully advancing the last port of Pusan . North’s high morale-forces quickly engulfed all the major areas.

The intervention immediately internationalized. Soviet and China backed the North and Western powers backed the South. Confrontations took place. US’s crossroads to counter the threat as well as no immediate contingency plan and strategy to counter the North invasion. During that period, America was more concerned on security and its presence in Europe rather than Asia. American strategic interest worried the world that it would create another world war from Korea. However, finally they decided not to underestimate the Communists and engaged in fighting to protect South Korea. Veto-wielding North’s supporter Soviet Union boycotted the United Nations Security Council since January 1950 and that was an opportunity to pass unanimously condemning the North Korean invasion on 25 June 1950.

Security Council’s Resolution 83 recommended military intervention to protect South Korea on 27 June 1950. Immediately after passing the resolution, U.S. President Harry Truman ordered U.S. air, navy and ground forces to counter North military. North supporter’s newly emerged communist China had no veto power during that time. United States fought in Korea to contain communism to protect their interest in the peninsula. Korean geographic position was strategically significant for America as well Soviet Union.

US force led the force of 15 nations against North Korea’s force. U.S-led coalition responded the North with full-scale heavy military hardware in air, sea and ground. The world, first time in its history, saw the first ever air-to-air combat in the sky. Chinese army supported North’s army since April 1951. North’s offensive began after getting Chinese support and Soviet weaponry. Bloody fight prolonged with neither side making a clear victory. However, the war ended on 27 July 1953 with the signing of an armistice. The armistice created the Korean Demilitarized Zone to separate the two nations. Since then, both the Koreas are technically at the state of war and both the nations competing to expand their military capability to counter each other.

Dozens of US military bases in South Korea have been closed but Cold War-era containment strategy is still alive in the peninsula with 28,500 U.S. troops still stationed there. The plan is to reduce the number of US force plan but strengthening of their operation capabilities, combat readiness and ultra modern equipment continues. US military is not only protecting South Korea but equally precious missile defense base of US military containment has been a strategy against China.

Wealthy South Korea may be capable of defending itself but US still bears security guarantee. South Korea spends its defense budget that is equivalent to North Korea’s entire annual GDP. However, U.S. military is equipped with Rocket Launching System to Air Force and Missile defense system, transportation, logistics, and other form of precious military capabilities in place. China has similar strategic concerns in North Korea. It fears that instability in Pyongyang could have direct effect its own security. China does not want regular US military exercises on the border and tries to preserve North Korea as its buffer to apply all options.

Comments Off on Geopolitical significant of the Korean Peninsula

Iraq’s anti-terrorist war: Closer to turning point

February 10th, 2015

 

By Pramod Raj Sedhain.

 



Battle against brutal terrorist group, Islamic State (IS) reached a new height and “mother of all battles in Iraq will begin soon” in the militants-controlled city of Mosul. The widely-anticipated major military counter offensive against IS terrorist group is said to kick-start “at an appropriate time earliest”. Retake of Mosul from IS will be the beginning to end the ultra hard-liner terrorist outfit. Combined efforts to “degrade and ultimately destroy” the IS will surely be heading to the path of victory after retaking the strategic city of Mosul.

Crushing the barbaric IS in Mosul is certain. However, it will not be an easy and swift task. Anti-IS coalition will have to undergo very tough, complex, costly and bloody battle in Iraq’s second-largest city. The city fell into the hands of IS terrorists in June 2014 and they even spearheaded to take over significant territory in Anbar and Nineveh province. This militant outfit even went for a surprise offensive of Iraqi capital Bagdad and Kurdish capital Erbil.

United States and Iranian-Iraqi-Kurdish actors are fully concerned and focused on gathering information of the group, their hold in the city. They are also calculating the IS strength and their defense position. Both U.S. and Iranian advisors have focused on cutting off re-supply and reinforcing the fighters in Mosul to regain the city. But IS terrorist group demonstrated its ability to successfully transform their command stations with still securing their major communication systems, handling of supply chain for ammunition and its fighters, financial resources, among others battle tactic.

Without destroying the active recruiting chain and considerable firepower, the IS will be able to defend or control the city for a long time which will also lead the way for similar come backs. Terrorist group’s invisible location, command structure, unknown fighter units and strategy could be more complex than expected. Iranian advisor is more focused to neutralize the IS heavy weapons’ strength by tracking with special radar and to pinpoint the source of incoming mortar and artillery fire and to retaliate hit back.

Washington-Iranian-Baghdad-Erbil officials have been holding intensive discussion and strategy to re-take Mosul. They have agreed to do so before April. The US still avoids fresh assault in Mosul and has been encouraging on effective planning and preparation for some months. However, Bagdad, Tehran, Kurd and militias hold no patience and want swift formation for battle by cutting IS recruitment and revenue resources.

U.S. has been facing immense pressure to act immediately and consider new battle strategy to regain Mosul. IS has defended the city to a significant level and without extensive aerial bombardment, it is very difficult to break IS position. Iran has fully prepared for ground assaults and has already invested money, manpower, ammunitions and communication against the IS.

Kurdish Peshmerga forces were able to recapture key Kurd area near the East of Mosul from the IS terrorists. They showed their fighting credibility after recapturing the Turkish border at the northern Syrian city of Kobani from IS. Similarly, Shia fighters got victory over the IS in the strategic Iraqi province of Diyala. They are currently ready to move towards Mosul. Iraqi forces and various tribal fighters have also gained victory over IS in different places. Anti-IS coalition’s morale at the moment is very high and is waiting for ground assault to retake Mosul city.

However, support from several local groups to IS has been a major problem for the anti-IS coalition. Responding to my query about the ground situation and operation, Iranian source told me that “Iranian revolutionary guards organized the Iraqi army along with all communities militia, including Shias, Sunnis, Kurds, and Christians for the decisive ground counter attack in Mosul.”

Talking over the phone, one credible Iranian journalist, who is reporting at the frontline, confirmed the extension of Iranian support. He indicated that the move to Mosul would begin “pretty soon”. He told me, “Iranian political, diplomatic and military officials are fully aware that all eyes set on Mosul, Iranian advisors are very sensitive about the future sectarian tension and possible civil war. Therefore, they want to mobilize tribal and inclusive force to liberate the city of Mosul.”

It is definite that Mosul will see a bloody and difficult urban battle very soon. However, successful campaign strategy and broader alliance is needed to recapture the city, which is some 400 kilometers north of the Baghdad. Collective efforts of Iraqi military, Kurdish Peshmerga forces, volunteers of Shiite and Sunni militia fighter groups need more close coordination and unified command structure. Strategy to retake Mosul needs collective military formation as well as control of IS re-supply and reinforce of its fighters.

Cutting the supply lines between Iraq and Syria is the key strategic focus to recapture Mosul. Advisors of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps have been deploying fleet of drones, heavy military hardware as well as local ground control stations in the appropriate areas. New coordination mechanization formation and advisers’ ground assessments have been almost finalized. High-level Iranian general will come to the area to direct and finalize the mobilization of the combat ground forces to re-control the key city. Surveillance of drones in the Islamic State-controlled territory has been more frequent than before.

Anti-IS coalition is more focused in Mosul like what they did in Kobani of Syria. The key Syrian border town of Kobani witnessed extensive aerial bombardment to support for Kurd ground forces’ to fully liberate after a four-month long battle. But battle in Mosul will be far more complex than Kobani. Frequent and intensive target should be carried out to neutralize IS strength and collective power in Mosul. Air strikes should target their other bastion like their capital of Raqqa, Syria and other positions to destroy their command structure, resources and fighters. Such a strategy will weaken and isolate the group’s chain in every sector.

Aggressive and frequent aerial and ground attacks against IS multi-position will sharply decrease and demoralize their fighters and destroy their weapons. But IS has brigades of fighters, dozens of suicide bombers as well as modern weaponry. Expelling and eliminating of terrorist groups from Mosul will be a very complex task and might need the support of direct foreign forces. U.S. military is still considering to mobilize ground troops to help anti-IS coalition. U.S. chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey referred to the idea of US boots on the ground in Iraq but President Barack Obama did not give a nod to the recommendation.

Success also depends on coalition’s more intensive aerial strikes against terrorist groups’ targets. Such attacks can destroy terrorists’ bunkers, artillery, combat vehicles, communication, supply vehicles, command posts and neutralize the long range weapons. More significant step would be to erecting fortifications, and targeting and killing their leadership. Iraqi foreign strategists are more confident to go for offensive.

However, they still lack full logistical capacity for sustained assault. Preparation for more ammunition, equipment and training is needed before going for offensive. Establishing more defensive positions and logistic support and establishing the lines of communications need to be in place for the operation. Removing or defusing the ‘booby-trapped’ houses and roadside bombs will be the biggest problems.

Preparing for the battle against IS group in northern Iraq needs to be highly-organized and coordinated. Military offensive against IS cannot succeed without U.S aerial strike and Iran’s ground support. Successful offensive on Mosul depends on a complete battle to gain final victory against the world’s most powerful terrorist group.

The terrorists have got the combat skills and fighting against Islamic State fighters on the streets will not be easy. To degrade the IS cannot be possible by aerial strikes alone. Even sophisticated systems cannot function properly to track the Islamic State’s movement. War against IS militants has seen intelligence lapses but eliminating their major offence ability as well as killing their fighters and mid level Islamic State leadership is necessary to wipe them out.

The IS has still professional fighting forces of former Iraqi dictator Saddam’s disbanded elite Republican Guards and thousands of futureless youth . Anti Islamic State fighters like Iraqi Army, Kurds and Shia militia have gained ground against IS and have high morale to move forward. However, the situation is still complex. Street to street and house to house close combat will be seen very soon.

This will see the real military capabilities of both sides. Effective heavy weapons are needed to destroy the IS tanks, artillery system and other effective weapons. Terrorists have dozens of lower altitude and short ranges missiles, and a wide range of lighter, shoulder-launched missiles. Use of helicopters or close combat support will have rare chance. Rearming, re-equipping, and retraining is needed for fresh ground attacks against the IS’s major bastion in Mosul. Win over Mosul is not far. Re-take of Mosul is surely the beginning of the end of barbaric terrorist group – Islamic State.

 

Comments Off on Iraq’s anti-terrorist war: Closer to turning point

Iraq in War: Narrowing down differences between U.S. & Iran

February 9th, 2015

By Pramod Raj Sedhain.

 



Ties between the United States and Islamic Republic of Iran have been hostile. After the 1979 revolution, Iranian students occupied the US Embassy in Tehran on November 4.  The U.S. launched a rescue mission (Operation Eagle Claw) on April 24, 1980, that eventually ended in a collision between a helicopter and a transport plane killing eight servicemen. Fifty two American nationals were taken hostage for 444 days.

This resulted to breaking up of the formal diplomatic relations thus worsening the relations further. In fact, these countries had a tactical alliance aimed at toppling the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and Iraq’s Saddam regime in 2003. However, currently both the countries have initiated efforts to further their ties and heading towards common interests to degrade and ultimately destroy the Islamic State(IS). They jointly formed the government under Iraq’s new Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi and initiated collective approach to fight against IS militants. U.S. economic sanctions against Iran is still in place while direct nuclear negotiations are underway. However, both these countries want to maintain power balance in the Middle East region.

U.S. and Iran have faced common enemy – Islamic State, which helped in narrowing down the differences through uneasy alliance between them. Washington and Tehran have taken an undisclosed and undeclared key alliance against anti-IS war since the beginning of Iraqi crisis. Both the countries have their common interest to eliminate the IS threat and form a stable government in Baghdad. The relations between the two nations, it seems, have been narrowing down gradually when it comes to war in Iraq.

Iraq’s war have brought these two countries closer. The US-led aerial coalition and Iran-led ground battle coalition have been gaining momentum against IS militants in Iraq. Ground battle against Islamic State is fully dependent on Iran’s elite extra-territorial operations branch of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-the Quds Force. After IS swept through northern Iraq in June, U.S. and Iran started an uneasy alliance. Iran swiftly involved in the counter attack against IS in Iraq by supplying weapons, intelligence, training, logistics to help in the fight against IS. U.S and Iran got closer when the Central Government of Baghdad was about to collapse .

When Baghdad was about to collapse, Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps elite Quds Force’s commander General Qassim Suleimani made a ground visit. He inspected the government’s defense position and instantly mobilized the militia and coordinated with the government force, militia as well Iraqi politicians and military officials and even designed the defense ring around Baghdad. Suleimani led the prominent Iranian role to Baghdad’s rescue.

Suleimani directly commanded and coordinated the alternative military formation in Iraqi battle along with militias, military and volunteers. Previously, the U.S. was suspicious of Iranian role over Iraq, especially the fear that the conflict could enter a wider sectarian line. But the result was productive enough thus forming the broader anti-IS alliance with Iraqi security, Shiites militias, Kurdish Peshmerga forces, Christian minority militia as well as even the Sunni militia joined the direct initiative of commander Suleimani.

Iranian commanders demonstrated their ability. Iran neutralized the factions in Iraqi’s security and militia groups. The mobilization against IS gained the US trust on the ground. Iranian’s involvement on the ground was openly accepted by the United States. Iran’s success had a psychological impact giving a clear message that it was aimed at defeating the IS. Iran became a legitimate player in the war against Islamic State and became a trusted but undeclared ally of the US in its fight against IS. It was of course a common goal – what they already did together in Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003. The U.S had an entirely new approach to accept the Iranian sphere of influence over Iraqi factions and made an informal coordination with each other.

Baghdad was threatened from four fronts. However, after Iranian general coordinated the counter attack, Baghdad was secured with Iraq almost fully dependant on Iranian support. Now the situation in Iraqi is under control and Iran is providing most of the ground offense support.

Halting the IS advance in Iraq gave Suleimani more name and fame around the world. Suleimani credited the major victories against the Islamic State groups in Iraq and achieved legendary military status. Before the war against Islamic State, Suleimani had kept a very low profile but after the successful strategy, the general is highly branded by Iran and Western media. Iran is greatly concerned about the safety of Shia shrines in Iraq in Samarra, Kadhimiya, Najaf and Karbala. But it was equally concerned over the takeover by IS in Diyala province near the border town of Iran.

The province was liberated with the support of Iran. At times, Iran also provided areal assistance to stop the advance of the IS fighters. Suleimani and other senior Iranian general directly engaged on the ground in Amerli in the north and in Iraqi Kurdistan to direct and command the direct ground battle. The ground battle strategy was initiated by Iran and U.S. provided aerial support for their common goal for the elimination of the IS.

Almost all anti-IS fighter groups have very strong ties with Iran’s elite Quds Force and U.S aerial strikes have supported them to advance against Islamic State. US has supported Iran’s role in Iraq. Even America’s former arch enemy militia opened gate to Baghdad’s Green Zone U.S. Embassy – the largest, fortified, lavish and most expensive embassy in the world. Several American diplomatic officials were in direct touch with Iran -backed militia in Iraq to learn about their progress. Even the Ambassador consulted with their leader for the airstrikes. This is surely a positive indication of improved relationship between Washington and Tehran.

Iraq is Iran’s strategic buffer and it has extended support and influence over anti Islamic fighters. U.S-Iran tactical alliance was equally significant in the crucial Mosul battle. Both nations have made dramatic correspond with each other on their interests in Iraq. Even security officials created many virtual points to directly discuss on the war situations. Both are active to locate the high profile Islamic State’s central command target and even involved in exchanging their information. Both the nations have maintained common collaboration in Iraq.

Washington has now applied soft policy towards its former sworn enemy Iran. Iran’s ability to handle the critical situation is equally tactical for American interest. Iraq is dependent on Iran for their survival and two countries’ political, security, cultural, economic and diplomatic connection had significant ties, which America also accepts. The U.S. and Iran relation has already shifted on the ground but both sides do not easily want to disclose their cooperation.

Comments Off on Iraq in War: Narrowing down differences between U.S. & Iran

Agriculture in Portugal: Relying on foreign workers

February 4th, 2015

 

By Pramod Raj Sedhain.

 

 



 

Recently, I was in Portugal for a week to cover its agricultural characteristics, farms and its reliance on foreign workers. I visited several agriculture farms to cover almost three distinct topographical and climatic zones in the south, center as well the mountainous and rainy northern part of the southern European nation. What I felt is that Portugal’s agricultural performance has re-emerged becoming the fastest growing and alternative sector to create more jobs in the country. More interestingly, Asian workers are gaining popularity in Portugal’s agriculture sector.

Until 1950s, farming was Portugal’s biggest industry and was almost a third of the country’s gross domestic product. But after joining the EU in 1986, the country focused on services. Now, this country has once again focused on agriculture sector to create more jobs and economic growth. The government has supported agricultural farming and investors too are optimistic. Portugal government has set a target to eliminate the country’s 2.7 billion-euro food-trade deficit by 2020. Around one-third of land area is useful for agriculture and agribusiness is booming across the nation. European Union and Portugal’s government aim at boosting the farm business by providing a grant of 1.3 billion Euros every year.

Portugal has been trying to restructure its agriculture economy and has given a lot of incentives to new investors. Despite the limited opportunities of foreign non-skilled laborers in Portugal, Asian migrant workers have been proved as the best alternative. Portugal itself faces unemployment crisis. But agriculture employers seeks immigrant labor from Asian Countries. The farm has been facing difficulty to attracting Portuguese nationals. Therefore, this country brings in workers from Nepal, India, Thailand, among other countries. Approximately, more than 60 percent of the farm workers in Portugal are now foreigners. Nepalese workers are no exception.

Unemployment rate in Portugal is currently stands at around 13 percent – lower than around 18 percent registered in 2013 but is still painfully high. Portugal’s economy is almost dominated by services but currently agricultural is emerging as the fastest growing business. Despite its service oriented economy growth, the country has focused on agriculture with fishing just around 3.9 percent of economic stake. Around 10 percent of labor force has been engaged. Until 1990, Portugal’s agriculture, forestry, and fishing created 17.8 percent employment and 6.2 percent of GDP in 1990. Portugal is one of the world’s largest exporters of tomato paste, produces 2 percent of the world’s olive oil and a leading exporter of wines. Portugal is also famous for wheat, barley, corn, rice, potatoes, grapes, olives and tomatoes as well other agro produce.

Agriculture farms can be the best destination for young Asians, who have previously entered Europe either legally or illegally from Britain or elsewhere. Some workers working in the farms in Portugal have come through contacts either from Asian manpower companies with local companies or through some other means. One Nepalese agriculture worker said, “Other jobs in Portugal are difficult to find. Therefore, I decided to work in an agriculture farm. It’s nice and we have gained new skill. Our major concern to work here is to get legalization residence card”.

Considering United States and Europe as a paradise could even lead to misfortune or unfortunate circumstances for Asian youths. This was my third field reporting in Portugal and this time gave a new hope and satisfaction to see and meet several Nepalese and Asian workers working in the farms. During my previous visit in 2012, the situation of Asians, especially Nepalese was pathetic. But this time, I could see a changed situation since I did not hear any painstaking stories. During my previous visit, I could experience the dreams and hopes of migrant workers being shattered. However, people have new hopes due to agriculture farm. Getting a better-paid work for migrant Asian workers have remained slim. Another worker told me, “It is very time-consuming and difficult. We are working in a minimum wage. But we get unemployment benefits to residence legislation gateway”. Most of the educated migrant labors and Portugal’s low minimum wage benefit these workers.

Anna BOURNOT, Director at the Mirtisul, an agriculture farm, said, “I am sorry to say that Portuguese youths do not have the passion to work in farms. I am happy that I have Nepalese workers in my farms because of their honesty, sincerity and hard work.” This French women praised her workers for their dedication towards their work. She plans to expand her farm by hiring workforce from Asian countries, including Nepal. Hugo Melita, Managing Director of Sunshine Fruits Ltd, is also pleased to hire Asian workers. Hugo said, “Most of my workers are hired from Asian countries because of their hard work, dedication and loyalty.”

Local recruitment agencies are involved in Portugal’s facilitating recruitment process. Chairman Surya Hamal of Polar Dream said, “Quality of workers in agriculture field depends on different requirements but in general field unskilled workers are acceptable”. However, technical and processing sector need semi-skilled and professionals and they are basically local Portuguese”. This Nepalese origin young Portuguese businessman adds, “Hiring a local Portuguese in agriculture farm is difficult. Local people are interested in other jobs rather than agriculture. But we hire them especially for official jobs, field supervisors or technicians.”

Portugal’s agriculture farms have become an undocumented workers’ destination. These farms have succeeded in attracting young Asians. Portugal is part of the Schengen region and if they pay the six month of Social Security and pay taxes from their salary, these workers will be qualified to apply for residence cards. Several Asians have benefitted from this provision. Impressive respect of local Portuguese people and their hospitality will further create a favorable environment for foreign workers. Even the supervisors’ treatment has been admirable.

Portugal initiated the program in 2014 after achieving some success in cutting its deficit and restoring growth. Recent National Statistics Institute data indicator shows that Portugal’s consumer confidence is now at the highest level since 2002. Portugal, the gateway to the European Union has struggled to recover its economy but the situation is still painful. The National Statistics Institute data indicates an optimistic sign. This unique nation has a rich history of sea farming but since 2008 Portugal has undergone economic suffering.

Portugal is still struggling to recover from its debt crisis – the worst economic slump since the 1970s. Portugal’s bail out was alarming for all Euro zone members and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the European Central Bank in 2011 with a 78 billion euro package lenders for emergency assistance. It got the loan under a harsh term and condition. The economy is gradually recovering while the GDP per-head remains well under the EU average but austerity remains in place. But, the historic country is still struggling to create new jobs for youths.

Comments Off on Agriculture in Portugal: Relying on foreign workers

U.S.- India strategic relation: Opportunities, limitations and challenges

January 31st, 2015

 

 

By Pramod Raj Sedhain.

 

As the first American chief guest at the 66th Republic Day parade President Barack Obama closely watched the Indian military might in the Indian capital. The two-hour-long procession might not be a matter of interest for the world superpower’s President but what is significant is Obama’s presence on the occasion when it comes to regional geopolitical future. During Obama’s three-day visit, he received the highest level of respect from Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who received him by breaking the protocol. Modi welcomed Obama at the airport with a warm embrace. Breaking protocol is not a big issue. The important issue here is American policy shift towards Asia. Obama was received by sitting Indian PM Manmohan Singh in 2010 at the airport. Singh also received at then US President George Bush at the airport in 2006. India is surely strategic for America and depends on different dimensions and factors.

Obama’s (two times) visit to India during his tenure signifies Indian geopolitical importance in the region. During the visit, Obama announced multibillion-dollar support for Indian infrastructure projects. Modi announced at a press conference about successful negotiations over a civil nuclear deal and new 10-year defense cooperation agreement with America. Both countries announced boosting bilateral trade from the current level of around $100 billion a year to $500 billion by 2025. Sharing intelligence to “defining partnership” has been pending issues. Both leaders expressed “warmer relationship” indicating thus strengthening India-US alliance in the Asia-Pacific region.

The rise of charismatic leader in Asia’s giant Indian can easily gain the support of American administration. Single party’s decisive victory in the world largest democracy has become easy to transform, deepen and expand relations in the international arena. US has seen Modi as an architect of new India with the expectations that he can transform the country’s economy to diplomacy and establish India as an Asian hub. The world’s second populated and english speaking nation India is currently encouraging foreign direct investments and America sees future in it. According to U. N projection, India can overtake China as world’s biggest country by 2030.

India, the world’s ninth biggest military spender, buys more than sixty five percent of its military equipment from foreign nations. Washington wants to become the top defense equipment supplier. Next generation of aircraft carriers and battle-proven aircraft are big defense projects of America in the world’s biggest arms importer India. India’s huge market can be the number one arm importer of America. Indian market growth can be seen as a potential market for American products. But the country still faces several fault lines. However, India’s prosperity is America’s priority because of U.S. regional interest.

Several respected U.S. scholars have focused India since the last several decades. Indian-born Americans have gained more respected positions in the US government and other academic ranks. Hindi cinema and media popularity has been expanding cultural influence. India born American Dalip Singh Saund who was elected the voting member of the United States Congress legacy currently holds the Nimrata Nikki Randhawa Haley in US politic. Journalist and author Fareed Rafiq Zakaria, author Padma Parvati Lakshmi, actor Kal Penn, actress Vera Mindy Chokalingam, film director Manoj Shyamalan, Miss America 2014 – Nina Davuluri, comedian Aziz Ansari, singer Geetali Norah Jones Shankar, neurosurgeon Sanjay Gupta, astronaut Kalpana Chawla, physician Sneha Anne Philip are some of the Indian-origin influential persons in United States. Such people can be termed as ‘heritage’ of Indian influence in America. There are so many Indians who are virtually influential in all sectors in America – from information technology, business, academics, culture, legal, science, and administration to diplomacy. This trend will certainly have an Indian influence in the United States’ policy. Such different levels of influence in American society will help in strengthening relations between the two countries.

We cannot understand America’s foreign affairs without reading the American foreign policy master Henry Kissinger’s Books. The six decades long foreign policy veteran’s latest “World Order” is a comprehensive foreign policy analysis with historical perspective that reflects the US future engagements and role in Asia. The book focuses on India more than Japan and other US key Asian ally. India has been solely referred on 17 pages (192- 208). The author has very minutely and impressively described India’s past history, present and future perspectives.

The book also focuses Indian’s civilization, colonial past, from history to present situation, traditional diplomacy and economy, internal problems, security to moral values. Possibility to challenges, potentiality in future and dynamism, philosophical tradition to cultural influence, past to future, Indian’s ambition to US balance, Modi policy, Ruling dynasty, Indian bargaining tactic, and even Kautilya’s classical diplomacy to traditional economy and future.

Kissinger also sees huge internal challenge in India and says, “India’s role in world order is complicated by structural factors related to its founding. Among the most complex will be its relations with its closest neighbors (Page 206, World Order)”. He is optimistic on rising India but does not see any strategic level relations at present. He sees Indian’s legitimacy balancer in the Indian Ocean and sees strong spheres of influence over there by friendly means.

We will be able to understand a little bit about India by reading William Antholis book “Inside Out India and China”. The U.S. Strategic scholar traversed twenty Indian states, held conversation with Narenda Modi as well as dozens of other Indian policy makers. This book too is optimistic about rising India in future and is equally worried of complex US foreign policy because of Indian domestic factors.

 

Challenges ahead

Rising India is still not a major world power but it sets big global priorities and projects. United States does not want any problematic approach between India and Pakistan. India cannot support US military or strategy in global engagements and affairs. India still needs vast infrastructure and manufacturing to reach the western standard. America is fully aware of Indo-Russian strategic ties and possible complexities of defense trade. New Delhi still relies on Moscow’s weaponry system which was installed during the Soviet-era military products and technologies.

U.S. has not yet emphasized on strategic partnership, which is India’s desire at the practical level. Such dialogue had been discussed even the Bush administration. But India is significant for America and it accept its growing role diplomatically. United States has some pragmatist strategic policy problems like India-Pakistan tensions that need to be balanced by both sides. If U.S. moves towards closer strategic diplomacy with India, Pakistan might shift its defense strategy towards China, which in future can create problems for United States. In such a scenario, Washington cannot only remain as a global superpower which can influence both Islamabad and New Delhi to sit for negotiation to normalize the relationships. America wants improved relations between the two countries, which is important for regional stability. But military tensions on the border, Kashmir issue, terrorist attacks on Indian soil and blame game cannot be easily solved between the two arch enemies. Even the handshake between the India and Pakistani prime ministers becomes big news in the region.

India has undeniable influence over Bhutan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, the Maldives and continues to seek more role in Bangladesh, Myanmar and Afghanistan. US policy makers still are skeptical about the strategic ties with Afghanistan that could provoke Pakistan triggering the risk towards future polarization of conflict. India’s new government has finalized several economic and strategic partnership with Japan, Australia, Vietnam, Fiji to counter Chinese interest but such strategic partnership can prove to be costly for India itself. India still does not have capable mechanism to handle crisis in large scale since it faces complex crisis along the borders with China or Pakistan.

New Delhi adopts non alliance policy in its foreign policy doctrine and does not want radical change with the fear that such a move could be counter-productive. India has lot of limitations in the international forum because of which it cannot pro-actively support America. The U.S. too has some sensitive regional concerns in the region and cannot handover for the sake of sole Indian interest. Two nations’ global vision cannot match fully in diplomatic and at the strategic level. The U.S. will not fulfill Indian expectations in the region. However, it might remain silent in some of the sensitive regional issues when India acts or takes some step. What they did in the past might continue in future as well. Such a geopolitical complexity denotes significant relation shape in the “balance of power” theory.

Indian government’s capability is limited behind the regional boundary but has some security and strategic interests. India cannot flex prestigious military sophistication like US and its ally’s western powers. Indian human development index also shows that it cannot balance for broader cooperation with America. The relations and cooperation between the two countries can improve but it will be too early to assess for comprehensive high-profile breakthrough at least at the present situation.

 

Comments Off on U.S.- India strategic relation: Opportunities, limitations and challenges

French new anti-terror measures: will it work

January 27th, 2015

 

By Pramod Raj Sedhain.

 



After facing the worst terrorist attack in decades (7-9 January), France took initiatives by starting new counter-terrorism efforts to deal with future terror attacks. France said it will spend 425 million Euros over the next three years for all counter-terror efforts. The new measures to fight against terrorism include acquiring new equipment, recruitment and use of new methods in security sector. The focus has been on increased intelligence-gathering. Intelligence service in France is now the most powerful in its history.

New efforts range from tapping phones legislation. However, privacy is the major concern, which will face objections from the EU community. They got unprecedented authority for all necessary measures for countering terrorism. Intelligence will have the right to block terrorists’ sites and extremists’ propaganda sites, authority to carry out surveillance of database, search, seize or even detention of suspected terrorists. Review or revision of counterterrorism laws will help in combating homegrown terrorism.

France has already deployed military on the streets and public buildings. French military involvement in Africa can grow further. Under the new anti terror plan, sixty more Muslim clerics will be recruited to work in the prisons, expected to avoid future risks. An internet site has been in place to inform the public about ways of preventing youth radicalization. Such vital measures can help neutralize terror acts in France. Such new efforts could spread the ideology battle against radical Islamists at home to reduce the risk of radicalization.

French media reported that more than 1,200 French citizens and residents are now linked to foreign jihad, some being involved with Jihadist in Syria, Iraq or Yemen. Even some of them are former French soldiers. Such a serious threat cannot be eliminated without proper strength and capacity to counter terrorism. French extremists joining fighters abroad will have a long term national security threat. Therefore, review of intelligence-gathering system will be helpful to detect connected radicals link abroad. French security had a very limited practice of electronic monitoring and data surveillances but new measures will provide legitimacy. French secret service monitors more than 3,000 suspected terror links and people round the clock.

France’s new plans to combat terrorism will hire some 2,600 counter-terrorism officers – 1,100 of them specifically for intelligence services to eliminate potential new threat. New security strategy will basically focus on better screening of extremist groups within the country. But what has to be noted is that all internal security threats are motivated of incited externally. Detection of suspected electronic devices carried into flights is still limited and needs more powerful response.

 

How can West fight against terrorism?

French new measure can be one of the best ways to counter terrorism. However, this is not enough. Terrorists have very dangerously spread in the Middle East, North Africa and even to South Asia. Its impact is spreading across the globe. Local insurgent groups affiliated with global terror networks are more dangerous. Combating terrorism cannot be done over night. It needs long and dangerous struggle. It needs to be destroyed for world peace.

Understanding terrorists’ strategy and plan is not an easy task. It needs military measures to counter such threats. Attacks on foreign terrorist groups, their core leadership and recruitment centre through targeted areal attacks can help in neutralizing their future plots. Military raids in terrorist hot-spots and monitoring suspected areas is needed to make the comprehensive plan successful. Massive cooperation with intelligence agencies around the world is needed to battle terrorism. But this has remained limited.

Local governments and western nations need to work together with enhanced cooperation to fight against terrorism. Current climate of terrorism has spread widely. Global counter-terrorism strategy will not be implemented or successful without hard militaristic approach. Fight against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria killing their core leadership is the first and foremost thing for global security. Attacks and crushing al-Qaeda core leadership and its branch bastion is another important step to break global terrorism. al- Qaeda’s most dangerous offshoot base Yemen needs western military initiatives and more intelligence gathering to kill their core leadership. Need to strike the Nigeria-based terrorist group Boko Haram is one of the urgent task to do. The group’s terror capacity has been growing and has reached even to Cameroon, Niger, and Chad. There are possibilities that this terrorist group might penetrate or even reach western countries in the coming years if they are not stopped.

Terrorists’ new attempts cannot be stopped if their bases and sources are not destroyed. Increased security measures can stop them before planning an attack. Cooperating with other countries and intelligence sharing will serve the interest of all countries. Local support is equally important to combating terrorism in the countries targeted by such terrorist groups. Security only cannot ensure safety. The most important task is to wipe them out. “Wipe out” terrorism is not an easy task because we have witnessed the fight against Islamic State and al Qaeda. Infiltration of western intelligence in these organizations has been very rare.

Now the question remains: Will the war against terror without proper and effective intelligence measures be successful? New initiative is the need of the hour to fight against terrorism. Rise of extremist groups has been a global threat and it needs broader coalition. Greater cooperation with the Arab and Asian nations to combat terrorism is another important aspect. Potential terrorist monitoring with advance-knowledge security can only foil deadly terror attacks. Strong intelligence not only prevents future attacks but also neutralizes terror activities inside the country. Western military can carry out anti-terror raids abroad to finish off terrorist leaders. Without such action, imminent attacks cannot be ruled out in the future. State needs to be more cautious about terrorists’ new plot, planning, tactic and action.

Different western youths have sworn alliance to Islamic State and al-Qaeda terrorist organizations to target their own western homeland. It is high time that such radicalization be stopped since this holds more ideological problem than security problem. This situation can be problematic in the long run and will be more costly for safely and security of the western nations. Elimination of terrorism will not be possible without local public support and local government anti-terrorist warfare. Without destroying terrorists’ bases, recruits, logistics, financial support through western aerial support, winning the war against terrorism is not possible. New form of inclusive and effective global counter-terrorism mechanism is the need of the hour to systematically counter terrorism.

Comments Off on French new anti-terror measures: will it work

Great Geopolitical Game in Sri Lanka

January 15th, 2015

 

By Pramod Raj Sedhain.

 



The outcome of the recently held elections in the tropical island nation Sri Lanka came as a surprise to many. This not only proves to be victory over longtime leader Mahinda Rajapaksa but holds equal significance for regional geopolitical gaming. Opposition candidate Maithripala Sirisena won with 51.28 percent with Rajapakse garnering 47.58 percent. Ousted Rajapaksa’s peaceful transition of power has been an equally significant event for shifting the geo-political game in the region. Sri Lanka was reeling under great regional rivalry power politics for the sphere of influence.

Sri Lanka election’s outcome indicates fuelling of conspiracy theories as well. China lost its strategic asset Sri Lanka while United States and India have been successful. China’s setback in Sri Lanka will have a long term impact in terms of strategy, economy and diplomacy. Sri Lanka was a key ally to China’s ambitious Maritime Silk Road project. However, the political situation of Sri Lanka, after the election results, has completely changed. Now, China has lost its ally with US and India winning the game.

After Sri Lanka’s election result, I contacted a U.S. Professor of Strategic Studies for US top military officers, who is also a senior adviser of U.S. Government primarily on strategic and defense policy, Asia-Pacific issues, and global strategic affairs. He frankly told me that the “changing scenario of Sri Lankan geopolitics has been strategic after the end of the civil war. It is extensive success of American strategist experience”. The expert of regional dynamics professor interestingly described the real geo-political drama with India increasingly seeking the United States’ role to counter the threat of China in Sri-Lanka. He said, “China’s long-term plans for strategically important Sri Lanka has been checked but not defeated yet”. American strategist cited an example that almost all South Asian nations’ intellectuals, who are interested in defense matters, have closely watched the Sri Lankan geo-strategic importance.

That is – Chinese Admiral Zheng he visited Sri Lanka several times since 1405. It was nearly a century before Christopher Columbus discovered America. The Muslim religious mariner visit was made at a time when China was a great power nation to boost its military footsteps around the strategic roots. An extremely talented and intelligent Zheng was close confidant of the Yongle Emperor and establish a Chinese presence and extend the tributary system to the maritime nations in Southeast Asia. He died during the seventh voyage and was buried at sea off the Malabar coast near Calicut in Western India. That example is one of the strategic significance of Sri Lanka and emerging China’s Maritime Silk Road project.

Sri Lanka has seen a complex regional geo-strategic political drama. American strategists have been providing lot of formula informally to Indian side either through think tanks, top policy advisors or through security or intelligence or at the expert’s level. If Sri Lanka is controlled by rival power, India itself will contain and encircle and even control its sphere of influence. After internal political pressure, Rajapakse had wanted to re-legitimate through fresh elections for seeking a third term in office. He changed the constitution to scrap the two-term limit and increasingly heading to dictatorial tendencies.

His high hopes of winning with an overwhelming mandate because of the legacy of defeating the LTTE insurgents have been shattered. This election was not repetition of the of 2010 elections when he easily defeated Sri Lankan former army chief Sarath Fonseka. He has a total belief on his height of his power, stability and economic boom. However, the alliance formed against him proved to be unfortunate for Rajapakshe. In the presidential polls, Rajapaksa’s ally switched sides to become joint opposition candidate who was a low-profile cabinet member – Maithripala Sirisena, who won the bitterly fought election.

When Narendra Modi became the Prime Minister of India, Sri Lanka’s President Mahinda Rajapakse faced more pressure than before. In the first ever swearing-in of an Indian Prime Minister to have been attended by the heads of all SAARC countries, Sri Lanka’s President Rajapaksa was focused to break it’s alliance with China. Modi personally pressured Rajapaksa in a private meeting after his inauguration program in New Delhi. Modi suggested political settlement in Sri Lanka and proposed more economic and security cooperation with India. Modi began to address all issues diplomatically with Sri Lanka’s strategic location in the passageway through the Indian Ocean and check the increasing interest of China.

Rajapaksa responded no more than two months after talks with Modi. Unannounced nuclear-powered Chinese submarines to dock in Colombo (Chinese Navy submarine Great Wall No. 329) entered Sri Lankan water the name of an “operational good-will visit.” which has the capacity to carry torpedoes, a cruise missile and a 360-pound warhead. When he twice invited Chinese Navy activities in southern tip, India felt diplomatic declaration against Delhi. Decision was disastrous for Sri Lanka’s President.

India and America assessed that Rajapaksa was heading towards more pro-active Chinese line against the Western powers. India and westerners’ attention was more crucial and wanted to overthrow him at any cost. Washington’s and New Delhi’s intelligence radar was alarmed and felt China’s military influence in Indian Ocean will prove to be a future threat of interests for both nations. Closer eyes against Rajapaksa’s regime in Sri-Lanka raised eyebrows in Washington because of Chinese influence in the regional threat and protecting the strategic routes. New Delhi and Washington have been deeply concerned with Colombo since the end of two and half decade long civil war.

Sri Lanka’s alliance with China was a serious irritation for New Delhi’s strategy. They felt that Lankan territory might be used for Chinese military activities. India took all steps to remove Rajapaksa for crossing the red line. India wanted full sphere of influence in the small South Asian neighboring countries strictly prohibiting Chinese role in the strategic points. They have already experienced overthrow of regimes in the South Asian small nations. Sri Lanka going to China’s pocket will not be accepted for New Delhi and western countries. China had no plans to protect his ally Rajapaksa. He himself had full hopes of being re-elected. However, the game took a u-turn with the plan of removing an anti-government and seeking to remove a democratically elected President by same method by creating a broad range of parties like ethnic and religious minorities getting united to support Maithripala Sirisena to block the winning for Rajapaksa.

Delhi’s traditional influence in Sri Lanka has been decreasing while US geopolitical radars have been active. The U.S. pivot towards Asia-Pacific has been important for Sri Lankan strategic location. U.S. strategist is equally concerned over an island and suggested that New Delhi very warningly “whoever controls the Indian Ocean they dominates the Asia and whoever controls the Island they can win the geopolitical game”. Both countries feel that China’s naval planning in Colombo was a direct threat for Delhi and ultimately a strategic challenge for US pivot to Asia.

” U.S. has the largest navy base in Indian Ocean atoll of Diego Garcia, which is the most productive launch-pad for air strikes on Iraq and Afghanistan. The British owned Sri Lankan south location station – the Diego Garcia force is well equipped and always at standby for military operation anywhere in the world. The U.S. has hugely invested in upgrading the infrastructure to make their base equipped with nuclear-powered guided-missile submarine, which can carry up to 154 cruise missiles. China developed its “string of pearls” strategy in the Indian Ocean, which was a direct threat to the US interest in the region. America became equally interested in checking Sri Lanka’s strategic partnership with Beijing, which will prove to be a direct threat to American Asia Pacific strategy and deterrence US military capacity.

After getting United States’ green signal, India struggles to maintain its strategically crucial Indian Ocean nation but has not been successful to check the heavy Chinese investment and engagements with Colombo. Without controlling the overall economically and connecting neighboring nations, India cannot sustain power. Without promoting friendly political environment in the neighboring countries, Indian rising strategy is sure to fail. Bilateral trade between China and Sri Lanka has doubled over the last five years and China has emerged as Sri Lanka’s largest trading partner.

This is not good news for New Delhi. Chinese has provided billions of dollars in loans for construction of new ports and roads and other constructions especially investment in the Hambantota port. This has been a headache for India. Chinese President Xi Jinping visited Sri Lanka In 2014 September, the first Chinese head of state of Colombo in three decades. Indian Prime Minister Modi placing a congratulatory call to Mr. Sirisena before the votes were all counted shows their winning sign. Constitutional changes, settlement of the ethnic grievances, political space for minority, control the ethnic tensions and restoring law and order as well political settlement of Sri Lanka’s in long term will not be an easy task for game changer.

Indian policymakers will now focus on political stability in Sri Lanka and want to increase its footprint in Myanmar after the post-election phase. About my query regarding the Indian role and engagement along with US in Myanmar, the Professor told me that “India shows significant power projection in the region and possibilities of New Delhi big role in US foreign policy menu. But Myanmar’s political landscape is still difficult and needs to grow allies which will strategically benefit the U.S. interest in the region.” Professor predicts “pivot” in the Asia-Pacific can change South Asia to Southeast Asia in different transformative development in political, economic, and socio-cultural in the region. Myanmar elections will create a golden opportunity for both US and its ally but it doesn’t mean that U.S. vision in the whole region does not only depend on the single ally’s eye.

 

Comments Off on Great Geopolitical Game in Sri Lanka

Paris attack: Need of aggressive approach against terrorism

January 10th, 2015

 

By Pramod Raj Sedhain.

 



Secular republic France currently faced a deadly and darkest terrorist massacre. Paris never faced such horrific high-profile attack in half a century. The unprecedented bloody terrorist attack on the headquarters of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo and police officials angered the entire world. France lost most prominent cartoonists and journalists in the single day in the attack dubbed as an attack against freedom of press. The attackers killed at least 12 people and badly injuring 11 others. French media reported four of the magazine’s well-known cartoonists, including its editor Stephane Charbonnier, cartoonists Jean Cabut aka Cabu, Bernard Verlhac aka Tignous and Georges Wolinski were killed in the attack. Journalist Bernard Maris was also killed by well-trained masked gunmen firing assault weapons at police in the street outside the office.

The whole world stand with the French people and principles with terror attack widespread condemnation by leaders worldwide. Thousands gathered at a central square in Paris for a silent vigil and thousands of French people flooding to writing on twitter “Je suis Charlie” (I am Charlie) for solidarity with the victims. Almost all French newspapers along the Charlie Hebdo’s website displayed the single image of “Je suis Charlie” on a black banners symbolizing freedom of expression in all sectors across the country. The Arab League as well as Vatican condemned the attack. The US Embassy in France also changed its Twitter photo to show the phrase. French President Francois Hollande stirred citizens to come together to fight terrorism. “Let us unite, and we will win.” President declared a one day of national mourning as well on the security highest alert.

France never faced such barbaric action against freedom and democracy. French lost highly recognized mainstream publication’s cartoonist and journalists. The publication tweeted out a cartoon mocking the ISIS leader’s New Year’s message. The assault was carried out by three men – both dressed in all black wore hoods and had AK-47s. This barbaric terrorist attack is, of course, inspired by global terror group al Qaeda or Islamic State. Both global terror network al Qaeda and the Islamic State group took to social media to praise the gunmen. The magazine’s office were targetted by extremist group which was firebombed in 2011. Editor Charbonnier was regularly accompanied by two protection officers because of death threats in the past.

France is a major international anti-terror campaigning country. French forces have been deployed in several anti-terror operations, including in Afghanistan, Mali, Central African Republic (CAR) to currently air strikes against Islamic State (IS) targets in Iraq. al-Qaeda have frequently targeted French soil because of French African military presence against terrorist. French intelligence and security forces foiled several terror plans, including the most significant plan to blow up Eiffel Tower, Louvre and nuclear power plant. Some high-ranking members of Islamic terrorists as well al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb members were arrested. Recently, France implemented tough anti-terror rules. Despite different protective measures, France has been facing several major security incidents. In 1961, far-right militants opposing plans for Algerian independence killed 28 people on a train attack. Since then, French soil has seen major security incidents in 1976, 1978, 1980, 1982, 1983, 1986, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2007, 2009, 2010, and 2011. The high profile security threat was witnessed in March 2012, when an al Qaeda-inspired gunman Mohamed Merah, killed seven people in three separate shootings in Toulouse included three soldiers as well children.

France has practiced a secular government but it is the most friendly nation for Muslims, where Europe’s biggest Muslim population (around 5 million) live. Islam is the second religion in France after Roman Catholicism. This attack was an attack against all French citizens, be it Muslims or Christians. All French Muslim community leaders condemn the terrorist deadliest attack. But this has indicated extreme right politic. Anti-immigrant agenda might emerge more stronger in Paris politic. Tough stance on immigration policy can emerge in French mainstream politics. There is already far right National Front’s gain in the political ground in France. Their strong presence has been seen after the April 2014 municipal elections when their candidates were elected in 11 cities. National Front had an unprecedented gain securing the first position in the voting for the European Parliament.

 

Need of tough response against terrorism

France’s deadliest terrorist attack will not go unpunished. France faces real danger of security and needs more aggressive effort to hunt down the terrorists. Destroying radical Islamic terrorism should be the topmost priority for national security. International community is with France to respond to the recent attack and its efforts to fight against terrorism. France has a strong ability to hunt down its enemy. Terrorism is now the enemy of France and it needs more tough-militaristic approach to destroy any sort of terrorism threats. Without a tougher line to crush global terrorism, France cannot save peace and prosperity. Terrorist attack against French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo and police officers shows that the terrorists are well-equipped and have sophisticated training. These people are definitely have links with global terror group Islamic States or al Qaeda directly or indirectly.

Crushing the barbaric terrorist groups and ideology should be the prime priority of France. More effective aerial attacks against terrorists’ safe haven might be the options. Islamic extremists groups al-Qaida and Islamic State’s bases in Africa, Middle East and South Asia need to be destroyed at any cost. Without crush these international terrorism network, France cannot secure a better future. Hundreds of French residents joined Syrian and Iraqi terrorist groups posing serious security threat to the nation. France, the most popular tourist destination in the world, needs to convey the message that it is still the most secured place on earth. Effective anti-terrorism police surveillance on vital points and intelligence monitoring is necessary at the moment.

Nature of extremism has crossed the red line in Iraq and Syria. Terrorists have their governments, territories, financial resources, weapons and mechanism. The world has never seen such a big terrorism threat. Tolerance cannot ensure the world peace and better future. Without flexing the military muscle and destroying their bases, it is not easy to achieve the result. Western ally needs to intensify airstrikes against Islamic State terrorist group in Iraq and Syria. Aerial attacks need to be accelerated against extremist group’s bases in Yemen, Mali, Libya, Afghanistan and other extremists aligned groups’ bases to destroy the terrorist organization’s ability to carry out attacks. Terrorists’ ambition will not be destroyed without military response.

Collective international efforts need to respond the complicated threat. Extremism will put threat to the civilization and values and even target any country. Such threats can be neutralized only through militaristic approach. Aerial attacks against hostile Islamic militants can prevent the future dangerous cycle of terrorism in other nations. Boosting the intelligence and additional electronic surveillance is necessary in all countries. Verification of residences in EU and US and expelling of illegal immigrants is necessary for a secured future.

 

Comments Off on Paris attack: Need of aggressive approach against terrorism

Iran’s electronic pivot: Heading towards progress

January 7th, 2015

 

By Pramod Raj Sedhain.

 



Iran’s wider regional role and influence has reached new height after its use of electronic potential capacity. Tehran’s energy and electric sector have been the most profound weapons to bolster its regional influence. Energy superpower Iran has not only a different influence in the region but also emerging as an exporter of electricity. One of the soft but strategic and valuable tools is to export power to energy-hungry neighbors and possible extension far from the border.

Iran is the largest exporter and importer of electricity in the Middle East. Iran has power trade with Turkey, Armenia, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. Iran plans to export its electricity to Europe via Armenia, Russia, and Azerbaijan. Its plan to trade 500 Megawatt of electricity with Russia will be transferred through Azerbaijan. The plan is at its final stage. Iran has also plans to supply power to Pakistan, India and Iraq as well through Turkey, Syria and Lebanon.

Recently Iranian Tasnim News Agency quoted an Energy Ministry official saying that the country has the capacity to export $20 billion worth of electricity and power plant equipment. The figure is nearly the country’s current oil exports. Since 2007 to 2013, Iran’s electricity trade surplus has increased by six folds and every year Iran has boosted its supply unprecedented level. Iran’s electricity industry ranks first in the Middle East in terms of electricity generation and 14th in the world.

Iran’s production capacity has surpassed 71,000 megawatt hours and is the second-largest natural gas reservoir and world’s fourth-largest proven oil reserves. More than 70 percent of the electricity generated in Iran is produced by natural gas. The important factor is that almost 99 percent of the equipment required for power generation like production of power plants, water and electricity equipment, electricity meters, turbines, cables, technical and engineering services for transfer and distribution is domestically designed and produced. Iran’s electricity sector will gain substantial regional influence and power. Expanding market opportunities show Iran’s bright future in this sector.

Electricity export to power hungry nations not only Iran’s neighbors in the Middle East but its influence crosses beyond the borders. Recently Pakistan and Iran are set to sign an initial deal for the supply of 1,000 Megawatts of electricity to overcome the crippling energy crisis in Pakistan. According to Pakistani media report, Pakistan will be paying 8-11 cents per unit of electricity under the formula agreed with Iran. Besides the 1,000MW for which a MoU has been signed, Iran has also offered to export a huge quantity of 10,000MW to Pakistan. A 700-kilometre transmission line of 500 kilovolts will also be laid from the Pakistan-Iran border to Quetta.

Pakistan is keen to collaborate with Iran’s electricity sector. In 2009, Iran and Pakistan signed a MoU for the construction of a 170-km transmission line from Iran and the provision of initially importing 1,000 MW of electricity. Tehran has agreed to invest US$50 million in this project. Iran also seeks to export 10,000 MW to Pakistan but the international sanction has obstructed this deal. Iran also plans to deliver 6,000 MW through Pakistan to India (2,000 MW will be kept by Pakistan and 4,000 MW will be delivered to India). Iran will become Asia’s huge electricity supplier if nuclear deal is reached. India is equally interested to cooperate in the pipeline from Iran.

Iran has initiated electricity exports to Iraq significantly. Cooperation with Iraq has also been used to set up a transmission line from Iran through Iraq to Syria as well mission in Lebanon. According to an agreement signed in mid-2012, Iran seeks to export 50 MW in its first phase to Syria, with the goal set at 200 MW. Iranian News agency Tasnim said Iran’s daily electricity exports to Iraq amount to 1300 MW and total annual exports are valued at one billion dollars. According to Fars, an Iranian news agency, a new agreement between Iran and Iraq intents to export 1000-1500 MW of electricity to Iraq during next summer. Similarly, Iran is exporting an average of 30 MW of electricity to Afghanistan.

Regional rival Turkey also depends on Iran’s energy. New electricity transfer line in northern Iran boosted exports to Turkey to 400 MW per hour. Iran is the top supplier of Turkey’s crude oil and natural gas. According to recent report on Iran’s energy production, Iran could provide more than 15 percent of total needed electricity in the Middle East and North Africa within a few years. Between 2000 to 2010, the overall electricity generation capacity in Iran increased at an average annual growth rate of 7 percent. Iran seeks to become a major exporter of electricity. According to Energy Ministry figure in 2013, Iran annually exports 8 billion kilowatt of electricity to neighboring countries, which was about 3 percent of the country’s total output.

Iran’s unique geographical position also favors for different renewable resources. Iran has emerged as one of the world’s largest dam builders in recent years. According to Press TV online on October 24, 2014, Iran’s produces 10,000 MW of electricity from hydropower plants. The country’s hydropower production capacity has increased every year. Iran’s invests millions of dollars for planning new hydropower projects. Iran is currently prioritizing on hydroelectric development. The country will undoubtedly become self-sufficient in power plant construction and meets the requirement even for the neighboring countries.
Renewable energy projects in Iran have boomed in recent years. The country’s new goal is to add 5,000 MW of new solar energy and wind energy capacity by 2018. Iran is one of the best places on earth to host solar panels and the government is making efforts to bolster self-sustaining solar power in remote areas. Ninety percent of the country has enough sun to generate solar power 300 days annually. According to Associated Press report on 2014 July, Iran’s government spent $60 million (Dh220m) in 2014 to solar projects compared to $12 million in 2013.

Iran finalized solar panels at some 1,000 locations across Iran. Government-subsidized solar panels on the rooftops of rural areas homes, mosques, schools and government buildings have been installed. According to Press TV, Iran has already 520 MW designated and 900 MW of contracts have been signed by solar which was 53 MW in 2005. Similarly, Iran is also planning to generate wind energy, which has capacity of more than 130MW. Iran has also a potential of 9th largest geothermal energy production.

Iran’s long term regional strategy has expanded sharply and it is on its final stage. Iran’s energy plays a vital role for its power and pride. Its energy utilization will be a tool to expanding its influence not only the region but beyond the borders and across the Persian Gulf. Final nuclear deal with the West will surely end the isolation which will help Iran to head towards major victory. Regional allies will exclusively depend on Tehran. Iran’s deterrence-based military doctrine is shifting by neighbors’ dependency.

Comments Off on Iran’s electronic pivot: Heading towards progress

Afghan’s future: Surrounded by uncertainty

January 2nd, 2015

By Pramod Raj Sedhain.

 


After very low profile flag-lowering ceremony in Kabul, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) officially ended its 13-year bloody combat mission without claiming victory on December 28, 2014. NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) completed the handover security responsibility to Afghan troops. However, the closing ceremony hinted at the bitterness of war. War against Taliban is not over since militants launched terrorist attacks on the background of NATO withdraw to demonstrate the brutal future. War in Afghanistan is not complete and the formally ending of the foreign combat mission in Afghanistan is largely symbolic as well technical matter. After lengthy and intensive discussion, Kabul signed bilateral security agreements with Washington and NATO for military presence in September.

Around 13,000 foreign troops will remain in the country to train Afghan forces from January 1, 2015. The green-and-white flag of the ISAF was replaced by the new flag of the new international mission called ‘Resolute Support’. The hoisting of the Resolute Flag means that the mission has been changed but not complete to eradicating terrorism from the country. Foreign troops will be in stationed in five key military bases across Afghanistan and can carry out military mission, if necessary. NATO began operations against Taliban regime after the 9/11 attacks against the US and succeeded in its initial aim to ejecting from power. Despite different dimensions and factors, NATO-led ISAF mission remained unsuccessful to defeat Taliban. They, however, succeeded in neutralizing the al-Qaeda as well other foreign fighters. US carried out several covert drone strikes project in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Billions of dollars were spent in the war while 3,485 ISAF troops, among 2,200 American troops were killed. Taliban moral has been boosted and fears are that the insurgency might reach a new height after the end of NATO mission. Taliban deadliest attacks and violence increased in 2014 when Afghanistan’s security forces began to take responsibility of the country’s security. Around 5,000 Afghan security personnel died in 2014. Afghanistan’s transition has entered a new phase to real test that capabilities of some 350,000 Kabul forces. Afghanistan’s security future is surrounded by uncertainties at a time when Taliban still holds a defensive position. Kabul is safe and under the full control of government forces but deaths and injuries have sharply increased. Taliban inflicting within the security forces is also a dangerous challenge.

Questions arise whether the Afghan forces can handle the country’s security? Whether they can prevent Taliban offensive? Will they be able to tackle the Taliban fighters as well other international terrorist groups? Will they be able to form political unity during transition? Afghan politics is sharply divided. The country’s “national unity government” is the necessity to deal with any future threats. However, President Ashraf Ghani and rival Abdullah Abdullah have not been able to reach a final deal despite months of intensive negotiation. The country is sure to see a challenge of greater scale but the President, despite being in power for the last three months, has not appointed any new ministers. The Afghan government needs to focus to creating more jobs, opportunities and hope for better life of the people.

Afghan transition has already faced economic, social and geopolitical challenges. Afghanistan’s future depends on different unavoidable influential dimensions and factors. Different factors play vital roles in the Afghan’s democratic transition. The question is not about how much real support will it get from the western governments and how will Kabul handle the domestic politics. The real factor is the true support from Islamabad, Washington and Tehran. International and regional rivalries will sharply impact Afghan peace and its future. International support will not only defend Afghanistan but can also create tension if they cannot handle the situation properly. Foreign interference can create complications in the future.

Afghanistan needs to form reliable alliance with the immediate neighbors. US, EU as well as key countries like China, Pakistan, Iran, India, Russia, and Saudi Arabia are other players in shaping Afghanistan’s future. Pakistan has known links to Taliban and faces accusation of protecting Taliban’s leadership. U.S-Iranian relations also impacts Afghan politics and future course since Iran and Afghanistan share a common border, cultural and linguistic ties. Indian and Saudi factors also are the alarm bells for Afghan neighbors.

Withdrawal of foreign troops can be a positive message for Taliban, which American-led invasion of Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom) launched on 7 October 2001, removed the brutal regime from power. Since December 2001, United Nations Security Council established the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) to provide security of the country and train Afghan National Security Forces. Bonn Conference selected Afghan Transitional Administration. ISAF-built military bases near the major cities across the country. Election was held in 2004 to start the democratic exercise. After the overthrow of the barbaric Taliban regime Afghanistan increased foreign support, booming economy, and even protected the fundamental rights, improved the education system, woman right and peoples life, among others.

Darkness of Afghanistan started after Taliban reorganized and regrouped mostly in rural areas and launched an insurgency against the foreign forces and the government. Taliban started low profile attacks after 2003 and increased violence. From 2006, ISAF started counter-insurgency operations by increasing the number of troops to counter the Taliban fighters. Different operations were not successful since the fighters sneaked into Pakistani north-west region. Taliban insurgency picked a new height and started series of suicide attacks, guerilla raids, ambushes, and started the costly and bloody battle. Casualties of Afghan civilians increased. ISAF deployed more than 130,000 personnel from 50 countries. US forces killed Osama bin Laden in Abbotabad, Pakistan on 2 May 2011, which as the topmost target and key success of the mission.

Afghanistan is undergoing a very sensitive time. Taliban has all time high hope to get their mission fulfilled. Afghanistan’s development and prosperity is possible only crushing the Taliban. Direct negotiations with the Taliban have failed. They can be defeated only force. Afghan should learn from previous mistakes. Some argue that establishment of Taliban’s political office in Doha was a breakthrough, which did not bring any positive outcome. Peace process is not an easy task with them. This will only create space for the terrorist groups to regroup. Taliban is not willing to go for successful negotiation. Indirect and informal contacts and negotiations have been carried out several times but they are not interested to hold direct talks with legitimate Afghan government because they hope to overthrow the government through terror.

Afghan military has started to handle the country’s security but threat is all time high. Uncertainty has surrounded the country but the question is whether the Afghan force is fully able to handle the country’s security. Afghan needs foreign military and security collaboration and cooperation to avoid Taliban’s return and to preserve democratic rule. Eliminating the Taliban is not only the Afghan issue but also regional interest and equally significant for progress. Ending the Taliban’s presence in Afghanistan is preventing terrorist attacks across the region. Taliban factors are the enemies of freedom, economic development, peace and prosperity in region.

Taliban has a terror mind and they are struggling to revive their barbaric rule. Avoiding Taliban role in Afghan politic is dangerous for regional security and stability. Taliban is the main factor to ensure the foreign terrorist groups on ground. This terror mind of Taliban will host the dangerous international terrorist groups, trafficking of drugs, spread the Islamic radicalism as well region and create the threat across the globe.

 

Comments Off on Afghan’s future: Surrounded by uncertainty

Pakistan: Time for ‘decisive battle’ against terrorists

December 24th, 2014

 

Pramod Raj Sedhain.

 



The massacre at a school in Peshawar proves horrific nature of terrorism and extremism in Pakistan. Rising terrorism threat in Pakistan is not only its greatest national security challenge but also the worrying sign of the entire world. Such worst-ever terrorist attack against children and civilians cannot be tolerable at any cost. Hence, beginning of a decisive battle against the terrorists’ groups is the need of the hour. Military operation has become inevitable aftermath the Peshawar massacre. Soft line approach against all forms of terrorism will not work. Necessary steps or launching a ‘decisive all-out military battle’ has become inevitable.

Only a major military operation can prevent future terror acts. The first step would be to destroy the global terrorist organizations based in Pakistani tribal areas. Pakistan only can deal militarily to crush barbaric terrorists groups. Holding peace talks will create opportunity for the militants to make, plan and coordinate other major terror acts. Political solution and peace dialogue have failed several times. Anti-terrorism operations will not succeed in a week or two or even months. It might even take several years. Small-scale operations will only neutralize time but will not defeat the terrorist groups’ ability.

Pakistan’s patience has given ample time to terrorists. Now that Pakistan must realize and go for a final battle to eliminate terrorism from the country. Militant outfit Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan still operates in the country’s North Waziristan, one of the seven tribal regions along the Afghanistan border. The rugged mountain areas are not only the base of Pakistani fighters but also for the Chechens, Uzbeks, Turkmen, Tajiks, Uighurs among other foreign fighters’ hideouts. Pakistan’s operation will not see rapid progress due to difficult geographical terrain. Moreover, the operation will be costly, painful and lengthy. However, it is necessary to take offensive steps to take the entire remote areas under the government’s control for better security future. Pakistan Army’s delayed campaign of counter-insurgency operation will be an opportunity for terrorist outfits to form an umbrella organization to counter the government forces. Chasing down terrorists and their bases in the tribal areas is utmost necessary. Likewise, intensifying ground and air offensives in North Waziristan and Khyber would neutralize the terrorists.

The question is: How long will Pakistan bear significant loss of life and economic destruction? Pakistan faces dozen of terrorist groups with diverse nature. Unprecedented station of thousands of foreign fighters in its soil is another challenge and threat. World’s notorious terrorist organization Al Qaeda has linkup with Pakistani terrorist groups as well as another global terrorist group Islamic State has also set-up its affiliation with some of Pakistani terrorist groups. Pakistan army’s previous operations ended without gain. Triumphant march to terrorist groups’ bases will be possible through an integrated political and military approach. Pakistan’s religious, sectarian, and ethnic differences need to solve on the basis of broad-base strategy. Better management of internal security, root out corruption within the security organs and proficient investigation can neutralize Pakistan’s security challenges.

Full-scale military offensive needs seriousness on the part of the leadership. Likewise, proper planning and strategy, legal and moral framework, reviving the public trust and huge financial support are other aspects. Military too need to respect the civilian government and all political parties should encourage and endorse the operation. All components of the country should make concerted effort to take action against the terrorists. Eliminating future terrorist risk is not an easy task. However, the Pakistan government can go for a decisive victory if they solve the internal problems. Insurgencies and terrorism in Pakistan are the greatest security threat for the regional countries. Regional countries need to keep their eyes open to successfully counter the fundamentalist terrorism their own country.

How to deal ?

Pakistan’s long war against terrorism needs comprehensive framework and strategy. Aggressive military operation against terrorists is a Herculean costly task in every aspect, including human and socio-economic dimensions. But tough approach is necessary to destroy the local and foreign fighter bases in North Waziristan. The government needs to evacuate huge number of civilians as well as convince the local tribesman to save their customs and traditions before carrying out offensive. Another crucial factor is compensation for public property and civilians deaths. Crackdown of extremist ideology is genuinely necessary to eliminate new kind of sectarian, communal, and ethno-nationalist terrorism. Enhancing intelligence in major cities and starting surprise raids at the urban hideouts, enforcing effective law, among other strategies need to be the overall operational part. However, all government moves need to gain local public trust and support.

Similarly, effective air strikes can neutralize terrorist hideouts and destroy their infrastructure. But it is necessary to prevent the relocation of militants through ground offense. Pakistan and Afghan military need to boost up security near the Pakistani-Afghan border along with carrying out joint operations to prevent militants from crossing over into borders. Any military offensive in Pakistan’s tribal region of North Waziristan will not be successful without the joint support and cooperation of the two countries. Such joint operations can block the escape route of the militants. But fight against terrorism is always crucial between Islamabad and Kabul. Both countries need to have cooperation on the bordering areas at the intelligence and operational levels.

Common roadmap for cross-border control plays vital role for both countries’ security. But such moves have already faced several challenges. Without effective security mobilization in the cross-border, border movement control, common army check-points and patrols terrorism will not be defeated. Pakistan and Afghan forces need to be willing to take such a move of joint operation against common problems. Without a common approach and objective against potential threat, Pakistan cannot defeat militancy and extremism. Pakistan’s security dilemma faces more complex challenges without Afghanistan confidence. Afghanistan also needs to launch a military campaign in Kunar where Pakistani Taliban militants are widely believed to be hiding. Military measures of both the countries can deal the security challenges of both the countries. Trust and confidence between the two neighbors can destroy common threat.

Full territory control of lawless tribal areas is necessary for the country’s overall security. After succeeding the first phase of ground operation, government forces need to establish base in the area as well as arming tribesmen to fight against terrorist groups. Such joint efforts can be easy to tackle militants in the long term. Without combat against terrorist through hard-line approach, there is possibility that Pakistan might enter difficult circumstance leading to further turmoil. Pakistan’s new aggressive counter-terrorism operation can enhance its ties with United States. America has been running a secret drone strike program to target terrorist suspects in Pakistan’s tribal area through Afghanistan. Operation in North Waziristan might gain huge US financial support as well as other logistic and other kinds of support.

Comments Off on Pakistan: Time for ‘decisive battle’ against terrorists

Iran’s wider role and influence in the Middle East

December 18th, 2014

 

 

By Pramod Sedhain.

 



 

Recently I had an opportunity to interview top Iranian foreign affairs adviser Hossein Sheikholeslam about Tehran’s view regarding Middle East and the current crisis. The adviser of Iranian Parliament Speaker on International Affairs Sheikholeslam was a former student leader involved during the seizure of the United States Embassy in Tehran in 1979 when some American diplomats were taken hostages for 444 days. This influential Iranian diplomat, who is also former Ambassador to Syria Sheikholeslam has a cordial relationship with Lebanon’s powerful Hezbollah and Syrian President Bashar Assad. Damascus’ alliance with Tehran is robust and Syrian government is currently fully dependent on Iran. Sheikholeslam has personal contacts with moderate Syrian leaders as well. His foreign policy advice in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq as well as Afghanistan is significant.

Tehran has become the heart of the Middle East power centre and Iran’s role in the Middle East geopolitics is undeniable. Without Iran’s perspective, understanding the future of Middle East is not possible. Nowadays, Tehran’s diplomatic and political power brokers are involved in negotiating power sharing in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Armenia and even Syria. They are trying to expand their influence in other countries including Yemen and Bahrain. Growing complexity in the region has helped Iran to expand its influence and flex its muscles in the entire Middle East. Tehran’s policies have always been successful and currently it is in the threshold of winning position. Iranian strategy and influence have increased after the Arab Spring.

The region’s dominant power Iran has extensive connection with political parties, militia, and governments of several countries even at the ground level in the region. Components of the Middle East countries wait for Tehran’s gesture during both times of peace or war. Iranian military commanders deployed in the Middle East have high level of influence in comparison to other countries. Strong security and intelligence of Iran have played significant role in bolstering its influence in Syria, Afghanistan power deal, management of Hezbollah, connection with the Hamas, Yemeni Hutu or current role in Iraq’s victory against Islamic State terrorist fighters.

What can be understood is that only a joint effort of Iran and the United States will help in stabilizing the region. However, making an alliance between these two countries might prove to be a Herculean task. Both the countries have diverse interests in the region and both the governments have been making secret negotiations for the role in wider Middle East region, especially in Iraq, future of Afghanistan, and Syrian civil war. Iranian offer to help American troops might be helpful for a low-cost withdrawal from Afghanistan. Iran says it is ready to help the American troops to withdraw from Afghanistan. However, the United States and Iran have different opinion when it comes to Syrian civil war and Bahrain crisis.

Nowadays, the United States and Iran have been involved in easing the tensions. The viewpoint of US and Iran might be different but their viewpoint on the fight against terrorism in Iraq cannot or is not different. Iran’s support is precious to Baghdad’s campaign against the Islamic State and US has given green signal for Iranian intervention in the conflict. US and Iran have a complicated relation, no doubt and are checking each other in Yemen or Afghanistan. They have a totally different perception concerning peace in Palestine and the future of Middle East. Tehran’s influence in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Armenia, and Yemen in other regional nations is influential. But Iran does not want its military presence in its bordering countries. It also wants the US force to leave from Iraq and Afghanistan. This shows that both the countries watch each other with suspicion.

Iran’s influential role in the Middle East is undeniable, which Sheikholeslam does not deny. Sheikholeslam hopes for stable Middle East and says that the westerns are tired of fighting. According to him, they will not pay such a high price for unlimited time. The rebels, according to him, have crossed their red line and within a certain time the whole situation will come under control. He hopes that certain problems will be resolved through political dialogue and negotiation and maintains that the Middle East’s geopolitical game changer Tehran’s footprints will be in Iraq and Syria. Despite his important meeting and busy schedule, he candidly briefed Iran’s increasing military and security involvements in the entire region. He frankly elucidated the situation in Iraq, Syria, Palestine Lebanon and Afghanistan. During the interview, he did not show any aggression towards US but blamed Saudi Arabia. “Democracy is the best solution of the Middle East crisis”, he said adding that elections can decide its fate but the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is not a democracy and elections will create extremism.

He pointed at Iran’s regional rival Saudi Arabia for creating the Middle East bloodshed. He, however, accepted the fact about Iran’s operating, funding, training, mobilizing Shiite militia groups in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen or even arming Hamas. He, however, did not mention about the control mechanism in Iran but his confidence level indicated that Iran has a dominant influence in the region. Various Iranian powerful militias are more capable and influential than the government’s regular army. After the interview, he offered traditional Iranian breakfast including a piece of Iranian bread. I queried about Baghdad’s defense and Iran’s most powerful covert external wing Quds Force’s role and General Qassem Suleiman, who is widely believed of masterminding ground wars in Iraq and Syria. Sheikholeslam accepted Suleiman’s involvements and praised his role to defend Baghdad.

Tehran’s battle strategy in Syria and Iraq

I met several Iranian strategists and their voice clearly indicated Tehran’s long-standing strategy in the wider region. The current crisis of Middle East has been the biggest opportunity for Iran to expand its influence in the region. A highly-placed Iranian source also confirmed about Iranian “triumph” strategy. According to him, Syrian and Iraqi major military campaigns against the rebels is fully dependant on Tehran. These countries want to be guided and supported by Iran’s Quds forces. Iran has successfully protected their crucial ally Syria as well Iraqi government from collapsing. Iran provides support and spends blood and treasure to become the game changer. After complete the upper hand in Syria and Iraq, Iran is pushing is interest for a long time in wider Middle East. Tehran is currently concentrating on winning the war completely.

After decisive triumph over Lebanon border and strategic western Syrian town of al-Qusayr, Assad’s forces rescued by Hezbollah, had upper hand. Hezbollah fighters and Syrian army cut off logistics gateway between Lebanon and Syria and entered new phase to control the territory of Homs, Latakia, Idlib to major city of Aleppo. Such a significant victory over insurgents kept Assad in power and made him strong and powerful. Iran’s proxy Hezbollah’s position is stronger in geopolitical weight and has been seen as a game-changer.

Syrian force is fully defensive with the Iraqi side but is more concerned at the bordering areas. Both Syrian and Iraqi army is heavily dependant on Tehran. The war in Middle East is fully handled and controlled by Iran. Syrian army’s campaign along the countries’ border (with Jordan in the south) primary focus is to cutoff the rebel arms, logistic and fighter supplies. Syrian forces’ current central focus is to cut off supply lines to the insurgent-held eastern section of Syria’s largest city Aleppo. The Syrian government is fully dependent on Tehran’s military assistance, intelligence, training and strategy. Hezbollah and other pro-government fighters are under the command of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). Iran is worried about the precious IRGC members and Hezbollah fighters’ death in Syria. Recently, their tactical battle shift has focused on advisory, strategic operational planning and rebel communication monitoring role rather than direct combat role.

Iran is currently focusing on Syrian vital strategic site by repositioning and fortification, use of unmanned aircraft to collect rebel intelligence, and fixing the aerial target. Syrian battleground tactic has been changed every day, according to IRGC. IRGC members and Hezbollah are limited to ground offensive and have reduced physical patrols. Iran-operated militia is able to hide their location in case of western surveillance and monitoring. Iran’s concern is to safely open supply routes between Baghdad and Damascus. Iran’s constructed effective defense fortifications in Syria for collective security mobilization against the Syrian rebels. They shifted the major Syrian defense strategic locations and focused on preventive attacks against rebel groups. Iran is of the view that Syrian military will be able to take control of all major cites in Syria within another 6 to 12 months. Iran is still not convinced that Syria’s army would be able to liberate all the cities that have been controlled by the rebels.

In the context of Iraqi conflict, Iran is the key supporter of Baghdad government and the autonomous Kurdish region in the north to fight against Islamic State. Iran’s involvement in Iraq does not acknowledge in public because of politically sensitiveness. But Iran was the first country to intervene in Iraq to prevent Baghdad government from collapsing. Tehran’s external covert force was involved in counter attacking against Islamic state advance in Iraqi and Kurdish capital. Iran still provides weapons and advisors to Iraq. Washington’s and Tehran’s interest in the wider Middle East region is different but their interest is the same in Iraq. The U.S. and Iran are in the same side but in different fronts. Iran’s focus has been on the ground while the US troops are focusing on aerial strikes. The ground offence strategy for Iraq was worked out in Tehran. Iraqi force and militia are coordinating with the Iranians commanders. Iran’s military advisors are present in Iraqi capital as well as in Kurdistan.

Iran was the first country to supply weapons and ammunition to Iraqi and Kurdish forces that halted the advance of the Islamic State advance. One top Iranian source claimed that Iran’s elite foreign oversees branch of Revolutionary Guards wing Quds Force stopped Iraq’s falling into the hands of Islamic States. The commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s Quds Force, Gen. Qassem Suleimani created the design for the defense ring around Baghdad. Sulemani headed to Bagdad to personally advice and command or even manage the army. Iran’s view to ensure Iraqi internal rivalry might collapse the Iraqi state and intervene to protect own interest. Suleimani is now the mastermind of military operation.

Washington is getting closer with its longtime arch enemy Iran since the crisis began in Iraq. But military cooperation between the two countries remains complicated. Iraq currently heavily depends on Iran. Iran’s influence is growing since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003 and emerging external game changer in all spheres of Iraq. After U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq, Tehran has become the major power broker. Iranian influence has been playing the role of a protector of Baghdad. Iran has been arming and training military and militias. Currently, Iran has become a full-scale influential country in all aspects, including strategic, economic, cultural, and even religious. Tehran is the most important patron, backer as well as benefactor of Iraq.

Comments Off on Iran’s wider role and influence in the Middle East

US-Israel relations and Middle East crisis

October 30th, 2014

 

 

By Pramod Raj Sedhain.



The most trusted strategic partners – the US and Israel’s troubled relation reflected during Israeli Defense Minister’s recent visit to Washington DC. Israeli hard-liner Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon did not get a cordial gesture from the Obama administration. US officials neither gave him a genial or a red-carpet welcome in the State Department and the Oval Office to him. Requests to meet with key officials and authorities were also denied (Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry and National Security Adviser Susan Rice).

Defense relationship between the two nations still enjoys excellent level. US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel met with Ya’alon in the recently “failed” visit . America, known as Israel’s big brother and true friend has not given due priority to Israel in recent times. Israeli authority has at times publicly debated and criticized the Obama Administration. This has had a negative impact on the relationship between the two countries. Israeli authority even does not show common respect to the US authority while Israeli media continue to make personal attacks on US Secretary of State John Kerry and Middle East policy.

Temporary discontentment of an ally or a key strategic backer can lead to serious crisis. US-Israel odd relation is still in the boundary of political level. Without Israel’s apology in public and acceptance of its arrogance might deteriorate the situation further leading to a critical level of relationship between the two countries. Israel has no more option at the time sooner or later it needs to support the US. US’s proposal of “peace between Israel and the Palestinians” and “nuclear negotiations with Iran” led to the current diplomatic crisis.

But Israel’s hardliner policy toward greater Middle East engagement can easily create a wide range of crisis or even war. Without war and casualty, US can gain important strategic goal to destroy Syria’s chemical weapons through diplomatic source. Syria declared it destroyed its chemical weapons stockpile without single shot but Israel had insisted bombardment and regime change. Similarly, Israeli authority wants aerial bombardment in the Iranian nuclear facilities. Iran has reiterated on its reform-minded diplomatic solution through table talks (P5+1) on it’s nuclear program but Israel has been insisting on military operations.

Despite the US pressure, Israel is engaged in large-scale offensive in the Gaza Strip, which is sure to backfire. Despite US continued efforts to try to stop military operations, Israel continued with its Operation Protective Edge. Without changing its perspective, Israel continued to criticize the Obama administration. Nearly shipment Hellfire missiles ($25,000-$65,000 per missile cost) for Israel’s Apache helicopters held by White House in the cause of Gaza operation and unaccepted the US peace proposal.

That came as a surprise since the beginning of defense relation history and US sent clear message to Israel to right track. It should be recalled that US President Barack Obama gave a gift worth $205 million for the Iron Dome project to Israel for protect missile defense from other nations beyond the military aid in May 2010. Additional support was also provided before Israeli operation against Gaza.

US Congressional Research report 2014 shows that since 1962, US has provided nearly $100 billion military aid to Israel. Since the last decade, Israel has been annually received aid of about $3 billion and the recent years focused on more defense aid. Pentagon has been deep suspicious and concerned considering that Israeli aircraft might start the biggest gambling to attack Iran’s nuclear facility. Such a move, the US thinks would be destructive. But without US Central Command’s green-single, Israel’s possible unilateral aerial operation against Iran would be a blunder. Any major steps without American approval could lead to biggest and costliest war in the Middle East.

The US continues to face challenge with its most closest, credible and powerful EU (28 nations) concerning Israel’s issue. The latest US peace proposals include Israeli pullout from the West Bank indicates a positive change . The current odd relation with the US is not new. In the past, the Israeli authority had sought public apology before the US. Israel has not changed its strategic relationship with the US but behavioral change has been evident. This will damage Israel’s national interest not only in the Middle East but also with the US.

 

US-Middle East doctrines

Almost five decades of limited relationship with Middle East nations, the U.S. totally replaced traditional British influence and security patrons role in the Middle East after World War II. Since 1960s to 1970s, anti-American regime almost changed and it gained major diplomacy, economy to security across the Middle East. Despite different democratic concerns and political pressure to its Middle East ally to change democratic reform in the Middle East, the US continues to widen its strategic relationship on the basis of their core interest.

US excellent broad policy in the Middle East focus on counter-terrorism matters since the last decade. Sudden change in the Middle East is due to the new crisis and threats the US vital interests, its role and vision in the region. Political turmoil in Middle East threatens stability. New wave of conflicts, crisis and unprecedented instability shadows US priority and policy. US strategic thinkers have great concern to its strategic interest, which are under threat in the changed context. The US swiftly insists that stability, prosperity, economy and political reform approach in the changing scenario has almost all regional influence in the Middle East. But the current unrest has resulted to a huge loss of state power and control in sensitive in the Middle East.

The post Gaddafi-Libyan conflict spread throughout Africa to Middle East. Egypt division and violation, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Syrian civil war, and dramatically emerging terrorist threat from Iraq, growing power-vacuum and jihadism, and Iran uprising is the prime concern of US-Middle East security. Political solution of the conflict and back to democratic track and inclusive government of its ally is still not successful. Different confrontation in the region have deep rooted domestic causes and cannot be easily resolve through military boots on the ground. The US new approach shows that the US doctrine is gradually changing in the Middle East through balance-of-power policy.

The US policy is to avoid its engagement in war in the Middle East. The former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Kerry renounced the anti-War campaign of Vietnam Veterans against the War. Kerry’s appointment as state secretary on February 1, 2013 signifies that the Obama administration’s diplomatic policy is more powerful than military policy in the Middle East.

US has been in a complex relationship with its Middle East ally since the Arab Spring began, with different partner countries raising dissatisfaction and disagreeing on it’s new approach towards Middle East. Middle East nations have deep differences as well as rivalries in terms of philosophy, religion, ethnic lines to fulfill their aspirations and regional hegemony tactics. Israel tensions with US-initiated peace policy with Palestine, NATO ally Turkey wants US to attack Syrian regime resulting to souring of the relationship, Saudi Arabia wanting to handle the entire regional role and want to block Iran, Qatar’s seeking a big role to fulfill its ambition, Iran wanting to join hands with the US to break the regional isolation, among others.

The US has also several interests to improve relations with Iran to achieve its goal in the Middle East. Iran intense link with different militia is the problem of US policy achievement in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Bahrain and Palestine. Some countries can’t decide their national interest because of deep political division with ethnic and religious line and Middle East powers play the big game.

US policy is on difficult lines but still trying to draw the right one with different engagements and tactics. The political formula is the vital priority than military measures at the moment. Despite the criticism and views to gain their interest and strategy to block another rival, US foreign and defense policy strategists are busy to formulate their own idea based on to broad-based engagements. The U.S. is shifting its new priorities to economically vibrant and strategically threat Asia-Pacific but it does not forget the Middle East and give the ground for its global rivals. The world’s most sophisticated military, technology and economic powerhouse US will not halt the key strategic location and most potential economy.

 

 

Comments Off on US-Israel relations and Middle East crisis

How Iran attained big success in Yemen?

October 24th, 2014

 

 

By Pramod Raj Sedhain.

 



After the dramatic change in Yemeni political scene, Iran took a major strategic gain in the regional competition. Iran has been strategically getting more influential and making more alliances after Iraq, Syria to Lebanon, and currently in Yemen. Iran has strategically gained significantly thus widening its ally in frontline of regional rival power. Yemen’s Shia Houthi fighters win is ideologically and strategically supported by Iran. Iran might have a long-term project with a clear plan similar to Hezbollah foundation in Lebanon.

Houthis campaign’s rise is similar to Iranian revolution tactic like civil disobedience, series of protests and marches against the government and kick start insurgency thus fuelling in militant movement to take control of the state. Political vacuum and Iran’s strategic support can be easy for Houthis to gain the recent military success. The Houthi movement was founded in 1992 in a very low profile but after Arab Spring, they gained significantly in terms of political power. Since the start of the political crisis in Yemen in 2011, Saudi Arabia lost it’s neighbor’s influence while Iran emerged as a strong and influential player on Yemeni scene. Spreading the Islamic revolution and bolstering its influence in the region is Iran’s prime goal.

Yemen is not only important for Saudi Arabia but its geo-strategic location too is equally important for US, EU and Israel. US have critical terrorism concern in Yemen and its most important frontier of Global War on Terror. Yemen is the international hot spot and safe haven for different extremist Jihadist groups among Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. US have assist the government army to fight against al-Qaeda. US heavily depend on its ally lavish Saudi but they have serious lapse for long-term plan and clear strategy towards Yemen. But Iran has it. After the escalation of turmoil in country, Yemen’s army capabilities were seriously damaged and deeply frustrating.

Political power transfer and instability is the ground of Houthis movement. Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guard’s Special branch al-Quds Force might take the opportunity to emerge Houthi and support the visions and strategies to secure its regional rival border. Al-Quds Force has been operating many proxy fighter networks in the region and they have a good idea about controlling the Shiite militant groups. Iran has secret presence on the enemy gates to save their strategic interest and to show their significance ability to create strong militia and proxy allies in the rival’s doorsteps. Riyadh’s efforts to control heavily armed Shiite militant group Houthis suffered a humiliating failure. With Iran’s proxy Houthi fighters taking over Sanaa on September 21, Yemen totally entered a new political as well military power order.

Iran gains vital sea checkpoints

Houthis success is an important control of strategic sea chokepoints for important Iran’s sea expansion which might penetrate enemy special maritime routes. Iran’s proxy full-scale strategic stronghold on Yeman’s Bab al Mandab is not the only threat alarm or not only an outlet of the Red Sea to the Indian Ocean but also serves their interest in vital sea routes of Israel as well between Europe, US and the Far East. Iran takes advantage of the world’s most significant oil-supply choke points.

Bab al Mandab strait choke point is the most important strategic waterways and upper hand of sea strategy. Iran is simultaneously encircling it’s prime regional rival Saudi Arabia and enemy Israel as well as create strategic pressure on Europe and the US to the most significant strategic ground. Iran’s north coast is one of the world’s most strategically important choke points – Strait of Hormuz . Iran has been threatening to close the only sea passage Hormuz from the Persian Gulf. Iranian new gain has been a strategic tension for EU, US, Israel and Saudi. Yemen’s Bab Al-Mandab and Iran’s Strait of Hormuz both are deeply integrated commercial international sea routes and both choke points have no alternative direction or sea routes.

Iran’s support to Houthis has been advantageous to the Yemen political and military power but the question remains as how long it will take control? Significant attention is what Tehran and Riyadh will do next in Yemeni competition? Or how much ability is required to manipulate the events to their own interest? Yemen’s big aid donor Saudi Arabia suffered a loss. Yemen is still on chaos since the 2011 Arab Uprising. The current crisis is not possible to achieve Saudi interest. Rivalry might start another separatist movement in southern Yemen because of geopolitically strategic location to parts of Bab al Mandab strait choke points. Iran will not only gain political power but equally important is to gain in terms of military, economy and geographically or geo-strategically.

Yemen’s geo-strategic important sea strategic waterways link between the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea, through the Red Sea and the Suez Canal. That is Iran’s enemy Israel’s sea route to exit from the Rea Sea to the Indian Ocean. This shipping lane depends for the Israeli economy. Israel faced the Palestinian militant attack in early 1970’s in the ships that passed through Bab al-Mandab. Now Israeli strategists are worried about Iranians proxy control and they might attack Israeli ships if war breaks out with Iran. Israel has already encircled Iranian ally from Syria, Lebanon’s most powerful militant force – Hezbollah, Gaza ruling militant – Hamas. Iran has significant chunks of territory and strategic sea routes to possible penetration in case war breaks out.

Iran is located at the world’s most important Persian Gulf chock point Strait of Hormuz, which is the world’s largest crude oil shipments route. Strait of Hormuz bypass is not viable and easy option. But Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates have limited operational capacity through pipeline project. If Gulf States increase their pipeline projects to different pipelines to ship crude oil outside the Gulf, they will try another route to avoid potential upcoming crisis and possible blockade.

Such strategic chokepoint shipment’s substantial disruptions can lead to increase in total energy costs even temporarily. Such effect not only surrounds its area but far from the thousands of miles in sea route as well direct impact with financial capital. Iran’s proxy strategic gain in Yemen is a pressure for US, EU, Israel and Saudi Arabia. Different strategic calculations have been made in the regional and western capitals but political transition is heading to more complications and chance of peace and stability of Yeman is the fault-line. Despite the alarming scenario and chance of strategic loss, direct foreign military operation is very difficult and lengthy and it might face dangerous consequences in the future.

Comments Off on How Iran attained big success in Yemen?

SAARC needs collective battle against terrorism

October 22nd, 2014

By Pramod Raj Sedhain.

 



Security and terrorism in South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) member states have continuously grabbed world headlines dragging greater concern in the international community. After the withdrawal of NATO forces from Afghanistan, the region might face new terrorism challenges and strategies. Dozens of transnational terrorist organizations active in region as well as the most notorious global terror group Al-Qaeda recently announced a new branch in the Indian subcontinent. Group’s chief Ayman Al-Zawahiri announced the creation of “Qaeda al-Jihad” thus alarming the entire region.

Al-Qaeda is weakening day by day. It recently faced the biggest global terror leadership legitimacy crisis since its splinter with the Islamic State rise in the Middle East. Al-Qaeda’s concern to expand the branch is more psychological than physical. However, the threat remains since they might take to indiscriminately waging violence to show their existence. All terrorist groups’ major tactics is assassination, bombing, extortion and other kinds of violence to achieve their objectives. Global terrorist groups have changed their strategy. Their growing links with local militia group is an emerging threat. Therefore, generalization of terrorism is a major risk and challenge in the sensitive SAARC region.

Arrangement of regional security integration is a common practice to protect the interest of the member-states. But the eight countries regional bloc (Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Maldives) do not have collective “multifaceted counterterrorism strategy”.

Under the regional security integration phenomena in different regions, the major terrorist’s hot-spot regional countries have no security cooperation and collective action against common threat. The region has been facing significant increase in terror campaigns since the last one decade. No country is safe. Therefore, all eight SAARC member states need to appropriately make preparations against possible terrorist threat. The region’s countries need strategic review their previous policy and priority in this context. Battling terrorism should be the priority than other cooperation.

Counter-terrorism needs extensive, collective, meaningful and functional mechanism. But the SAARC Secretariat has been functioning as a mere administrative body with no significant and necessary mechanism formed. Fight against Terrorism in South Asia should be the common interest of all countries. Without a common policy, the region cannot tackle terrorism.

The recently concluded meeting of Home ministers of SAARC countries in Kathmandu simply discussed on terrorism threat but did not finalize any effective mechanism or particular timeframe and agenda to create such mechanism. Regional anti-terrorism initiative was initiated way back in late 1980s but is still yet to be finalized when it comes to collective mechanism: Either regional security calculation, counter terrorism plan and strategy, nature and role to fight against terrorism.

How SAARC can battle terrorism?

Merely commitment or initiatives of a single country cannot root-out terrorism or extremism from the region. Action-oriented collective control mechanism, mutual legal system, strategy, intelligence sharing, immigration system and control can only deal with the growing possibilities of terrorism threat. This fundamental anti-terrorism effort has been a matter of concern and discussed but has not been implemented or practiced. SAARC still faces lack of modern structure and clear legitimacy. Common counter-terrorism has been limited to fundamental paper concept.

Establishing an operational collective counter-terrorism institution is a foremost step to start to combat terrorism. SAARC needs to have greater cooperation and collaboration on issues related to security. Without effective mechanism, collective monitoring, tracking and operational system, collective counter-terrorism efforts cannot function properly. SAARC intra-border institution can have different wings, including cyber crime desk, narcotic drug control desk, transnational crimes monitoring desk, human trafficking desk, counterfeit currency smuggling monitoring desk, organized crime desk, weapons smuggling monitoring desk, money laundering monitoring desk and other necessary tracking and monitoring wings to control terrorism .

Formation of collective security process and mechanism is another significant step to combat terrorism. They need to come together at least on this point to counter common threat. Despite the geographical proximity, the neighboring territories have hostile places and same interest interpretation in various ways. Internal instability, violence, crime and extremism are the common threat in the region.

SAARC atmosphere cannot be compared with the European collective security situation. Some of the SAARC members are suffering from deep-rooted terrorist activities and regional terror situation is far from the regional boundary. Such huge challenge shows that the regional country itself will not be able to handle the common regional security structure and needs support from the neighboring country. Inter-ethnic and religious respect, border trust and dialogue, easy-to-understand regional law and order should be in place to neutralize the common threat.

Simply an order cannot achieve rapidly change in the region. The nations in the region must combat radical, racial and religious extremism and separatist ideology with collectively. Similarly, merely using of force cannot resolve the deep-rooted multilingual, multiethnic, multi-religious, and multicultural regional problems.

SAARC’s multi-sector functional mechanisms and practical regional cooperation at different levels and layers can play a vital role to reduce radicalization. Such different forum’s good effort can influence the minds of the regional countries. Institutional strength and good approach can reduce some frustration that will prove significant in reducing extremism.

One cannot expect greater collaboration without legitimacy, but virtually SAARC has no collective common anti-terror acts and agreements to combat such big threats. Regionalism cannot achieve without enhancing mutual political, legal and moral system. Fighting a war against terrorism is not only a matter of security but is also interlinked with holistic political and economic matters. Some inter-state confrontation will impact whole regional prosperity and peace.

Changing the mindset and character is important for the regions’ stability and control terrorism. But the attitude to create control anarchism and political instability in another country to gain their self benefit will have a direct impact on the region’s overall stability and security. Such situation will create growing opportunity for radical groups and extremist ideologies. Single country’s ambition to destabilize its neighbors would be foolish and can even create new security risk in region.

Any leader projecting global image through SAARC leadership can need change their traditional mentality and policy. Lack of understanding of the increasingly globalized situation and failing to accept the practical world superpowers might have direct engagement with nations rather than showing their views. Without mutual, practical and effective strategy, the region cannot fight against terrorism. Without proper common functional mechanism, counter-terrorism effort and collective regional security priority is only theoretical approach.

 

Comments Off on SAARC needs collective battle against terrorism

Kobani fall might have devastating consequences

October 18th, 2014

Pramod Raj Sedhain.



The most brutal terrorist organization Islamic State (IS) with full effort targeted to control the Syrian northern Kurdish town of Kobani. The strategic Turkey border town has been the target of IS militants after it captured dozens of Kurdish villages near Kobani. This city has been under attack since mid-September and intensive street battle started since last week. Kurdish fighters are battling to defend their homeland and the U.S-led coalition has continued air strikes against IS targets to halt an advance. IS terrorist overran Kurdish headquarters and are still encircling the city but Kobanis and Syrian Kurdish fighters have called on all across the region to take up arms against the IS to defend the strategic town. Since the Syrian civil war began in 2011, Kurds have established self-rule in three major northern areas of Syria. Kobani fall might create humanitarian catastrophe. UN warned that 12,000 or so civilians are still in or near Kobani, including 700 mainly elderly people in the town center “will most likely be massacred” by IS if the town falls. If it is seized by IS and they take full control of the town it will create dangerous consequences in the region. It will spread another form of multi ethnic and religious conflict in the Middle East. The region could face new dangerous cycle of religious and ethnic violence.

Kobani is not only the single battle-front against the terrorists but also the symbol of overall battle. It is also a means to test the credibility of the deployed US-led air power. If this city loses, it will have serious impact on regional stability because of its strategic location to access route into Turkey. If the terrorist group IS succeeds in controlling the strategic gateway, it will have dangerous psychological defects of the international community. Of course, Syria bombing is tougher than Iraq as well as difficult owing to geographical and political position. The US-led coalition has sophisticated and modest air operation capabilities and failure to strike the IS targets and defects will be costly. Time has come for the US to show and prove their military might against IS and Save the Kobani Kurdish.

US top brass military officials are serious to accomplish their mission and focus their strategic view like they initially did in Baghdad. Fall of Kobani will have horrific news for western strategists. The Islamic State will not only gain more ground and capacity but will also have sufficient time to strengthen their capacity, supply route, logistic, among others. They will be able to control nearly 400 kilometer border of Turkey, which is nearly half of Syria’s 820-km border with Turkey. Risky ground intervention could be the next possibility to plan ‘B’ because the Syrian opposition force has not been able to maintain ground force. Proper ground operation is not an easy choice for the coalition and any training to Syrians can have grave setbacks and backfire. Large scale training is still risky to their nature of Syrian opposition fighters and largely dominant to radical militant.

Despite the US continuous appeal and pressure, Turkey has refused to intervene to help the Kobani defend from terrorist group from the Syrian border. The 15-million-strong Kurdish minority country Turkey’s mysterious silence can be harmful to its own security and defense. Syrian Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) has a very close relationship with Turkey’s Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK). They have already warned the government not to support in Kobani. PKK waged a militant campaign for Kurdish rights and now any negotiations with government will be harmful if Kobani falls from the Kurds. If IS militants carry out massacre in Kobani, it could have a direct effect to the Turkish peace process and Kurds might start attacking against Turkish force. According to Reuter News Agency report Turkish already air strike against Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) targets in southeast Turkey .IS control of Turkey border area can be an alarm to its country defense.

 

Only military pressure can deal with IS

US-led initially air strikes have been successful to effectively target against IS terrorists and destroy the command and control facilities, weapons, vehicles and ammunition depots, training compounds, and have extensively damaged their capability in Iraq and Syria. Ongoing aerial bombardment and missile attacks have continuously targeted the IS and bombing the extremists jihadists since August. Effective military approach and plan can defeat the IS in the long run.

On June 29, 2014, IS self-declared a caliphate in the regions controlled n Iraq and Syria (Mosul to Aleppo) and started to invade the Iraqi capital as well Syrian strategic important towns. After capturing large swaths of Iraqi and Syrian territories, the group’s ambition did not stop. Their motive was for a greater caliphate or to govern the world’s Muslims. More than 80 countries’ fighter have been listed as foreign fighters of IS and have strengthened and influenced the global terrorists groups. The splinter group of al-Qaeda in Iraq formerly created the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant or the Islamic State in Iraq and al Sham, was established in Syrian civil war. After disputes with al-Qaeda in the Syrian civil war, the group created its own brand, authority and militants to fight against Syrian government as well the opponent forces. Ruthless battle tactics, committed and effective fighters, support of local radical tribal groups, alliances with Sunni jihadist group, widespread massacre and assassination, terrorist style and propaganda, modern arms and extensive financial resource, fragile Syrian opponent rebel force, instability and political vacuums, among other factors proved to an easy ground in the Syrian conflict .

After Iraqi army lost Mosul and Tikrit in June, ISIS seized sophisticated weapons, tanks and artillery as well as further strengthened their position to capture the Syrian army base. IS has different variety of arms with committed fighters using these weapons and tactics with small tactical formation to protect air attack. Intelligence services have been closely tracking the core leadership, main jihadist training/recruiting and identifying the overall structural function of the IS but their primary focus is to break the attraction of foreign fighters. Initially, the US-led coalition air strikes blocked the IS advance but now they are using different battle tactics with renewed advances in several fronts in Iraq and Syria. IS renewed advances into western Baghdad and Syria is a very serious blow to the coalition and has questioned over the effectiveness of aerial attacks. Successful advance of Islamic State is a great challenge but they have thousands of radical fighters, large territory and well resource that cannot defect overnight. Hunting down of terrorists itself is a difficult task in a vast territory and will take time for final victory.  IS terrorist group has big ambitions, which needs full-fledged military response to crush them.

Comments Off on Kobani fall might have devastating consequences