Afghanistan’s Independent Election Commission (IEC) on Tuesday finally declared the incumbent President Ashraf Ghani as winner of the presidential election held in September last year. But Ghani’s opponent, Abdullah Abdullah, rejected the results, claiming to have won the election himself and announcing his plan to form a government with support from his allies.

More Political Turmoil on the Horizon for Afghanistan?

The disagreement over the results between the top two Afghan political leaders have raised fears of political turmoil in the country that could affect the United States-Taliban peace deal, and the inter-Afghan dialogue following the aftermath of US troops withdrawing from Afghanistan.

The United States and the Taliban, after two-year long negotiations, have finally come close to an agreement over the ceasefire that could end Washington’s longest war in history. But this week’s election results may disrupt the prospect of a US exit from the region as both sides stand in the way of a political settlement to form an agreement over forming a government.

Details of the Afghan Election

The Afghan election, held last month, has been marred by one controversy after another, and the major theme of which has been around interference.The IEC-declared winner, Ashraf Ghani, has secured a 50.6 per cent share of the vote — just enough to avoid another round of elections. But throughout the voting and counting process, Abdullah Abdullah has blamed the bureaucracy under Ghani’s administration of doing all they could to shift the results in his favor.

Abdullah, who got a 39.52 per cent vote share, also rejected the IEC’s announcement. He declared himself as the winner of the election and said he would form a government with his allies.

In a news conference following the announcement, he said “the result they (IEC) announced today was a result of election robbery, a coup against democracy, a betrayal of the will of the people, and we consider it illegal.” On the other hand, the US is yet to issue any statement on the election results, raising doubts over Ghani’s win and his ability to form a government.

Political Divisions in Afghanistan Likely to Worsen in Coming Weeks

Moreover, the political bickering among the two candidates is likely to worsen in the coming weeks, casting a shadow on the peace process. More importantly, the political impasse is likely to worsen during the post-US-Taliban agreement scenario which will see an intra-Afghan dialogue discussing the country’s political future. But the prospects of a smooth transition from the battlefield to peace seem slim.

In addition to the infighting, the one absent political player — the Taliban — have also rejected the IEC’s results, terming Ghani’s appointment as going against the spirit of the peace process. The militants have refused to talk to Ghani in the past and have not allowed the Afghan Government to be party to a peace agreement with the US.

The Taliban have called Ghani a US puppet and have questioned his ability to run the country. In a post-peace agreement scenario, when the Taliban resume their political activities in the war-torn country, the spat between Ghani and Abdullah is likely to allow them to establish a strong foothold in Afghanistan and position themselves as a viable political alternate.

L'articolo Two Winners Have Emerged in Afghanistan’s Presidential Election proviene da InsideOver.

Strikes against terrorists dominate the news but there are far fewer stories about the long term consequences of operations against terrorists. There are many stories that could be discussed about the consequences of inaction in Syria or over-involvement in other conflicts: the global War on Terror has shown how difficult it is to fight terrorism with the correct strategy.

The High Cost of Inaction

The first case of Syria is a good example of the consequences of inaction. There are many negative consequences to action advanced by American isolationists that often prevent intervention. These include the idea that America has serious problems at home they should address instead of occupying themselves with foreign military adventures abroad. Isolationists say that intervention has blowback and makes certain groups like the military industrial complex or munitions makers rich rather than benefiting America – think of the fictional Tony Stark from the movie Iron Man. We saw many of these viewpoints represented in the last US presidential campaign. Donald Trump complained about endless wars in the Middle East, called the Iraq war a mistake, and promised to get America out.

But the consequences to inaction can be just as great or worse than the consequences of action. Almost 10 years ago the Syrian government led by Bashar al Assad seemed on the brink of collapse to be replaced by a broad spectrum of insurgent groups that sought freedom. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that the dictator’s days were numbered. Instead of replacing a dictatorship with a more representative replacement, the Obama administration dithered with unenforced red lines to the point that the civil war has now dragged one for 10 years. It has spawned a massive humanitarian and migrant crisis and helped ISIS consolidate control over territory in multiple states.

Very Little Discussion of Solving Root Causes

Both issues have faded from the news and ISIS has lost its territory. But recent offensive operations near Idlib have sparked another 700,000 displaced persons that might create another migrant crisis. These crises have also sparked political debates across Western countries and have increased the strength of anti-immigration parties and new nationalistic governments across Europe. Yet there was very little discussion of solving the root cause of the problems exacerbated by dilatory military action military intervention or at least establishing no-fly zones.

While many people balk at intervening in yet another supposed endless war, the problems that create the need for military force don’t go away just because Americans choose to ignore them. Despite talk of endless wars, the strategic benefits to intervention in Syria would include limiting Iran, protecting vital oil supplies and aiding counter insurgency operations against terrorists. As the refugee crisis and explosion of ISIS—both the result of inaction in Syria—should show us, when the problems do become apparent, they usually explode at America’s doorstep in the form of a 9/11 or Pearl Harbor. And then, when America does intervene—like they did in Iraq—it is in worse condition than before they ignored the problem and much harder to restore to stability.

The Dangers of Action

There are many homegrown terrorists that provide lessons about the dangers of military action. Years ago the FBI reported that they have over 850 terror investigations in each of the 50 states. Through a combination of state agencies like child services investigating complaints of abuse and tips from suspicious neighbors, the FBI discovered this camp before they could carry out any attacks.

But citizens must remain vigilant. This is easy to say in an article but much tougher in real life. Before the San Bernardino terrorist attack, for example, neighbors noticed the future shooters acting strangely, but they were afraid of being labelled as racists. There are unfortunate incidents of racism and a significant number of white supremacist-motivated terrorists which makes this a subject fraught with tension. Unscrupulous politicians don’t help the situation as they find advantage in accusing vigilant policies and behaviors as being equivalent to racism. This makes defensive policies that root out homegrown terrorist camps harder to implement, and provides radicals with a ready-made shield any time they are justifiably suspected of being radical. Home grown terror camps show that citizens need to separate rhetoric from reality and report suspicious behavior regardless of the risk of being labelled racist.

Conclusions from These Two Examples

So what can we say about terrorists by looking more closely at these examples? They largely rely upon the disaffected in society. Syria for example has millions of displaced persons that are often from a different religious sect than the rulers that displaced them. Recruiters target those who are adrift economically and angry at the political class. Therefore, sometimes the best policy to prevent terrorism isn’t more bombs but providing the disaffected with economic opportunity and political integration. In other cases, the people come from affluent backgrounds, live a life of luxury and attend the best schools. They find their lives are materially successful but devoid of meaning. Economic opportunity then must be coupled with promoting nonviolent religious or civic meaning in the lives of citizenry so that they don’t become terrorists in the first place.

American terrorists often have political freedom and space due to the lack of excessive government control. In the case of the US, they abuse liberal laws regarding guns and home schooling to stay away from the prying eyes of government officials. (But large parts of the third world are awash in guns so they are no better.) The San Bernardino shooters benefited from political correctness as the neighbors of the attackers were afraid to alert authorities over fear of being labelled racist.

Their tactics consist of small arms fire and improvised explosive devices which makes the caches of these weapons found in homegrown camps across the US particularly disturbing and why preemptive action to seize suspected terrorists and their weapon caches are extremely important.

As we consider the threat from terrorism it is important to look past the headlines and consider important matters such as how they are recruited and what long term trends action or inaction represent. Trying to avoid blowback or giving into isolationist tendencies can create mass humanitarian crises and miss important opportunities to bring better governments. But being overly reactive in taking action can also lead to mutual recrimination and accusations of racism. Trying to alleviate economic suffering and promote civic meaning is one way to begin preventing terrorism but is also not a cure-all solution. All of the competing costs and benefits require careful analysis as the world continues to grapple with terrorism.

L'articolo How to Defeat Terrorism: Lessons from the War on Terror proviene da InsideOver.

With an election around the corner, US President Donald Trump is keen to conclude a US-Taliban pact so that he can boast during his campaign later in the year that he ended the Afghan war.

The biggest obstacle Trump faces in concluding future discussions with the Taliban is that the militant group has so far proved to be an unreliable partner. In December, Taliban and American negotiators met to discuss the signing of a peace deal, according to Suhail Shaheen, a Taliban spokesman for the group’s office in Qatar. Negotiations were stalled that month because the group killed two civilians during a suicide attack on a US base outside Kabul.

On Saturday night, they were guilty of committing a similar atrocity. Two US officials confirmed to Fox News that there were multiple American casualties after US and Afghan soldiers were fired on during a mission in Afghanistan’s eastern Nangarhar province. The number of deaths and the severity of any injuries have yet to be confirmed.

Colonel Sonny Leggett issued a statement saying those involved in the attack were engaged by ‘direct firing.’

This decision will impact upon whether the Trump administration withdraws 4,000 troops from Afghanistan. There are currently 12,000 US soldiers deployed there and after being elected on a campaign promise to end America’s ‘pointless wars’, the US President cannot stop American activities in the nation until the Taliban are fully committed to peace.

The militant group wedded themselves to a spring offensive in April, but they said they were willing to reduce their levels of violence if progress was made towards concluding a US-Taliban pact. But negotiations between both sides have proven to be problematic as no one can agree on how long the Taliban’s violence should be reduced for.

Last month, Reuters reported that the Taliban announced that it will implement a 10-day ceasefire with the US, a reduction in violence with Afghan forces and discussions with Afghan officials if it reaches a deal with US negotiators in Doha. These talks could have ended the longest war America has ever engaged in.

Yet the Doha negotiations failed to reach a successful outcome because of differences over how to reduce insurgent violence. Prior to Saturday’s attack, the Taliban also upset the peace process by successfully attacking Afghan forces despite Afghanistan’s harsh winter this year.

During the Doha talks, the group only committed themselves to scaling back insurgent operations for one week, but Washington demanded that the Taliban commit to a ‘significant and lasting’ reduction in violence before the peace deal is signed. Until these differences are resolved, Trump will never start withdrawing America’s 12,000 troops from Afghanistan.

Since the War on Terror started in 2001, the US has failed to completely defeat the Taliban. However, if the group are serious about playing an active role in Afghan politics, they must increase the length of time they are willing to end their violence for before a pact is negotiated.

The Taliban also needs to stop blaming the US every time both sides fail to sign a deal. Shaheen claims that the group provided a secure environment for talks to be concluded, but America continued ‘to make more demands.’

The US should demonstrate some flexibility in these talks. American troops will remain in Afghanistan even after a deal is signed, but the Afghan Government is right to insist that their withdrawal should be ‘conditional.’ A compromise will be necessary at some stage.

The latest American casualties are a tragedy that will frustrate attempts at ending the Afghan war, but if the US and the Taliban are serious about their desired outcomes, they will both have to budge.

L'articolo The Impact Of Latest US Casualties On Afghan Peace Talks proviene da InsideOver.

Pakistan, by way of its location, has found itself involved in major conflicts more than once. Starting from its role as an American satellite to counter Soviet influence to then participating in the US war on terror, the country has enjoyed an outsized role in the regional geopolitics. But that has come at a huge cost: the economy has suffered immensely and thousands of citizens have lost their lives while the international reputation has been dealt blow after blow due to Islamabad’s association with terrorism. 

So when the news of Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani’s assassination by the United States came in, it immediately sent Pakistan into panic, be it those in power or the average citizen who barely knew anything about the regional geopolitics. 

On the same day as the US conducted those strikes, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo tweeted about his calls with regional leaders including Mohammed Bin Salman, Ashraf Ghani and Pakistan’s Army Chief – not the prime minister – General Qamar Bajwa. It read: “#Pakistan‘s Chief of Staff General Bajwa and I spoke today about U.S. defensive action to kill Qassem Soleimani. The #Iran regime’s actions in the region are destabilizing and our resolve in protecting American interests, personnel, facilities, and partners will not waver.”

https://twitter.com/SecPompeo/status/1213122193204432896

The domestic challenge to set a foreign policy on Iran

This raised fears that Islamabad would yet again get itself entangled as a mercenary in another war, as the military establishment profits off it. However, the army’s public relations wing soon gave out a statement, calling for “maximum restraint and constructive engagement by all concerned to de-escalate the situation in broader interest of peace and stability.”

The possibility of getting sandwiched between a global and regional power in a potential war next door rang alarm bells, bringing flashbacks of how that policy has historically backfired. What made matters even more complicated was that the slain general enjoyed great popularity amongst Pakistan’s Shiite community, which makes up around 20% of the total population and is the second-largest in the world after Iran. 

Like their fellow brethren across the Middle East, Pakistani Shiites were devastated by the “martyrdom” of Soleimani and took processions to mourn his killing and condemn the US. The late IRGC commander was crucial in garnering support for Iran among the Shiite minorities of Sunni majority countries and while influence in Lebanon, Iraq and Syria is well-known, he was no less popular in Afghanistan and Pakistan. 

The gravitational pull Iran has for Afghan and Pakistani Shiites has to be seen from three angles; firstly, they enjoy close cultural ties thanks to historic Persian influence; second, the presence of holy sites and centres of religious learning, especially in the city of Qom, has naturally made the Islamic republic a spiritual leader, aided by the presence of an Ayatollah; and lastly, the minority Shiites have increasingly come under attack by extremist Sunni factions such as the Taliban, and Tehran’s anti-Salafi ideology makes it a natural ally and defender. 

Tehran, for its part, has been extremely smart to leverage that, creating militias exclusively of foreign fighters and offering them monetary benefits and sometimes the promise of Iranian citizenship as well. Two such brigades are Liwa Fatemiyoun and Liwa Zainebiyoun, whose official purposes are to defend the mosque of Sayyida Zainab. The former comprises of Afghans, mostly those living in Iran or from the persecuted Hazara community while the latter mostly draws Pakistani students in Qom and other cities or the residents of Parachinar in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, who have specifically targeted by the Taliban. These forces are trained in combat and then sent to Syria, often to fight on the frontlines, as evidenced by the extremely high casualty rate of Afghans. But beyond these pockets too, 

Given the popularity of Iranian administration among Pakistani Shiites as well as learning the costs of fighting someone else’s war the hard way, Islamabad has justifiably shown its dislike for any escalation which could draw it in any further complications. Khan, who is a long-time critic of both Soviet and the US wars in Afghanistan and has repeatedly shown his lofty ambitions of service as a possible deal broker between Tehran and Riyadh, directed his foreign minister to embark on a tour of both the regional countries plus the US to help diffuse tensions. 

“I have asked FM Qureshi to visit Iran, KSA & USA to meet with respective foreign ministers, Secretary of State; & COAS Gen Bajwa to contact relevant military leaders to convey a clear message: Pakistan is ready to play its role for peace but it can never again be part of any war,” he tweeted on Jan 8. 

I have asked FM Qureshi to visit Iran, KSA & USA to meet with respective foreign ministers, Secretary of State; & COAS Gen Bajwa to contact relevant military leaders to convey a clear message: Pakistan is ready to play it's role for peace but it can never again be part of any war

— Imran Khan (@ImranKhanPTI) January 8, 2020

Stressing the message of peace and neutrality

Beginning with the Islamic Republic, Qureshi arrived in Mashhad, the second-most populous city in the country, on Jan 12 and paid his respects at the shrine of Imam Reza, one of the holiest sites especially for Shiite Muslims. He also called upon President Rouhani and Foreign Minister Javad Zarif in separate meetings and reiterated that “Pakistan would not allow its territory to be used against anyone; nor would Pakistan be a part of any war or conflict in the region.”

The next stop was Saudi Arabia where the Pakistani foreign minister met his Saudi counterpart and stressed Islamabad’s role as a “partner for peace” that would support all efforts for constructive engagement. 

Finally, in the US, Qureshi met key leaders including Pompeo, Under Secretary of Defense John Rood, Congress’s Pakistan Caucus and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Just a couple of days later, American diplomat Alice Wells touched down upon Islamabad for an official visit to discuss bilateral and regional issues.  

The two sides have had a few other calls since then and the foreign minister has strongly iterated that the country and the region cannot afford another war, while saying that Islamabad will make its efforts to diffuse the situation. 

Since the past one year or so, there seems to have been a rapprochement between Washington and Islamabad, beginning from Trump’s meeting with Khan and last month, the revival of International Military Education and Training programs for Pakistan army. On the issue of Afghan peace process too, the two countries look to be on the same page, or at least the antagonism of the past decade has subsided. 

Will history repeat itself or is it a new dawn?

The question, then, is if there’s a possibility of Islamabad joining the Washington camp against its neighbour. Would the promise of a close partnership with the US and the monetary and defence-related benefits that come with it would be enough to woo the powerful Pakistan army? Or after years of taking explicitly partisan sides, Imran Khan will finally steer his country towards the path of neutrality? In the past he has been largely able to set the narrative for foreign policy so if that is to serve any indicator, it might just be the beginning of a new era.

L'articolo Caught in the Wrong Neighbourhood: Pakistan in the US-Iran Confrontation proviene da InsideOver.

For the Russian leader to choose Damascus among all places to celebrate Orthodox Christmas is no ordinary decision, and to hold extensive and friendly talks with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad as the region boils and draws closer to the brink of a major military conflict, is again no ordinary event. The timing, place and circumstances both during and after the summit caused some observers to go as far as claiming the visit was no less significant an event than the Iranian ballistic missile attack on two US airbases in Iraq on the night of the same day Putin and his top military aides, including Defence Minister Sergey Shoygu, arrived in Damascus.

After the official meeting between the two leaders which took place at the newly established cutting edge Russian CCC (Command and Control Centre) in Damascus, President Assad and Putin walked in the streets of the old city, visiting the famous Omayyad Mosque, also known as the Great Mosque of Damascus, which keeps relics of John the Baptist, one of the holiest Saints in Christianity, previously visited by Pope John Paul II in May 2001. The two leaders then visited the oldest Orthodox church in Damascus, a city that is so closely tied to early Christianity. Putin presented a rare 17^th century manuscript of the Quran to the Omayyad Mosque and an ancient iconic portrait of Virgin Mary to the Orthodox church in Damascus.

Putin’s visit sends messages in all directions

Thursday’s visit- which was not announced in advance for understandable reasons – marked the Russian leader’s first visit since 2017 to Syria, his closest ally in the Middle East, and his first-ever to Damascus since the war in Syria broke out in 2011. Russia and Iran have played a key role in supporting president Assad and tipping the balance in his army’s favor in recent years.

The timing of Putin’s visit coincided with mounting tension in the region on the day Iran retaliated to the assassination of Maj. General Qassim Soleimani, the commander of Iran’s elite Quds Force, and his comrades near Baghdad airport last week. in retaliation they launching dozens of missiles on the strategic Ain al Assad air base north of the Iraqi capital, and another airstrip in Irbil, Iraqi Kurdistan province, both used by US and allied nations, sending an unmistakable message of unwavering support to Syria’s Assad by what Syrians call ‘Putin the Czar’.

The Russian gesture bolsters Assad’s stature and resolve in finishing up the war against terror and its controversial closing chapter in Idlib; the last remaining stronghold for anti-government forces including some 75,000 hardcore Nusra terrorists who refuse to lay down arms and negotiate a settlement with the government in Damascus. Putin’s other messages were to the Americans and Israelis in case the US-Iran showdown spills into a regional war. The strongest message in Putin’s address to Russian forces stationed in Syria via the new CCC’s state-of-the-art communication system was: “By joining the war effort [against terrorism] here in Syria, you are defending the security of Russia itself”.

Although Kremlin spokesman Dmitri Peskov did not confirm that Iran came up during the meeting between the presidents in Damascus, the two leaders must have discussed the Iran-US rising tension and Tehran’s imminent retaliation.

“The president of Syria expressed his gratitude to Russia and the Russian military for assistance with combating terrorism as well as restoration and building of peaceful life in Syria,” Peskov went on to say in highlighting Russia’s critical help to Assad in turning the military tide against terrorists and radical groups fighting in Syria for the ninth year running.

Erdogan and his Syria plans under scrutiny and mockery

Another double message was sent to Turkey and President Recep Tayyip Erdogan personally during Putin’s visit to Damascus, as the Russian leader was escorted to the very Grand Omayyad Mosque Erdogan had vowed to pray at “in a few months’ time”, at the outset of Syria conflict in 2011. Many Syrians took scathing mockery of Erdogan and his famous pledge to pray in Damascus after Assad is toppled shortly. They circulated photos of Assad and Putin smiling as they left the oldest and most beautiful mosques in the world.

A cartoon displays Erdogan asking Putin “For God’s sake, tell me, did Bashar mention me at all during your visit?”. Putin replies: “Oh yes he sure did. He couldn’t have forgotten about you Recep; for as we entered the [Omayyad] Mosque, Assad asked me to take off my shoes; it’s not allowed in!”

Russia has played a key role regarding the Turkish presence in Syria, and Ankara’s military offensive in northeastern Kurdish areas last October following Trump’s sudden and controversial withdrawal decision which shocked his Kurdish SDF allies who rushed to Moscow and Damascus for protection from overwhelming Turkish military power, threatening to wipe them out.

What is after Maj. General Soleimani is different from what was before it, many observers and analysts maintain. Putin’s landmark visit to Damascus this week could well mark the beginning of a new and critical phase in the final round of war on terrorism in Syria and the region. Two events that are bound to have a sizeable impact on the ground regarding the need to uproot terrorists and end the US and Turkish military presence in Syria, once and for all.

L'articolo Putin in Damascus: A Surprise Christmas Visit (and Much More) proviene da InsideOver.

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo defended the US drone strike against Iranian general and leader of the Quds Force (the Iranian military abroad), Qasem Soleimani, in Baghdad in order to prevent him from endangering American lives in the Middle East.

Tensions between both sides had already escalated further following the death of a US civilian contractor in Iraq that prompted violence outside the US embassy in Baghdad, which US President Donald Trump blamed on Iran.

Tehran immediately condemned the attack and warned of consequences while protesters in the country have taken to the streets, burning Israeli and American flags.

Meanwhile, the US President tweeted: ‘Iran never won a war, but never lost a negotiation’, which is a direct attack on Barack Obama’s 2015 Iran Deal. His tweet was also a taunt towards the Iranian Government.

As relations between Washington and Tehran continue to worsen, it seems like war is becoming increasingly inevitable between both sides. Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, said that harsh revenge awaited the “criminals” who killed Soleimani. It is unclear what he means by this, but the US embassy in Baghdad has made a sensible decision by urging US citizens to depart immediately following the Iranian general’s death. They are most at risk if war breaks out between both nations.

However, neither side has anything to gain from war. The Bush administration labelled Iran as part of its ‘axis of evil’, but following the 2003 Iraq War, they retreated from the idea of a full-scale invasion of the country. Both Iraq and Libya have taught US administrations that if they invade a nation, they need an exit strategy and they should ensure that there is a stable government in place when they do eventually leave. Almost twenty years after the War on Terror started in Afghanistan, US soldiers are still there. This shows how complex Middle Eastern conflicts can be.

Vox’s Alex Ward anticipates that a US-Iranian conflict would be ‘one of the worst conflicts in history.’ This is because the US would require overwhelming air and naval power to beat Iran into submission. Iranian forces could destroy an American oil tanker travelling through the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial waterway for the global energy trade. The Trump administration would feel compelled to respond in kind. But with no direct channels between both sides, no red lines are being drawn which means the crisis could continue to deepen until both countries declare war.

It is unlikely Trump would have the support of his NATO allies if he went to war with Iran. Many of them deserted Bush during the Iraq War and Britain, the US’s closest ally, seems unlikely to support America this time. The British Government has consistently disagreed with the President’s decision to scrap the Iran Deal. UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab issued a statement in response to Soleimani’s death, urging all parties to de-escalate. Countries like Germany and France also opposed the Trump administration’s decision to end Obama’s deal, and they are also unlikely to support a war.

Trump was elected on a pledge to avoid ‘unnecessary’ conflicts. With an election looming this year, he must ensure he does not break his promise, otherwise his opponents could use it against him. War could cost him the support he needs in what could be a close election.

Both sides have more to gain from opening a direct channel of communication and from the US cancelling all its sanctions in exchange for Iran ending its nuclear missile programme. This is what French President Emmanuel Macron has urged both Washington and Tehran to do, and both the US and Iranian governments should seriously consider this option.

The consequences of war would be devastating, but it is not too late for the US and Iran to reach a peaceful conclusion.

L'articolo What Would the Consequences of a US-Iranian War be? proviene da InsideOver.

The relationship between the United States and Turkey remains tense. After the Senate, by an overwhelming majority, declared Turkey’s behavior towards the Armenians to be genocide and also threatened to impose sanctions on Turkey, it seems to have deteriorated even further.

In response, President Erdogan has now threatened to close an essential airbase for the Americans in the region. “If necessary,” Turkey could shut down the US airbase Incirlik. In particular, if “measures such as sanctions” came into force against Turkey, an adequate answer would be given, Erdogan said candidly on Turkish television.

It is not the first time that there has been a dispute over Incirlik Air Force Base. For years, Turkey has repeatedly used the military base as a means of exerting pressure on its NATO partners and the US in particular.

Should Erdogan follow through on the threat, it could pose severe geostrategic problems for the United States – at least temporarily. The US, despite still operating around 800 military bases worldwide, consider Incirlik as one of its most important ones. However, a potential shutdown would also have implications for Turkey’s status as an ally.

To this day, the military airport on the outskirts of the southern Turkish city of Adana remains a central hub for the United States in the region. According to an agreement from 1954, the US and Turkey share the base, which is about 60 miles from the Syrian border. Besides 5000 military members, the base is also an atomic hub, as the US continues to store 50 nuclear weapons here.

The early years of its existence proved the value of the presence of the Incirlik Air Base in Turkey, not only in countering the threat of the Soviet Union during the Cold War, by securing NATO’s southern flank but also having served as a deterrent for more than 60 years to possible Soviet and later Russian expansion. Moreover, Incirlik has been valuable during various crises in the Middle East, such as in Lebanon and Israel.

After September 11, 2001, the base once again became a focus of American operations as it was used as its primary hub for supplying US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. When Turkey joined the anti-IS coalition in 2014, Ankara offered Incirlik as a base for combat operations against the “Islamic State,” which had then brought large areas of Syria and Iraq under its control. Because of the geographical proximity to the areas in which the IS operates, Incirlik offers itself strategically favorably. As of late, the US had utilized Incirlik for a war against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

However, the importance of Incirlik extends far beyond military interests. Incirlik has been symbolizing Turkey’s allegiance to the West and its partners. Closing it down for the US would not only severely strain Turkey’s relationship with the US but also likely put its NATO membership in question if not potentially in jeopardy.

Nonetheless, the continues threats from Ankara have led the Pentagon to look for a strategic shift. As a result, the US recently invested 150 million to enhance the Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan. Other bases have also been enhanced in which could be an attempt to mitigate a future change from Incirlik to many other bases in the region. However, the threats are only one side of the coin, though they appear to reaffirm the transformation Turkey has been going through in recent years.

President Erdogan, Turkey’s increasingly autocratic leader, has turned away from both Europe and the United States and has instead attempted to establish a prosperous relationship with Russia’s President Putin. It becomes evident when looking at the fact that the two have met eight times this year already, but also due to Turkey’s decision not to purchase an air defense missile system from the US but Russia. Needless to say, that the latter is incompatible with NATO’s air defense system.

If Turkish were indeed to shut down the base, it would de facto have chosen a side with Russia and against its western allies, by tilting this highly important region in Russia’s favor.

Whether or not Erdogan is willing to take the risk of pledging his allegiance to Putin, remains to be seen as the gamble, without the US’ and international protection, could backfire eventually.

L'articolo Turkey’s Relationship with The US Continues to Deteriorate proviene da InsideOver.

US President Donald Trump made his maiden visit to Afghanistan on Thursday under a cloak of secrecy to celebrate thanksgiving with US troops stationed at the Bagram Airfield where he announced that he had reopened talks with Taliban.

Less than three months ago in September, an end to 18-year-old US war in Afghanistan had seemed imminent after Trump invited the Taliban to Camp David to shake hands on an agreement for peace. But the meeting was called off in an abrupt announcement by Trump, who poured water on the entire process after a Taliban-led terror attack killed 11 people including a US soldier.

But despite public overtures of anger at the Taliban, backdoor diplomacy continued. US Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad also allegedly met with the Taliban leadership in Islamabad last month.

Pakistan’s foreign office, although shied away from officially announcing that the two sides had met, said Khalilzad’s “visit would provide the opportunity to review the progress made under US-Taliban peace talks so far, and discuss the possibilities of resuming the paused political settlement process in Afghanistan.”

The Taliban were also careful in their criticism of Trump after he called off talks on Sept 7 which was seen by observers as the evidence that the group was still interested in a peace deal with the US.

On the other hand, the American diplomats continued their work to rebuild trust by allowing prisoner swaps. On Nov 19, three Taliban prisoners were freed after two western teachers were safely handed over by the insurgent group into the custody of American forces.

Although Trump’s announcement on Thursday did not provide any details on how the talks would resume, he did claim that the Taliban had agreed to a ceasefire.

While speaking to the troops, where he was flanked by Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, Trump said the Taliban “wants to make a deal very badly,” but added in a nonchalant way that, “if they do, they do, and if they don’t, they don’t. That’s fine.”

The Taliban, however, did not issue any statement to verify Trump’s claims. The Afghan government has long sought a ceasefire from Taliban but the insurgent group refused to agree to it in the past.

On the other hand, the Afghan Peace Process cannot become successful until Afghanistan announces final results of the presidential elections held in September.

For any long-term solution to the war in Afghanistan, the US, Taliban, Afghan government and regional neighbors must all be on the same page.

L'articolo Trump Announces Reopening of Talks with Taliban proviene da InsideOver.

The International Criminal Court will possibly investigate the involvement of the British military in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars for the first time. The plan came following the allegations that British troops had committed war crimes in both Middle East countries, despite previous rejection from the Hague-based institution to do so.

According to BBC’s Panorama report, London had covered the killings of innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. Panorama and The Sunday Times interviewed 11 British detectives who mentioned that they discovered evidence related to war crimes.

New evidence came up from Iraq Historic Allegations Team (IHAT-before its operation was shut down in 2017) who investigated war crimes allegations during the war and the Northmoor Operation, who did the same thing in Afghanistan.

Secret prisons and brutal torture on prisoners

Meanwhile, the Middleeasteye.net report said that the UK and the US operated secret prisons months following the occupation in 2003, hiding inmates from Red Cross inspectors.

According to the British veteran legal expert, the Red Cross may not have been informed about those prisoners, who may have been subsequently taken out of the country.

One of the two secret detention centers was located at an airfield and oil pipeline pumping station in Iraq’s Western desert, known as H1. The second one was outside al-Qaim close to the Syrian border, known as Station 22

The most notorious prison, perhaps, is Abu Ghraib, located outside Baghdad. The New Yorker report in 2004 exposed how American soldiers and guards systematically and illegally tortured and abused prisoners there.

The US also run two lesser-known prisons; one at Balad (north of Baghdad) and the other was at Baghdad international airport, assisted by the UK, Middleeasteye.net added.

The Red Cross report expressed grave concern about the mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and ad Umm Qasr.

Wars in Afghanistan

On September 11, 2001, four commercial planes attacked the World Trade Center (WTC) building in New York, the Pentagon outside the US capital Washington, DC and a Pennsylvania field. The tragedy killed thousands and prompted the war in Afghanistan after then US president George W.Bush believed that Osama bin Laden, head of the militant group Al-Qaeda, was behind the hijack.

“Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated,” Bush addressed the Congress as he announced the war on terror.

On October 7, 2001, the US and the UK launched an airstrike targeting Al Qaeda (once funded by the US to crush the Soviet influence during the Cold War era in the 1980s) and Taliban camps. Just a few weeks later, the ground battle began as more troops from other countries such as France, Germany were deployed into Afghanistan.

War in Iraq: When The Invasion Was Based On The Lies

While the war in Iraq started in 2003 after the intelligence report saying that Iraq and its then-president Saddam Hussein owned weapons of mass destruction (WMD), American soldiers managed to capture the Iraqi dictator in ad-Dawr. Hussein was indicted with war crimes and crimes against humanity and then executed in 2006.

A year later, CBS admitted it had revealed the identity of the person who falsified the story of WMD, used as the justification for the US war on terror.

Journalist Bob Simon investigated for two years. CBS stated that Iraqi fugitive named Rafid Ahmed Alwan was the first person who spread the lies about Saddam developing WMDs by telling the German government. Alwan, then biology student, fabricated the story that Baghdad’s secret agent had killed 12 biologists to get asylum from Germany.

Germany trusted Alwan’s statement, but he provided no evidence to back up his claims. Vox report said that the US intelligence relied on information from a man named Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, who was taken out of Afghanistan, tortured in Egypt then moved to the US Libi told Saddam provided training on chemical and biological weapons for Al-Qaeda.

The Pentagon warned that such a piece of information was false. However, Bush insisted on using it as credible information.

Why Must The ICC Continue To Investigate War Crimes?

A study released by Brown University stated that war on terror in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan killed 500,000, including American soldiers and innocent civilians.

The ICC previously blocked its prosecutor’s request to probe alleged war brutality in Afghanistan, citing instability and poor coordination in the country. The court’s decision came after the US repealed the visa of the court’s prosecutors.

In November 2018, the ICC prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, filed a request to resume a formal probe following a decade-long preliminary inquiry into alleged war crimes in Afghanistan since it was a member of the judiciary institution in May 2003, as The Guardian reported. 

Former U.S-president Bill Clinton signed the Rome Statute (as the fundamental of the ICC’s establishment)  in 2000, but it was never ratified by the Senate. In 2002, Clinton’s successor George W.Bush announced it would not join the ICC, citing the concern that American citizens could be put on trial by non-American law enforcement officers. Later, Barack Obama cooperated with the court by supporting ongoing proceedings and taking part with the ICC’s body.

Many slammed that the ICC only focuses on human rights abuses and war crimes in developing nations such as in Serbia and Republic Democratic of Congo, but turned a blind eye to what the US and its allies had done.

Katherine Gallagher, senior staff attorney at New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights, said in her article published in The Guardian that the ICC’s plan to continue the investigation shows that nobody can skip the law “when it comes to torture.”

“To date, no high-level US official from the civilian leadership, military, CIA, or private contractor has been prosecuted for war crimes and crimes against humanity. An ICC investigation could finally change that – bringing an end to the impunity US officials have enjoyed and, critically, some measure of redress to victims of the US torture program,” Gallagher wrote.

An investigation will guarantee victims and witnesses’ claims to be heard, given the ICC unique nature in which the most vulnerable ones have an opportunity to take part in all stages of the proceedings.

“It is high time an international body takes action. The ICC Pre-trial Chamber should authorize the investigation,” Gallagher added.

L'articolo Will the ICC Continue To Investigate War Crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan? proviene da InsideOver.

Liberating Syria’s second-largest city and economic capital of the country in 2016 from rebel forces was a turning point in the government’s war on terror. The city witnessed large-scale destruction of its industrial infrastructure as well as many of its famous historic sites and monuments. Aleppo has a population of some 3.5 million and thousands of its factories and industrial plants, mainly in the massive Sheikh Najjar industrial city were destroyed or looted, its heavy machinery including some of the largest textile plants in the region were dismantled, smuggled across the borders into Turkey and sold for a minimal price. Aleppo, which has a wealth of historical bazaars, mosques, monuments and the unique famous citadel towering the old town, is considered one of the world’s most ancient places and cradles of civilization. Some of its best-known industries including laurel soap, thyme processing and hand-made fabrics have survived many wars and invasions over the centuries. The Syrian provincial capital has been also renowned for its music and some of the best singers in the Arab world and a wealth of poets and other immortal literary figures throughout its history.

Why Aleppo? And why now?

The Syrian Arab Army started making major advances in neighbouring Hama and Idlib rural areas in recent months, liberating vast sways of territories, strategic towns and dozens of villages controlled by hardline rebel groups for over five years. The remaining anti-government militia fighters including pro-Turkish and Qatari-backed terror groups resumed their shelling of some Aleppo neighbourhoods from the northern and western flanks of the city, killing and injuring scores of innocent civilians including women and children. The SAA and its allies have responded by launching heavy artillery and a real bombardment of major rebel bases and forces in the area to stop attacks on Aleppo, still recovering from over three years of war and destruction.

Rebel rocket fire on the government-controlled northern Syrian city of Aleppo on Thursday killed seven civilians and wounded 30 others. “Seven civilians were killed and 30 more were wounded by a rocket attack carried out by terrorist groups,” the state-run Syrian television networks reported after the last spate of mortar shelling carried out by rebel and jihadist factions in the western parts of Aleppo province. Islamist fanatics of HTS (Hay’ at Tahrir al-Sham terror group) Syria’s version and arm of al-Qaeda terrorist organization, is still operating in western rural areas of Aleppo bordering the Idlib province to the north where other rebel groups are present.

As the Syrian army was deploying more forces and beefing up its military presence in the northeastern region of the country, following the Turkish incursion and the Sochi deal between presidents Putin of Russia and Erdogan of Turkey last month, rebel groups have resumed their rocket and mortar shelling of Aleppo. A salvo of rockets slammed into five districts of the city including Salahuddin, Hamadaniyeh and Jamiliyeh densely-populated neighbourhoods of the city, state-run media said.

Inter-related violence, or intertwined interests?

The return of terror attacks and indiscriminate shelling to Aleppo, in addition to reviving bitter memories of the costly and destructive war it suffered, is bound to have some serious ramifications on the hardly-recovered industrial sector in the city.  Damage to over 1340 factories including the country’s largest pharmaceutical and textile factories and other industrial plants in Aleppo is estimated run into billions-worth of US dollars. With growing fears and mounting concern that the total fall of Aleppo could easily spell catastrophic doom for the ailing Syrian economy, struggling hard under the burdens of nine years of unabated conflict, aggravated by years of stringent US-led economic sanctions, Syrian government and allied forces retook Aleppo at the end of 2016 after a massive offensive against an array of heavily-armed and well-trained terror and rebel groups in and around Aleppo

The London-based Syrian Observatory stated earlier that “a rocket fired from western Aleppo hit a car in Salahuddin, killing four civilian occupants.” The death toll was expected to rise as several locals and passersby civilians were injured, some seriously, and were rushed to hospital. Al-Kindi Hospital, Aleppo’s biggest hospital and one of the largest and most modern in the Middle East, was destroyed by terrorists five years ago by detonating a large truck laden with a massive TNT 20-ton payload. Pro-Turkish terrorist captured a dozen SAA soldiers during the attack, who were summarily executed in public in one of the most horrendous and unforgettable war crime scenes of the Syrian conflict which erupted in 2011.

The liberation of the city three years ago quickly and strategically tipped the balance in the Syrian government’s favour, and foiled Erdogan’s sinister plot towards this city in particular. Many Turkish politicians, including Erdogan himself, have on numerous occasions stated their public claim to Aleppo as part of their Ottoman Empire, ignoring the fact that Turkey illegally took Syrian Iskenderun province along with tens of thousands of kilometres than span from Iraqi borders east to Adana on the Mediterranean west, over the past 100 years, in a fraudulent referendum and a shameful World War I conspiracy deal with colonial France which occupied Syria and Lebanon till the mid-twenties of the twentieth century.

With Aleppo once again under renewed terror attacks and random shelling of civilian areas, the Syrian army – albeit largely preoccupied with developments in northeastern Syria and the long-awaited ‘mother of battles’ in Idlib – is expected to launch a fierce campaign against terrorist and rebel groups in the western and northern countryside of Aleppo soon. Recent airstrikes and heavy bombardment of rebel strongholds from where latest shelling of Aleppo had originated, are most likely just a sample and a prelude to the big action yet to come. The Syrian government simply cannot afford to leave its economic powerhouse and regional capital of Aleppo at the mercy of another terror campaign.

L'articolo Aleppo, Syria’s Economic Capital, Under Fresh Attacks proviene da InsideOver.