Why Trump’s Abandonment of Syrian Kurds Is An Ominous Sign for U.S. Allies


US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi argues with President Donald Trump in a photo Trump released on Twitter. Photo: Twitter

The scene inside the White House Cabinet Room, by the looks of the photo released by President Trump via Twitter, was fraught with tension. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was on her feet and pointing at an incredulously looking Trump, mouth agape, chair pushed back from the table. His advisers, mostly heads down looking at their hands, could feel the storm. Pelosi reportedly said, “all roads seem to lead to Putin.” Sometime thereafter the Democratic Representatives stormed out of the room.

Trump’s sudden, impulsive decision to withdraw U.S. troops from northern Syria, where they had been fighting side-by-side with Kurds for years to defeat the terrorist group the Islamic State (ISIS), sparked this epic face-off. An estimated eleven thousand Kurds died for that cause. And here was Trump leaving them to be slaughtered by incoming Turkish forces and their allied militias.



In a press conference that followed, Pelosi questioned Trump’s mental fitness describing his demeanor as a meltdown. Trump fired back with the sophistication of a kindergartner that no it was Pelosi who had the meltdown. So much for executive messaging coming out of the White House these days.

This abandonment of the Kurds and Trump’s apoplectic retorts, are an ominous sign that highly volatile US foreign policy could easily spill over to other parts of the world including Asia. 

In defense of his pullback Trump tweeted that Turkey and Syria should handle the conflict themselves because the US is “7,000 miles away.” US allies Japan and South Korea must be taking note. They are, after all, about 7,000 miles away from Washington D.C. too.


For commentary direct to your in-box, sign up for the DecisionAnalytics newsletter. Also @brianpklein on Twitter.


Trump’s erratic decision making comes at a uniquely precarious moment as North Korea’s Kim Jong-un threatens action of some sort. Most likely he’ll restart nuclear tests if he does not get the Washington attention he craves by the end of the year. 

So far Trump has accommodated Pyongyang, including two long-distance flights to meet Kim in Singapore and Vietnam and cancelling joint US-South Korea military drills. His unpredictable dealmaking instincts were restrained by his then hardline National Security Adviser John Bolton. He no longer serves at the pleasure of the President. New National Security Adviser Robert C. O’Brien will likely play a much less dominant role than his predecessor.

How much longer will Trump stay the course on the US goal of denuclearization despite the threat these weapons pose for Tokyo and Seoul? At this point nothing can be taken for granted in an administration priding itself on the “unconventional” and the leadership style of a self-proclaimed man of “great and unmatched wisdom” who claims he is smarter than all of his generals.



The range of possibilities that might upend decades of US policy in Asia staggers the mind. Trump could unilaterally declare an end to hostilities with North Korea without getting anything in return. He could decide to pull a large contingent of US troops out of South Korea, declaring he’s bringing them home from a forever “war” on the peninsula so far from US shores. No President has done that since the Korean War.

Trump could suddenly decide to reduce the Seventh Fleet’s freedom of navigation operations through the South China Sea as some sort of quid pro quo to get China’s dirt on former Vice President Biden and his son Hunter. In the alternate universe of Trumplandia anything is possible.

The consequences of his unpredictable thinking are already on full display. Japan’s military budget has hit historic highs and is expected to rise nearly five times to US $240 billion in 2023 from US $47 billion in 2018. The increase, fueled mostly by security concerns over China and North Korea, speak to a new abnormal, that the US may not be counted on if Trump remains in office for a second term.

China, of course, would like nothing better than a US pull back, if not an altogether removal from the region, but Beijing can’t celebrate too quickly. Mutual defense treaties that govern US troop and military support for South Korea, Japan, and the Philippines limit any drastic reversals in policy.

Congress erupted with condemnation from both Republicans and Democrats in a powerful vote criticizing the President over his troop pullback form Syria. That forced Trump to backpedal with a warning that he could ”destroy” Turkey’s economy if their military incursion, which he let happen, goes too far.

Any dramatic upheaval in Asia policy would certainly provoke similar ire among legislators on Capitol Hill. He desperately needs the support of Republican Senators to fight a Democrat-led impeachment process.

That doesn’t mean Trump won’t try something just short of politically catastrophic. As he careens from one ill-informed pronouncement to the next it becomes ever more clear that he has no grand strategy. The White House is in the throes of an extremely chaotic and unprincipled phase of this presidency. 

US allies in Asia will need to be prepared for more of the unhinged, unhealthy, or worse. Their relationship with the US Congress is now more important than ever.


This op-ed originally appeared here on the SCMP website 10/24/19


For commentary direct to your in-box, sign up for the DecisionAnalytics newsletter. Also @brianpklein on Twitter.

Trump’s Diplomatic Reality Show Hits Summer Re-Run Season

Photo: AFP

This op-ed appears originally appeared on the SCMP website 7/5/19.


Last Sunday, US President Donald Trump crossed the guarded border in Panmunjom, a village in the demilitarised zone between North and South Korea. He smiled and shook hands with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un as photographers rushed to capture the history-making moment. This was, after all, the first time a sitting US president had set foot in reclusive North Korea.

What could have been a breakthrough meeting between the last cold war rivals instead devolved into yet another photo op for the White House family album.

Meanwhile, Trump gains little from giving away personal meetings like candy from a cheap dispenser.

A one-hour-plus Trump-Kim meeting followed without any discernible outcome, other than that the negotiators will get back to negotiating. So we end up where we started, sold on an empty victory as the Donald Trump diplomatic reality show goes into its summer rerun phase.

Under an administration that is obsessed with camera-ready events rather than serious strategy, the country’s credibility around the world continues to decline.

Imagine if this effort had gone into concluding a comprehensive treaty with the North, eliminating the missile and nuclear threat and establishing a durable peace on the Korean peninsula. Then this meeting might have been worth something.

Instead, Trump love-bombed Kim. This flattery may be Trump’s attempt to get the reclusive leader out into the world and impress him with the riches that could be his if he would give up his nukes – except that Kim is not that naive. To believe that Kim would succumb to Trump’s charms and miraculously give up weapons he thinks ensures his country’s survival shows a remarkable lack of sophistication on Trump’s part.

While the White House preoccupies itself with staging publicity stunts, North Korea keeps winning, the longer Kim holds out for a deal. Stringing Washington along is cost-free and gives the young leader larger international exposure and some semblance of overseas influence. Also, perhaps more importantly, it buys him time to continue developing his nuclear arsenal.

Meanwhile, Trump gains little from giving away personal meetings like candy from a cheap dispenser.

The administration’s preference for optics over policy is not limited to North Korea. Meeting Chinese President Xi Jinping at the Group of 20 summit in Osaka, Trump eased national-security restrictions on Chinese tech giant Huawei in exchange for a promise of increased Chinese imports of US goods. China was already buying large quantities of US agricultural products before he imposed tariffs – so yet again, we have an apparent development that just pushed the trade talks back to where they started.

However, Trump’s sudden back-pedalling on Huawei – like his flip-flop on ZTE, another Chinese smartphone maker that had been banned from buying US components after breaking US sanctions against Iran – only adds to other countries’ concern. With Trump, everything is a commodity to be traded.

On Iran, the White House has shown a propensity for haphazard thinking. After repeatedly warning Tehran that shooting down a US drone and attacking ships in the Strait of Hormuz would result in decisive action, Trump suddenly reversed course. He said he was concerned about the loss of life. But it wasn’t a convincing excuse because military commanders could have easily offered other targets or options for retaliation if that was the major issue.

Impulsive and consensus-bending actions are now being emulated among US allies. Japan and South Korea have, in the past, worked in concert on economic and security issues. At the G20 summit in Osaka, both countries adopted a declaration to “realise a free, fair, non-discriminatory, transparent, predictable and stable trade and investment environment, to keep our markets open”.

Yet, within days, Japan imposed restrictions on hi-tech exports to South Korea. The sudden action appeared to be in retaliation for a top Korean court ruling on Japanese compensation for wartime forced labour, an issue which Japan says it settled under a 1965 treaty.

The world will be worse off if this rot continues. Back in the US, domestic politics is also replacing substance with style and made-for-television flash. According to a Pew survey in June, an overwhelming majority of Americans – 85 per cent – believe that political discourse in the US has become worse, and 55 per cent blame Trump. Huge numbers believe that political debate has become less respectful, fact-based, and substantive.

Leadership has always had an element of stagecraft – grand settings for formal talks, the glare of press corps lights, red carpets. “Politics is show business for ugly people,” as the saying goes. But leaders have to be judged by what they actually accomplish.

So far, global leaders have willingly participated in Washington’s publicity stunts, but as the ties that bind nation to nation slowly unravel, international cooperation will become more difficult. Not only is the world less safe as a result, the preference for symbolic gestures over concrete action also encourages a rise in personality politics.

Even Trump admits in his book Trump: The Art of the Deal: “You can’t con people, at least not for long … if you don’t deliver the goods, people will eventually catch on.” The only question remaining is how much longer this con that has lasted 2½ years can keep going.


For op-eds and flash commentary direct to your in-box sign up for the DecisionAnalytics newsletter above.

Losing Iraq

It should come as no surprise that winning the peace in Iraq after winning the war a decade earlier proves harder in practice than in theory.

After years of occupation, an election and billions of dollars in U.S. funding, the all-inclusive society of Shi’ites, Sunnis and Kurds has failed to materialize. A new military built from the ground up as Saddam’s forces were disbanded turned tail at the first signs of organized radical resistance. Add to the transition equation a porous Syrian border in civil war, well-funded radical groups pursuing a mythologized Caliphate and a stream of foreign fighters eager for a new front — Iraq’s unresolved domestic fissures could only expand.

All of the official optimism about a new pluralistic Iraq, under both the Bush and Obama administrations, flew in the face of what political-military planners, historians and diplomats knew as far back as the late 1990’s when Iraq War I was waged.

Democracy is a tough sell.

In a region where centuries of animosity and mistrust continue to fuel a cycle of violence and counter-violence, pluralism, let alone democracy, has never been an ideal. And no amount of U.S. troop presence would change historical momentum fueled by ideological, ethnic and tribal divisions. Not at least without a new identity forged by the Iraqis themselves.

Why would the Kurds, for decades suppressed, gassed and murdered, find comfort in Baghdad under any rule but their own? The borders of modern Iraq, after all, were lines drawn by the British forcing traditional enemies together into a tentative order.

The Sunnis too, had no home in Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s new Iraq. Once an oppressor-class under Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship, they were quickly forgotten by the new Shi’ite-dominated government.

There has never been a South Africa-styled national reconciliation. No new equality in the ebb and flow of power and pain in the Middle East. Only old wounds and new scars.

Perhaps the existential threat posed by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the latest in a long line of radicalized groups, and its military rout of Iraq’s major cities, will fuse a fractured nation into a common front. That’s the most the U.S. could hope for (and support) until Iraq’s larger fate can be addressed.

New calls for al-Maliki’s ouster will hardly solve the problem. President Obama has insisted on a “political solution” while ISIS takes Mosul and marches towards the capital. Inclusion certainly helps, but now it must be in the fight for a unified Iraq.

First Iraqis will have to rally under one flag. Then they can decide for themselves whether to create a future of partition or pluralism.

Ten Foreign Policy Priorities for Obama – CNN Commentary

Ten Foreign Policy Priorities for Obama – CNN Commentary

(From CNN GPS – full list here.) Barack Obama has won reelection as America’s president. But while the economy – and avoiding the so-called fiscal cliff – will inevitably take up much of his time, there are numerous foreign policy challenges facing the next administration. GPS asked 10 leading foreign policy analysts to name 10 things that Obama should focus on next. The views expressed are, of course, the authors’ own.

Drop China ambiguity

By Brian Klein

Brian P. Klein is a global strategist and former U.S. diplomat. He blogs at Klein’s Commentary.

China’s economic rise and increasing military assertiveness have pushed U.S. strategic ambiguity to its limits. If a decisive position isn’t taken soon, allies and friendly countries will question whether the U.S. can back up its Asia pivot talk with action. Focusing on realistic trade liberalization, increased military contacts with China and firm engagement rather than the blame and shame tactics of the past must become a priority.

Meanwhile, the once vaunted Arab Spring, so full of promise and democratic zeal, shows signs of entering a long dark winter. Egypt’s President Mohamed Morsy whittles away at reforms in the marginally secular republic, while Syria’s civil war now threatens regional stability, with conflict overflowing into Turkey and Lebanon. Boots on the ground may not be an option, but a focused effort to influence, if not completely resolve these destabilizing trends will be essential to restoring peace.

Is Fox News A National Security Risk? A Benghazi Lessons Update

Is Fox News A National Security Risk? A Benghazi Lessons Update

It was supposed to be a conspiracy of epic proportions. The U.S. government knew about the threats in Benghazi and did nothing, even when pleas for help came from the Consulate. No other major news organization would follow the story. The CIA called for back-up but was told to “stand down”. U.S. government officials said it was a mob action following the release of a third-rate anti-Islam internet movie, and then changed their story. Could it be any clearer? Why wasn’t anyone doing anything about it?

In “The Real Benghazi Lessons” on CNN’s website I wrote about the need to de-politicize this issue and the realities of incomplete information, especially during a crisis. Over 100 comments poured in full of conspiracy theories and anti-Obama screeds. These replies, it turns out, were parroting the very same set of narrow criticisms that Fox News has been broadcasting at increasingly louder volumes in the run-up to election day.

And now the mainstream media swings back with detailed reporting on what actually happened. The Wall Street Journal dove deep into the confusion of the night itself, multiple attacks, a DoD drone brought in to provide real-time pictures (yes, the military did try and help), and squabbling between the State Department and CIA over who was ultimately responsible for security of the main Consulate building.

According to the New York Times the CIA “played a pivotal role in combating militants . . . deploying a rescue party from a secret base in the city, sending reinforcements from Tripoli, and organizing an armed Libyan military convoy to escort the surviving Americans to hastily chartered planes that whisked them out of the country.”

The response occurred within an hour of the reported first attack. Thirty people were successfully evacuated, including support from U.S. military assets. An unnamed official also stated that no one was told to “stand down.”

So why no detailed account until now?

Because so much of what was apparently going on in Benghazi was under the radar and classified. That’s how you fight terrorism and dictatorships, not in the headlines or the fanatical press chasing ratings. The risks to Libya’s fragile democracy, a hallmark of the Arab Spring uprisings, still remain high. Now, thanks to all of this talk of a cover-up U.S. foreign policy operations have been dealt a significant blow. Fox’s unrelenting politicizing of the issue has thrust these operations onto the public stage,  jeopardizing future U.S. government operations in Benghazi and elsewhere.

Are there real concerns over the security at forward operating diplomatic posts? Of course. And Congress is following up on their October showmanship of a hearing with a detailed investigation. They even set a post-election Nov. 8th deadline for a full accounting of what happened (State is also conducting another review according to an article in Foreign Policy.)

Exposing troubling and sometimes illegal U.S. government activity (say in the possible use of torture or the subversion of democracy in Watergate) certainly provides a critical and necessary check on authority. That’s the power of a free press.

This shouldn’t be confused with prime time personalities slinging unsubstantiated conspiracy claims and peddling innuendo as if it were real news. In the end Fox’s irresponsible coverage has generated a politically motivated blame game damaging U.S. national security in the process.

Related posts:

De-Politicizing Benghazi (also on CNN’s GPS as The real Benghazi lessons)

Muslims Didn’t Kill Diplomats in Benghazi

For more Klein’s Commentary sign up for email updates above or connect via Twitter @brianpklein.

De-Politicizing Benghazi – CNN Commentary

De-Politicizing Benghazi – CNN Commentary

(Also on CNN’s GPS website)

A recently publicized series of State Department email by CNN lays out in harrowing detail the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. They are sure to provoke another round of finger-pointing and more politically-motivated pabulum.

At 4:05pm: “The Regional Security Officer reports the mission is under attack. Embassy Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots.; explosions have been heard as well.”

Ambassador Stevens and four other personnel, according to the same email, are in the safe haven and the 17th of February Militia is providing security support. Based on this early assessment it appears the situation is under control. Diplomats are safe. Armed entities are defending.

Further reassurance comes at 4:54pm: “Embassy Tripoli reports the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi has stopped and the compound has been cleared. A response team is on site attempting to locate COM personnel.”

Unfortunately all was not under control, the compound was overrun, and Ambassador Stevens died along with three other personnel.

The political spin machine has been busy politicizing this tragedy since its onset. The same Congresspeople that cut State security funding hauled up department officials to berate them on the lack of high security at the Consulate (the same happened after the disastrous 1998 bombing of the U.S Embassy in Nairobi.) In the second Presidential debate Romney berated Obama for taking so long to identify the attack not as an unruly mob but the work of a specific terrorist organization (even though Obama did characterize the attack as a terrorist act shortly after events unfolded).

In another email released by CNN Ansar Al-Sharia claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter. Aha, go the conspiracy theorists, proof the administration knew but didn’t say anything for weeks. But no, that doesn’t prove a thing.

On any given day in the complex world of threat analysis people and groups make all kinds of claims. It isn’t as if terrorists are holding a press conference for the world’s media to ask questions. Individual bits of information are simply that. Single puzzle pieces that tell very little about the full picture of what happened until amassed and reconstructed.  Details must be verified, cross-checked and analyzed before informed assertions are made.

This very small selection of email give the impression of control but information at the beginning of any crisis is often hard to come by and spotty at best. No single account could immediately identify a specific attacker. Even establishing the facts of a traffic accident requires a police report and potential review by a judge or jury. It’s a process. An armed assault on a U.S. diplomatic mission, thousands of miles away, in a far flung province recently freed of civil war creates an infinitely more complicated undertaking. It requires, it demands time to assess and judge.

There are ways to address the serious issues involved in the loss of our diplomatic personnel. Inquiries can and should be made. Did the rush to set up a presence in Benghazi trump normal security procedures? Why was a rosy picture being portrayed of a post-uprising Libya when in fact serious threats remained. How critical was it to set up a new consulate in the first place?

Using the attack in Benghazi as fodder for more November electioneering, however serves only the short-term interests of those who benefit by not giving the security of our diplomatic missions the thorough review (and funding) it requires. This does nothing to ensure the future security of our diplomatic personnel. They deserve better.

U.S. Presidential Debate – A Foreign Policy Primer

U.S. Presidential Debate – A Foreign Policy Primer

With two weeks left before election day candidates Obama and Romney tackle foreign policy issues tonight. If last week’s battle royale over the economy is any indication this promises to be a no-holds-barred verbal slug fest. Tremendous changes have occurred over the last four years in the Middle East, Europe and Asia. Osama Bin Laden is dead, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are over. Dictators have fallen from decades in power. China continues to rise.

Still, the global economy has yet to fully recover with Europe teetering on the edge of recession and Japan mired in stagnant economic waters. Middle East political movements struggle to sustain new democracies and China’s economic and military advances raise questions about Asia’s future balance of power.

Here’s a primer on some of the big issues likely to be addressed and a few questions that need to be asked. The debate begins at 9:00pm EST.

Middle East

Since Obama took office four years ago a surprise Arab Spring swept across the region. Libya, Egypt, and Yemen saw leadership changes brought about by popular uprisings. Syria is still mired in its own civil war with little hope of quick resolution. While nascent democracies sprung up after the overthrow of decades of dictatorships serious questions remain about their stability and policies going forward.

For now the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt holds a tentative control with the military watching from behind the scenes for any signs of the nominally secular government turning into an Islamist stronghold. Libya meanwhile struggles with establishing a strong central government as events in Benghazi, where the U.S. Consulate was destroyed and diplomats killed by a terrorist attack, demonstrate.

In Iran a nuclear standoff continues with enrichment activities racing ahead and Israel threatening attack (though as sanctions take a deeper bit out of the Iranian economy Israeli President Netanyahu has eased off the war rhetoric).

The U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan marks the end of major U.S. operations in the region, closing a decade-long period of intervention initiated by the former Bush administration. The Afghanistan government still struggles with providing basic services to its people and countering threats of Taliban violence.

What will Obama or Romney do to further promote democracy in the Middle East without inflaming anti-U.S. sentiment? How can Iran’s nuclear ambitions be eliminated? Is Afghanistan going to slip into chaos once U.S. troops leave?

Asia

China’s inexorable rise gathered speed since January 2009. It completed construction on its first aircraft carrier, became the world’s second largest economy, and has survived the worst of the global economic meltdown with one of the world’s best growth rates. U.S. economic ties with China remains strong which has helped keep domestic inflation low.

Potential flare-ups, however in the South China Sea (with neighbors Vietnam and the Philippines) and East China Sea (with Japan) linger behind the facade of China’s “peaceful rise”. A once in a decade political transition is also underway with China’s new leaders expected to be officially acknowledged on November 8th and installed in March, 2013. Trade frictions are on the rise with increased WTO cases on goods ranging from tires to solar panels. The economy has slowed considerably from the unsustainable double-digit sprint of years past. Some economist predict much tougher times ahead as China’s new leadership faces a country in transition unlike any other time in recent history.

North Korea too has changed since Obama first took office. A young and relatively untested new leader, Kim Jong-Eun rose to power seizing every major military, political and governmental role in quick succession since his father’s passing. In one of the world’s most isolated regimes the family political dynasty remains intact. Hopes for significant economic liberalization have so far failed to materialize and tensions persistent on the world’s last Cold War front.

What does China’s rise mean for U.S. security and economic growth? Is China’s strategic intent to replace the U.S. as main regional influence and what will the U.S. do about it? What will you do as President to reduce tensions on the Korean peninsula and end the decades-long hostilities between North and South Korea?

Europe

Germany, the powerhouse of the continent, has lowered growth forecasts to a barely treading above water 1% for 2012. Most were hoping that the manufacturing giant could sustain strong growth against the headwinds of Spanish, Greek, and Portuguese recession along with a lackluster UK and newly integrated eastern European economies.  As the world’s engines of growth stall one-by-one, the threats of a larger global recession increase, as the IMF has warned with increasing regularity.

How will the European slowdown affect the U.S. economy and can the U.S. avert even more economic troubles if Europe stalls?

Terrorism

Attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi and a recently thwarted attempt in Jordan in addition to continued fronts in Yemen and now Mali show that the treats of terrorism have not abated. As long as arms continue to flow into the hands of radical groups and weak or failed states remain the threat of violence will continue. Concerted and sustained action can, however minimize the depths of the threat and seriously disrupt organizations bent on destruction.

What can and should the U.S. do to further combat terrorist organizations? Is the Al-Qaeda threat still a focal point of U.S. foreign policy?

For updates from Klein’s Commentary connect via email, Facebook or Twitter (links above).

The Fundamentalists’ Last Stand

The Fundamentalists’ Last Stand

In Swat, Pakistan three children were attacked including Malala Yousafzai, a 14 year old awarded for promoting girl’s education. She was taken off her school bus by an armed Taliban militant and shot in the head (as of this writing she is reportedly in stable condition.)

After years of acquiescence towards radicalized militant groups, the shooting of a child appears to be finally galvanizing public opinion in Pakistan, a country with a rich history of tolerance.

The BBC’s M Ilyas Khan notes:

“The attempt on Malala Yousafzai’s life has shocked and angered the nation, and reports from parliament suggest a wider anti-Taliban consensus might be in the works – something Pakistan’s fractious politicians have rarely achieved before.”

Richard Leiby reports in The Washington Post:

“The world image of Pakistan is, to put it mildly, not very good,” said Ijaz Khattak, a professor at the University of Peshawar who knows Yousafzai and her father, an educator and peace activist in Swat. “Society is seen as increasingly sympathetic to these terrorists. What this incident can prove to be is a catalyst, because the outrage can turn the tide against the religious fundamentalism.”

Moderate Pakistani Muslims are not alone. The terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya killed four including  Ambassador Stevens, a highly regarded official active in supporting the new Libyan government. Within days thousands demonstrated in support of secular Libya and against the attackers. In contrast to the riots elsewhere about an amateur video criticizing Islam the crowds of Benghazi descended on militia headquarters driving them out of the area.

Extremists in the Middle East have had a litany of excuses for their terrorist ideology. For decades U.S. support of regional dictators including Egypt’s Mubarak and for a time Iraq’s Hussein (when fighting against Iran) gave radical groups easy ideological ammunition. Now that the Arab Spring’s indigenous revolutions toppled these regimes fundamentalists have lost yet another rallying cry.

Malala Yousafzai, who is still struggling for her life in a Pakistani military hospital, may never be able to return to her home because of the continued threat of violence. Taliban militants apparently stated that if Malala lives they will attack again until they kill her.

The day she is free to live anywhere, study anything and say whatever is on her mind without fear marks the day fundamentalists have lost in Pakistan. That day may be coming sooner than some expect.

In the end, only moderate majority populations, galvanized by these acts of terror into a groundswell of popular outrage and action can make these attacks the fundamentalist’s final failed stand.

 

Photos: (Top) Inter Services Public Relations Department. (Bottom) Malala awarded Pakistan’s first Youth Peace Award. Pakistani Press Information Department.

Iran’s Economy at the Edge

Iran’s Economy at the Edge

(UPDATE: 10/3/12 – BBC reporting protests in Tehran.)

Months of tightening U.S. sanctions appear to be taking their toll on Iran’s economy. The rial plunged against the dollar (losing 25% in street value in the past week and down some 80% since 2011). Imports, paid for in dollars, have become increasingly expensive. Inflation approached 24% in August alone. Oil exports, a major revenue earner for the regime have plummeted as well. Shrinking dollar reserves make financing whatever remaining trade even more difficult.

These extensive sanctions include all imports, exports and financial transactions with U.S. entities. With Europe’s participation Iran can now barely function in the international banking system.

The main goal, however remain stopping Iran’s nuclear enrichment activities, not destroying the livelihoods of the general population.

Here’s the gambit: Ratchet up non-lethal economic force on Iran while avoiding a military conflict (including keeping Israeli jets on the ground and averting a regional war). This in turn should cause a political crisis that either forces Ahmadinejad to capitulate or a new leader to replace him ready to negotiate. Regime change a la an “Iranian Autumn” of popular discontent might follow, but seems unlikely at the moment and has not been a core objective. Then again stranger things have happened in the Middle East since 2011.

Iran’s nominally “elected” ruler, Ahmadinejad would carry the full blame of his country’s increasing isolation, not the behind-the-scenes clerics who really run the country. His decidedly more sedate tone in a recent UN speech (no tirades against the U.S. and calls for the end of Israel) suggest his popularity has taken a hit. With barely nine months left in his final term of office he might be more ready to negotiate. The deal on the table before this latest round of provocation still gave Iran access to nuclear material for fuel and medical-grade uses.

Unintended consequences in international affairs are a constant risk. Influencing extremely complicated systems, including tens of millions of people reacting to sudden economic hardship and political machinations of theocratic leaders chief among them.

The flip-side of this strategy could include a backlash against the West for causing economic harm, a more radicalized government, and nuclear enrichment accelerating as a result. No one said this was going to be easy. Still since Iran’s economy already faces home-grown problems from years of serious mismanagement current troubles probably won’t radicalize secular Iranians while hard-liners gain one more reason to run riot.

Either way results should be in soon. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, complete with an almost comical bomb illustration during his UN speech, continued to warn of a point of no return and Israel’s readiness to strike. The U.S. meanwhile re-affirmed its commitment to never allow Iran to possess a nuclear bomb, which could take less than a year once a decision to pursue weaponizing had been made. Iran’s economy gets closer to breaking point by the day and sanctions won’t be lifted without a deal while its nuclear race continues. The specter of destruction (economic, political or military) is coming to head in the not-so-distant future. Let’s hope the sanctions gambit pays off.

 

Photo: Wikimedia Commons

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Muslims Didn’t Kill U.S. Diplomats in Benghazi

Muslims Didn’t Kill U.S. Diplomats in Benghazi

First came anger. Anger at the images of the burning consulate. Anger at the senseless loss of life, at those who rioted, and the few who killed. On the anniversary of Sept. 11th that brought tragedy to so many, now more Americans were caught in the crossfire of a fight that never ended.

Then came questions. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton in her address to the nation asked “how could this happen in a country we helped liberate, in a city we helped save from destruction?”

Unfortunately anti-American sentiment never died with Gaddafi. An active terrorist training camp operated freely nearby. A bomb and note were left outside the Consulate back in July and a British diplomatic convoy had been attacked. The extremist flame has yet to be extinguished.

Finally the blame. It would be all too natural to say that Muslims were the cause of this senseless tragedy. After all, the killings are often “in the name of” Islam. Attackers yell “Allah hoo-akbar” (God is great), though Sunnis and Shia, both Muslim, yell the same when they kill each other. Muslims didn’t kill U.S. diplomats in Benghazi on 9/11, 2012, terrorists did. Those who call to the divine in the support of violence live furthest from the true foundations of their own religion, whether a Wisconsin murderer of Sikhs, a Norweigan fascist or extremists in Benghazi.

New images are now appearing of Libyans with signs expressing their sorrow at what happened. We can only hope they continue to come out in greater numbers to support the new Libya — their Libya — liberated by their own sacrifices to create a country free of the violence and fear of Gaddafi’s reign of terror and the radical groups now festering within their borders.

Americans too have now sacrificed their lives for the new Libya. Mourning has begun for the families who lost so much. The fallen diplomats went to Libya to do a job that few would undertake in conditions that most would never tolerate. Let’s hope that the majority of Libyans, who aren’t terrorists, continue the fight against those bent on depriving them of the liberty they fought so hard to win in the first place.

In memorium:

 

Photos: Mustafa El-Shridi and http://imgur.com/a/tlCyI