India’s challenges as an emerging global power are formidable and complex. With one billion people speaking 22 official languages in 1,656 dialects, India’s democracy is rent with tension between its Hindu majority and numerous ethnic groups. India’s 130 million Muslims constitutes the second largest Muslim population of any country in the world and makes India an inviting target for Muslim extremists and Salafists. In 2007, over 1000 deaths were attributed to terrorists attacks as India has the 4 th highest terrorist related death rate internationally.

The siege of Mumbai by extremists with Pakistani ties nearly provoked an Indo-Pakistani confrontation and caused outrage among the Indian people at its government’s failure to prevent the attack. The attacks underscored how India’s combustible domestic and regional issues can lead to dangerous confrontations with its volatile neighbors. Add to the equation an internal Naxalbite insurgency in 13 provinces, a civil war in neighboring Sri Lanka that has inflamed its India’s own Tamil population for three decades and sporadic Sikh breakaway movements that have prompted deadly violence in Northwest India and Afghanistan, and you have a recipe for domestic turmoil.

As a reliable U.S. ally in a region where America has few friends, Obama’s relationship with India will begin with a strong foundation. India voted for U.N. sanctions against Iran’s nuclear program at the risk of jeopardizing its pending 25 year multi-billon dollar proposal to secure oil from Tehran. India also launched an Israeli over-watch satellite to monitor Iranian nuclear development activities. New Delhi has contributed more peacekeeping troops to international hotspots than any other nation, and grants American access to its naval ports that are critical to patrolling strategic waterways in the Indian Ocean . In 2005, India and the U.S. signed a 10-year defense agreement that ex­panded joint military exercises, increased defense-related trade and established a defense procurement group. The U.S. and India have conducted more than 50 military exer­cises since 2002, demonstrating how far the mili­tary partnership has progressed in a relatively short period.

Ironically, if not tragically India’s 911 moment in Mumbai could be the most important development since the 2006 nuclear agreement that will cement U.S.-Indian relations. When pressed on India’s right to strike Pakistan after Mumbai, Obama said “every sovereign nation has a right to defend itself.” Fortunately, India ’s decision not to seek retribution against Pakistan after the Mumbai attacks marked a major step forward in its ascendency as a responsible power. An attack on Pakistan may have satisfied domestic calls for revenge but almost certainly would have led to armed clashes with Islamabad and possibly dragged other nations and non-state actors like al Queda into a regional conflagration.

However, India is stepping up its profile in Afghanistan and its virtual proxy war with Pakistan. Increasingly both countries view Afghanistan as part of its own security perimeter and India is determined to prevent a full blown Taliban resurgence. Indian embassies are up and running in Afghanistan. India is also creating stronger alliances with Kharzi and Northern Alliance forces and stirring the waters of Baluchistan resistance against Islamabad. On January 13, Khazi and Prime Minister Singh signed a joint letter urging Pakistan to stop its support of terrorist groups. India must tread carefully in Afghanistan, as many in Pakistan already subscribe to the notion that the U.S. and India are conspiring to encircle Pakistan and carve it up into small principalities.

Obama has expressed his clear support for strengthening America’s relationship with India. He has stated without reservation that Pakistan’s main threat is not India; but the growing Taliban/al Queda axis spreading in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas and Kashmiri terrorists. In his September 23 letter to Indian Prime Minister Singh, then Presidential candidate Obama voiced strong support for the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal and called for redoubling U.S.-Indian military, intelligence and law enforcement cooperation. But Obama has also made some initial missteps with India.

Although India shares strategic interests with the United States, the Obama administration must recognize that India has its own universe of national security considerations. Kashmir is a case in point. Obama’s suggestion that he would appoint a special envoy to help resolve the Kashmir border dispute with Pakistan was well intentioned, but not well received in New Delhi. India’s government balked at the notion of an special envoy, saying Kashmir is a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan. On November 15, Obama dispatched the new Senate Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry to New Delhi to acknowledge that Obama had no intention of interfering in the Kashmir issue. India is open to a political settlements but is not ready to give up territory in Kashmir or surrender its independence of action. India was also alarmed at statements Obama made during his campaign that America outsourced too many jobs to India. After the terrorist attacks in Mumbai, Obama and Prime Singh’s telephone conversation seems to have eased some of New Delhi’s apprehension.

Similarly, although India voted for sanctions against Iran’s nuclear program, the Bush administration attempted to bully New Delhi to revoke its oil deal with Tehran. But strongarming India didn’t prevent the Chinese from underbidding India for global oil contracts, and the U.S. isn’t providing oil to heat homes in Bangalore and New Delhi. Obama will have to be prepared to accept similar tradeoffs with India, especially concerning its relationship with China.

Despite its four wars and nuclear standoffs with Pakistan since the 1947 partition, it is India’s contentious relationship with China that has enormous global implications. China is Pakistan’s most powerful ally, and sponsored its drive to go nuclear. The two countries with world’s largest populations are engaged in a heated rivalry for energy resources, economic markets in Southeast Asia, and military advantage across continental Asia. India and America are both peacefully engaged with China, but both countries are troubled by China growing military strength. Neither India nor America wants Asia to be dominated by a single country. Indeed it’s hard to imagine a peaceful Asia in which there is not cooperation between India, the United States and China.

India’s $40 billion trade packages with China is a promising sign of cooperation between the two economic titans, but the list of explosive issues between Beijing and New Delhi is long. Movement toward a settlement of its 1,300 mile border dispute with China has slowed to a crawl. In the meantime China’s military has breeched the border of the Indian states of Sikkim and Arunchal Pradesh on several occasions. China has also been busy developing strategic naval and trade port facilities in Sittwe, Burma; Chittatong, Bangladesh; Hambantota, Sri Lanka and its new port in Gwadar, Pakistan. Connect the dots and China’s aggressive agenda has the look and feel of a military encirclement campaign, rather than protecting sea lanes and ensuring the delivery of energy supplies as China contends.

For Barack Obama, monitoring developments between India and China will be important. The U.S. must avoid putting New Delhi in any awkward situation in which it appears that India is being pitted against China for the benefit of the United States strategic interest. The U.S. must find creative ways to support India, not intervene on its behalf. India will balk at such moves and China will react with hostility. The more India and China broaden their ongoing diplomatic talks and the U.S. engages Beijing, the greater the chances that flashpoints of conflict can be peacefully resolved.

By continuing to help India integrate its economy with Australia, Japan, South Korea, and the smaller Southeast Asian nations, the United States can greatly assist in promoting stability in the Pacific Rim. With the development of India’s civil nuclear power program and working jointly on environmental issues, America and India can build a very special relationship between the largest democracies in the Western and Eastern hemispheres. India’s road ahead will be filled with twist and turns, and the avoidance of open conflict between Pakistan or China is indispensible to India’s ascent. The fact that India has come so far in building democracy in the world’s most diverse society is part of the new story of the 21 st Century. A smart, nimble and patient American foreign policy toward India under the Obama Administration can truly help change the face of the Asian continent.

The excitement in Iran surrounding Obama’s election and his campaign pledge to engage in talks with no pre-conditions has faded. Vowing to use “more persuasive” carrots and sticks, or force if necessary to nudge Iran off its nuclear path, Iran ’s leaders condemned Obama’s remarks as more of the same Bush polices. After nominating the conspicuously pro-Israel Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State , Iran ’s clerical and state ministry leaders concluded that Obama’s posture toward Tehran has calcified with diminishing prospects for change; at least until the June elections.

Leaving aside the incessant rhetoric characterizing Iran as a rouge state led by medieval mullahs, Tehran has transformed itself from Khomenei’s chaotic Islamic state into a classic regional hegemonic power. As a largely symbolic leader, Ahmadinejad embodies a confrontational response to the Bush administration’s aggressive regime change agenda. Whether he can serve as an effective spokesman for the newer imperatives of consolidating Iran ’s emerging power bases in Iraq , Afghanistan , Syria , Lebanon and the Gaza Strip is the subject of debate raging inside Iran ’s ruling circles.

Four names continue to surface as possible presidential candidates in 2009; Parliament speaker and former chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani, former President Mohammad Khatami, Expediency Council leader Hashemi Rafsanjani and Tehran mayor Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf. Ironically, Ahmadinejad beat three of the four potential candidates in the 2005 elections and Khatami has already served as President. Iranian conservatives and pragmatists working for Ahmadinejads defeat are reluctant to consider new blood, but they are moving to close ranks behind an anti-Ahmadinejad unity candidate. The stakes are too high to risk another 2005 surprise election that elevated Ahmadinejad from relative anonymity to the presidency. If the consensus candidate is not former President Khatami, Iran ’s new president could well be Baqer Qalibaf, the up-and- coming mayor of Tehran .

According to the Iranian blogger Zamin, Qalibaf has “spent the last few years remaking himself into a hardworking and successful mayor of Iran ’s most important city.. He has been quietly working on development projects in Tehran and building political bridges with Iranian and foreign leaders. This year he traveled to Iraq and met with Ayatollah Sistani, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, President Jalal Talabani and the mayor of Baghdad whom he pledged to help rebuild the Iraqi capital city. Qalibaf has positioned himself as a moderate who favors diplomacy and pragmatism over rhetoric and saber-rattling. He has a distinguished background in both the Basij and Revolutionary Guards (he retired as a Major-General), earned a Ph.D. in political science, and was Chief of Police for Tehran .”

Qalibaf, is a compelling candidate, but it is circumstances on the ground in Iran that are moving the Persian street against Ahmadinejad. With a 25% inflation rate, 20% unemployment and oil prices that declined $100 a barrel since June, Ahmadinejad’s reformists and conservative opponents are attacking his failed economic policies and broken promises to end corruption and spread Iran ’s oil wealth to its poorest citizens. Quite the opposite his subsidy programs have fueled rampant inflation. Petrol rationing, power blackouts, water shortages and limited access to investment capital is squeezing Iran ’s economy. Even Iran ’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, publicly counseled Ahmadinejad in April to “pay attention to inflation.” W hen Ahmadinejad blamed his critic’s failed nuclear negotiations with Europe for the harsh economic sanctions imposed on Iran , Larijani countered that Ahmadinejad was too pro-U.S. for considering the opening of a U.S. Interest Section in Tehran . In domestic and foreign policy, these instances illustrate the difficulties hard line conservatives are having uniting behind Ahmadinejad’s United Principalist Front.

While speculation intensifies about who will be Iran ’s next president, the emerging consensus across the political spectrum regarding Tehran ’s expanding regional role in the Middle East is of greater significance to the incoming Obama administration. Iran wants America to acknowledge its sphere of influence in Iraq . The clerics and power ministry leaders also want a cessation of U.S. support for the Jundalla, the Mujahidin-eKhalq and PEJAK anti-Iranian forces operating inside its borders. Iran wants to be treated as an equal and indispensible player on energy issues in the Persian Gulf and better prices for its oil. Iran also wants fairness and greater access to opportunity for Shiia minority communities across the Middle East .

These issues are negotiable and could form the basis for start-up talks between Iran ’s new president and the Obama administration, either separate from the nuclear issue or on a two-track approach. On the other hand, Obama may continue the Bush policy of direct talks until Iran halts all work on its enrichment program. It is a policy Iran will never agree to; a policy that will allow Iran to continue its enrichment activity with no verification process; a policy that can only increase the possibility of U.S. / Israel air strikes against Iran without eliminating Iran ’s nuclear program. It is a policy Obama should abandon in favor of direct negotiations.

For Barak Obama, who said that Iran will not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon, time is running out and so are his options. Iran will master the enrichment process to make a nuclear weapon during his first term of office. The elections in June 2009 may present Obama with his first big chance to alter the trajectory of U.S. Iran relations that are headed for a collision. He should take it.

There are three hurdles that Obama must clear to prevent a breakdown of Iraq ’s fragile peace. To close out the war as promised, Barak Obama must navigate a tenuous Status of Forces agreement and pacify the Sunni while integrating them into the national army and Iraq ’s oil economy. But his first obstacle will be the outcome of the January provincial elections, which are going to increase tension and violence across the country.

The Sunni will participate in greater numbers than the two previous national elections. But if they don’t secure sufficient political power to ensure their interests are met, the political chasm in Iraq will widen and the Sunni may return to violence to force another hearing of their grievances. Tension will also flare between the Sunni because “Awakening” candidates will contest and in some cases defeat powerful members of the Iraqi Islamic Party, the largest Sunni party in Iraq now.

In southern Iraq , Nouri al Maliki’s Dawa party and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq will face off. In the aftermath of the inter-Shiia war in Basra, friction between the two parties is sharpening over control of the national parliament. The radical nationalist Muqtada al Sadr’s forces will oppose both parties for signing the Status of Forces agreement which he claims surrenders Iraq ’s sovereignty.

The provincial elections in Kurdistan have been postponed until an agreement is reached on the status of the oil rich city of Kirkuk; Iraq’s most volatile fault line. The Kurds insist that Kirkuk be incorporated into the Kurdistan’s autonomous region and won’t take no for an answer. They shouldn’t. As the largest ethnic group in the world with no homeland, it’s time they be made whole. With Kirkuk integrated into Kurdistan, the oil revenue generated would not only power Erbil from autonomy to virtual independence, but shake up the region.

In addition to the Sunni and local Turkomen, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the U.S. will all oppose Kurdistan’s drive to bring Kirkuk into its fold. Violence is already being unleashed in Kirkuk and tension is running high. The Kirkuk referendum has been referred to the United Nations for reconciliation, but the day is coming when Kurdistan cannot be denied. At the end of the day the Shiia will likely side with the Kurds on Kirkuk, or risk fracturing the alliance they need to consolidate their grip on the rest of the country.

Another flash point of contention will be incorporating the Sunni Awakening forces into the national army and police forces. Some 91,000 “Sons of Iraq” forces were on the United States payroll fighting al Queda–many of them were former Baathists. How much the Shiia majority chooses to integrate them into the army and national police force is a critical and touchy power sharing issue. If these Sunni soldiers are not integrated into the security forces, and instead are tossed into unemployment lines, it will be an open invitation for them to resume sectarian warfare, or worse—renew their alliance with remaining al Queda Iraq forces. Last month, the Iraqi government began paying the Awakening soldiers, but they must go further to fully integrate them into the national army and national police forces in the post-election period.

If things go reasonably well after the elections Obama may have enough daylight to begin his 16 month troop withdrawal. Obama’s withdrawal timetable was not realistic when he made it and is even less realistic today; which explains why he has modified his position, saying all “combat” troops will be out of Iraq in 16 months. Iraq ’s national army and police will not be prepared to take full control by July 2010—as evidenced by the Status of Forces (SOF) agreement that calls for U.S. forces to be out of Iraq ’s cities by June 2009 and out of Iraq completely by 2011.

While the SOF has been approved by Iraq ’s parliament, it must still be approved in a June 2009 referendum; an awkward timetable considering all U.S. forces must be out of the cities in June 2009. Who is to say that the Iraqi mass will approve the SOF? U.S. commanders in Iraq are already suggesting that not all their soldiers will be out of Iraq ’s cities by June 2009, and that training forces may need to remain in the cities. For both Shiia and Sunni forces looking to undermine al Maliki, the public statements by U.S. commanders are damaging.

For Maliki who gave an ironclad promise that U.S. troops will not be in Iraq any longer than 2011, the pressure is on. As for Obama, many have speculated that the SOF has given him more breathing room to gage how safely and how fast they can redeploy troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, where the situation is deteriorating with each passing day.

Much of the focus has been on how the Status of Forces agreement will impact security within Iraq and Obama’s withdrawal plan. But the long-range strategic implications of the SOF are enormous. Acceptance of the Status of Forces agreement means that a permanent U.S. military presence in Iraq will no longer be a reality—a complete reversal Bush’s strategic plan that was predicated on a robust U.S. military presence to project power across the Middle East for years, if not decades to come. Nor will there be a credible counterweight in the Middle East with the strategic depth and proximity to counter Iran ’s growing dominance of the Persian Gulf.

For 25 years Saddam Hussein kept the neighborhood safe for Sunni Arab monarchies and gulf sheikdoms, until he finally turned on them. With Saddam gone and the Shiia majority controlling the machinery of governance, Iran is slowly and methodically tightening its grip on Iraq . Iran has effectively annexed southern Iraq. Their proxies control Basra, the crown economic jewel of Iraq, where they are siphoning of millions of barrels of oil and revenue from the nation’s principal seaport. Iranian rials are the currency of commerce and choice in Southern Iraq. Having neutralized moderate Shiia clerics, including the Ayatollah Sistani, Iran controls the mosque and charities, and is slowly transferring the religious center of international Shiia from Najaf to Qom, Iran. Whether it takes five years or ten years, Iran will eventually dominate Iraq through its sophisticated system of indirect proxy rule that was perfected in Lebanon with the Hezbolla over a 20 year period. Bush’s strategic blunder in Iraq, is a national security setback in the region for the United States. Iraq is now in the orbit of Iran’s expanding sphere of influence. At best, Obama’s can limit the damage by getting out of Iraq in good order and moving on to Afghanistan where events are growing even more complicated.

Wars, like life, have uncertain outcomes. While there is a good chance that Barak Obama can affect an orderly withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq without the country spiraling into chaos, there is also much that could go wrong. Ironically, it is Iran that is best positioned to help Obama keep the peace in Iraq. For the cautious and inexperienced Obama, it’s highly unlikely he will have the maturity to grasp and act on this fundamental reality. For that reason, 2009 will be Obama’s year of living dangerously in Iraq.

Of course, most Americans are preoccupied with the fact that the stock market dropped again today, housing prices continue to slump, consumer confidence is at record lows and we want a government that will do something about this, not be obsessed with who Barack Obama met a couple times years ago. Besides, this “news” is five years old. If Obama’s character is such an issue, why did they wait so long to bring this up?

John McCain and Sarah Palin could care less about what Americans need. Instead, they care about irrelevent things that Barack Obama did years ago and dividing Americans into us and them. It’s really a sad display of desperation and a book that keeps writing itself – “How Not To Run A Presidential Campaign.”

Did you hear the one about Obama being a Muslim? But, I thought he attended a church for years that employed an anti-American reverend. Since when do Muslims have reverends? The Republican ticket can’t even keep their nonsense straight anymore.

The calculus of a new Iraq peace strategy that incorporates Iran’s cooperation is straight forward. Iran wants dramatic reductions of the 130,000 U.S. troops perched on its borders and threatening its national security. Tehran also wants an end to U.S. troop cross border raids and ongoing U.S. covert operations inside Iran authorized by President Bush’s executive finding in 2007. On the other side of the ledger Obama needs to start moving troops out of Iraq immediately and shifting forces to Afghanistan. He also needs Iran’s help to reign in Iraqi Shiite militias, and push Shiite leaders to negotiate in good faith by giving minority Sunni forces enough political and economic clout to avoid the resumption of sectarian warfare.

Barak Obama is fully aware that his 16 month troop withdrawal timetable is not realistic. Iraq’s government, national army and national police will not be prepared to take full control by August 2010. Thus, he must play for time to allow Iraq’s government to stabilize while national reconciliation inches forward. If violence and U.S. troop deaths are minimal, Americans will be forgiving of an extended timetable. The critical next step in the process and one that is out of Obama’s control is the Status of Forces Agreement currently being negotiated with Iraq. It calls for U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq’s major cities by June 2009, and for all U.S. troops to be out of Iraq by December 31, 2011. Under pressure from other radical Shiite forces and Iran to shorten the timeline, Maliki announced on October 19 that the agreement is not satisfactory and must be amended before being voted on by Iraq’s parliament. Thus, the Status of Forces Agreement will shape the withdrawal timeline that Obama ultimately will navigate.

Going forward, the political and military landmines that could impede progress toward a U.S. troop withdrawals in Iraq are formidable. Extremists and al Qaeda forces will not go gently from Iraq. Obama and American military leaders in Iraq will also need to craft a strategy to maintain the military separation between the Sunni Awakening forces and al Queda. In addition to the political reconciliation process, Obama will need the assistance of Iran and Saudi Arabia to help broker and guarantee agreements between the Sunni, the Kurds and the majority Shiite. The next big hurdle will be the national and provential elections in Iraq in 2009, and the explosive referendum on the status of Kirkuk. Ironically, Iran also has presidential elections in 2009. If President Ahmadinijad is defeated by a more “moderate” candidate, Obama’s ability to work with Iran and sell his policy to the Ameircan people could become immeasurably easier.

To secure Iran’s cooperation in Iraq, Obama must make the first move. At the moment, Iran holds a strong position in Iraq. Iran’s long standing ties with Iraq’s majority Shiite religious community, its substantial economic investments in Iraq and its ties to the Kurdish political leaders constitutes substantial political clout. Thus, it’s unlikely that Obama can coerce Iranian cooperation by threatening aerial strikes against their nuclear sites, getting sanctions on Iranian gas imports or an improbable land invasion. Quite the opposite, Obama could open the door to direct talks with Iran on the Iraqi conflict with soft power. By reviving recently scuttled proposals to establish direct commercial airline flights between Iran and America, and by resurrecting talks on opening a U.S. Interest Section in Tehran, Obama could signal to Iran’s Supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei that there is a genuine interest in diplomacy.

Apart from direct talks with Iran on Iraq, Obama should revive the Geneva Contact Group with Iran to discuss a broader array of issues. The Contact Groups’ back channel negotiations proved invaluable in gaining Iran’s assistance at the outset of the U.S. Afghanistan invasion. Obama will also be under tremendous pressure from Republicans and military hawks to halt Iran’s nuclear drive to master the uranium enrichment process. Obama’s initial efforts will likely center around getting an IAEA verification team back on the ground in Iran. Obama can score a huge political breakthrough if he can convince the Iranians to temporarily suspend enrichment activity while getting the inspection teams up and running. However, he may have to settle for allowing enrichment to continue as a condition for getting the inspection teams back in. The nexus of Obama’s position must be that today we have the worse of both worlds; no IAEA nuclear inspections and Iran’s continuation of the enrichment process. The non-starter that Obama must avoid is insisting that Iran stop its uranium enrichment program as a pre-condition to talks.

What is most critical to a new Obama administration’s foreign policy approach in the Persian Gulf is to cultivate an environment that encourages Iran to re-examine the opportunities to improve its relations with the United States and its own national security interest. Iraq is the place where the national security interest of the U.S. and Iran intersect and both sides have something to gain. If substantial progress can be made there, the potential to achieve progress in Afghanistan and on the nuclear standoff will be dramatically improved.

Mobile post sent by washingtonhotlist using Utterz.  Replies.  mp3 ]]> http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/thoughts-on-recent-events/feed/ 0 http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/lieberman-has-officially-lost-it/ http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/lieberman-has-officially-lost-it/#comments Wed, 21 May 2008 19:20:28 +0000 Joshua Rosenstock http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/?p=882 “…John McCain, who has shown the political courage throughout his career to do what he thinks is right – regardless of its popularity in his party or outside it. John also understands something else that too many Democrats seem to have become confused about lately – the difference between America’s friends and America’s enemies.”

Oh really, [...]]]> “…John McCain, who has shown the political courage throughout his career to do what he thinks is right – regardless of its popularity in his party or outside it. John also understands something else that too many Democrats seem to have become confused about lately – the difference between America’s friends and America’s enemies.”

Oh really, Joe? When McCain spoke at Liberty University only a couple years removed from calling Jerry Falwell an “agent of intolerance” was he doing the right thing or the popular thing?

If Senator McCain understands the difference between America’s friends and enemies, why has he consistently advocated for a war that has given power to a government with strong ties to Iran, our consensus enemy? It looks like Lieberman shares McCain’s lack of knowledge regarding the history and people of the Middle East. Cheney said we would be greeted as liberators, meanwhile it is the President of Iran that gets the Iraqi red carpet treatment while our leaders are targeted in bombings.

The Iraq War – draining our military and economy since 2003. Brought to you by fellow delusional Senators Lieberman and McCain.

The proceeds of this sale could singlehandedly pay for about eight more weeks of continued military operations in Iraq. One can imagine that a new package of tax cuts in this neighborhood will soon be proposed by the administration, which will be predictably steered towards weapons contractors and wealthy individuals.