War in Afghanistan and Pakistan will be lost in Geneva

While US President Barack Obama and his advisers, along with Congress, are deliberating over their response to the request made by General McChrystal for additional troops to be sent to Afghanistan, things may well be overtaking them on the ground. Indeed their decision on whether to switch focus to Pakistan, give the general what he wants or whatever else they’re cooking up in Washington may soon become wholly irrelevant.

By way of background it needs to be understood that the goal of Nato and the US, in undertaking these foreign adventures, has been to stabilise Afghanistan — and by extension Pakistan — in order to ensure that they are no longer the breeding grounds for extremism in Europe and America. In this regard many European and US analysts believed that the war in Iraq was without basis while the one in Afghanistan was long overdue.

If you could bring Afghanistan under control — or so the thinking went — you would obviate the need to watch your back at home — or at least to the degree that was happening at the time that the decisions were being made.

In truth it was fool’s gold from day one.

In order to control extremism in Europe and the United States you require legislation — and the will to enforce it — which ruthlessly deports and imprisons those who are unwilling to live within the system. That should apply to any extremists regardless of faith, race or anything else.

In other words pandering to extremists at home while sending young men to die on those battlefields, particularly where the will to win is dependent upon something as fragile and volatile as American public opinion, is both an act of cruelty and an exercise in futility.

Nothing can be gained from reining in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan if extremist views are allowed to flourish back home in a cocoon of free speech and democracy.

Yet for the purpose hereof let us assume that a victory — over an ideology? — could be had in Afghanistan; that Kabul filled with pro-American boys and girls wanting to be saved would bring about the desired effect. Pakistan rid of the Taliban (Somalia?) running schools for extremist indoctrination — probably going on all over the US as I type this — could be had.

What does that achieve?

Wholesale movement of those who perpetuate this extremism someplace else?

Invariably to be followed by Nato and the gang?

Maybe not.

You see it is exactly on this point that developments on the ground may well be overtaking Obama and his allies.

While the US and Nato have been aware of the “new” Iranian enrichment plant in Qom (somewhere southwest of Tehran) for some years now, the decision to expose it was only made last week. Whether this was because the Geneva meeting is at hand, to try and retard the use of it or otherwise, the fact remains that Obama and his allies chose to play this card at the G20 summit on Friday.

Ahmadinejad’s immediate reaction was a middle finger at the press conference that he held on the same day in response to the claims, followed shortly thereafter by missile tests conducted by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards on Sunday and Monday.

Accordingly if Obama believes he is offering the Iranian president two choices he’d best think again.

Of course the fact that Iran has been a major sponsor of both Hamas and Hezbollah must not be forgotten in all this. Like Iraq under Saddam, Ahmadinejad has been quite happy to sponsor or even allow the training of extremists on home soil.

He is unmoved by convention and Qom is conclusive proof that he means to have nuclear weapons regardless of the risks that he has to take to get them.

Regardless of the propaganda in, primarily, the Western media, Ahmadinejad is not an unpopular president among the masses of Iran. His opposition comes from the middle class which constitutes a minority of the population.

The “reformist movement”, upon which some pin their hopes for his removal, itself comes out of a stable of hardliners with true liberals or reformers being denied any opportunity to stand as candidates in Iranian elections.

Accordingly there will be neither a “Velvet Revolution” by “reformers” nor a popular uprising against Ahmadinejad who is, among the bulk of his population, a popular president.

Moreover there is no way that he would be going about his business of acquiring nukes without the blessing of the Supreme Leader Khamenei. If he was he’d be out on his ear in ten seconds.

What emerges from the Ayatollah post-election is his dislike of his president’s big mouth rather than of any displeasure with his stated goals.

As such if Ahmadinejad wants nukes and is prepared to undergo sanctions if needs be, he will enjoy both the popular support as well as that of Khamenei.

Clearly Iran is dedicated to a path of becoming a nuclear power regardless of the risks it is running to get there.

If this means allowing the IAEA in to inspect, telling the world powers it only wants commercial nuclear power or trying to refocus attention on Israel in order to get there then so be it. In their minds nothing will change the end game because Obama’s carrots will never be enough.

Two reasons:

Firstly once had they would be able to box far above their weight in world affairs. No longer would Israel be their main target, they would have far bigger fish to fry. Europe and the US would be powerless to intervene and Russia and China could no longer call them a mere ally because they would be an equal.

For example they could kick all the major powers out of their region because button-for-button they would be Russia and China’s match. The Muslim countries in their region at their beck and call. The tiny Shia minority infinitely more powerful than its Sunni cousins. If you believe otherwise consider how they’re shouting the odds now, what price if they were to acquire nukes?

Secondly for religious reasons which best be left until after you’ve had your Prozac.

Just let’s say there are compelling reasons why they would use them which have nothing to do with boring issues like logic. The good news is that Venezuela, who will acquire them shortly after Iran, don’t have the same religious catalysts requiring that they be fired. They’ll only do so if the US annoys them — perhaps once a year but no more than that surely.

As a result the only thing that will stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is intervention and unless I am totally misreading this, that is never going to happen.

Once there Tehran will be the extremists’ capital of the world and nobody will dare to raise a finger (perish the thought) against them. They will be able to arm, train and deliver hate to every part of the world and short of being nuked I fail to see who would be able to stop them.

This brings us back to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

If Geneva is the signal for more rhetoric and no tangible steps being taken against Iran then why not bring the boys home from these far-flung wars that are achieving nothing.

Victory in Afghanistan or Pakistan will simply mean that the militants will shortly be moving to another safe venue like Iran.

Besides why put them through all this when there is nothing that is being taught in Pakistan or Afghanistan that isn’t already being lectured on daily in London, New York or Paris?