IS THIS THE BEGINNING OF THE END OF THEOCRACY'S STRANGLEHOLD ON IRAN?

The initial movement to dispute the results of Iran's Presidential elections has now morphed into a struggle for freedom and a rebellion against theocracy's 30 year stranglehold.

The unelected Guardian Council headed by the Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was imposed upon Iran following the revolution of late Ayatollah Khomeini. This body of clerics and jurists has bestowed upon itself the ultimate power to veto any laws passed by the elected Majlis - the Iranian parliament. The Council also has the bestowed upon itself the power to stop any candidate from taking part in elections. This structure has nothing to do with Islam and is a draconian powerhouse created by Iranian theocracy to keep a stranglehold on Iran's body politic.

The cracks that appeared immediately after the Presidential election are not so much because Iranians want Mousavi to be their President, but because they are sick and tired of the draconian rule by the mullahs for the last thirty years.

Prior to the Islamic revolution, Iranians suffered under the brutal and self serving regime of Shah of Iran and his vicious secret service - Savak. The 1979 revolution was not so much pro Khomeini but an anti Shah uprising. However, the people did not bargain for a theocratic led stranglehold on their daily lives. The frustration spilling out on Iranian street today is because of restriction on personal liberties and imposition of harsh rules on daily lives of Iranians especially on women.

For the first time clergy's power and the Guardian Council's stranglehold has been seriously challenged. The question is, where do things go from here? Continued confrontation will lead to more bloodshed. The chances are that clergy and Ahmadinajed will win this round and keep their hold on power, but for how long that is the question? This may not be the end but the beginning of the end for the clergy.

Also, at this time there is no apparent alternative to the system in place. The mullahs were clever enough to have enshrined their powers in the constitution which they wrote and had Majlis approve it.

Will the Iranian Military take over and throw out the clergy and the constitution with it? That may get rid of the mullahs, but will not be a good thing in itself. Both Ahmadinajed and Khamenei have support in rural areas and in the mosque and that could lead to a major unrest and possibly a civil war in Iran and that is no one's interest.

It has to be seen how all this plays out. Beyond moral support and electronic enabling, the Iranian people must be left alone to fight their battle for freedom and democracy. Any hint of behind the scenes involvement of CIA, MI6 or any other western intelligence agency will severely damage the cause of the people. The Iranian Government will use that as an excuse to label protesters as American/Western backed and crack down on them even more severely. So however tempting it may be, my suggestion to CIA and MI6 is to back off

PAKISTAN - GET ME MY COUNTRY BACK, DAMMIT

Pakistan is in turmoil. Its 170 million inhabitants are watching hopelessly as endemic corruption of its political leaders, fattened incompetent military Generals (through repeated military coups) and disastrous U.S. policies in the region are bringing the country down. A few thousand illiterate, bearded, terror infested bunch of mullahs are trying to threaten the very existence of the State.

A country with ample fresh water supply from its five rivers, an extensive canal irrigation system, fertile land, rich in food, fruit and with hard working people trying to make a better life for themselves should never be in this predicament.

Ever since its creation in 1947, incompetent and corrupt Pakistani leaders have surrendered its independence and sovereignty to the United States and the West. Pakistan's participation in contentious SEATO & CENTO defense facts caused it to be the target of Soviet Union. The US U2 spy flight flown by Garry Powers in the sixties originated from a Pakistani air base and was shot down by the Soviets, causing Nikita Khrushchev to threaten Pakistan (the famous shoe incidence at the United Nations).

The successive U.S. Administrations have supported military dictators in Pakistan. George W. Bush's mantra of spreading democracy sounded pretty hollow while he was busy supporting Musharraf. The U.S. Treasury claims to have given $10 billion to Musharraf regime, where has this money gone? The people of Pakistan have certainly not seen it, nor benefited from it, so when the US Senators & Congressmen repeat the $10 billion mantra, people of Pakistan laugh and wonder what the hell they are talking about!

Even the current political dispensation in Pakistan was structured in Washington under Condi Rice's conniving scheme. The late Benazir Bhutto and her husband Asif Ali Zardari faced a number of criminal corruption cases in courts in Pakistan, Switzerland and U.K, but once a deal was cut with Musharraf, suddenly all of the cases disappeared in thin air. Mr. Zardari now occupies the Presidency - albeit democratically elected.

Most of the damage to State of Pakistan has been caused by the aftermath of the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The prospect of Soviet Union controlling the Hormuz Straits, hence the world oil supply sent chills down Pentagon and White House spines. They came running to Pakistan to help them launch a proxy war to stop Soviets reaching the warm waters of Persian Gulf. Now the much maligned ISI of Pakistan became the corner stone of US policy as CIA knew little (if anything) about Afghanistan. With U.S. and Middle Eastern funding, Madrassahs were set up in Pakistan to indoctrinate/train Afghans and Pakistanis as Mujaheddin fighters, many of whom later became Taliban. Rumor has it that the current U.S. Defense Secretary, Bill Gates was involved in this effort and one of his charges was Osama bin Ladin.

No sooner had the Soviets retreated, the U.S. cut and ran leaving a fractured Afghanistan with no Government or political structures, a fragile Pakistan with three million Afghan refugees on its soil (one million Afghan refugees are camped in Pakistan) leaving behind thousands of stinger missiles and other weaponry in the hands of an undisciplined rag tag bunch of Mujaheddin. Not only did the U.S. leave Pakistan in peril, it also imposed economic sanctions on it leaving the country in a dire economic state.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton get it when they say "we are reaping what we sowed". No matter how good the intentions of U.S. leaders, people of Pakistan are reluctant to trust them again. They feel that U.S. does not have the stomach or the desire to resolve Afghan situation and it will cut and run in a couple of years leaving more turmoil behind.

The problem is that Afghan war is turning Pakistani Pashtuns into Taliban as they feel they are supporting their fellow Pashtun brethren in Afghanistan against foreign occupying forces. The increasing US drone attacks inside Pakistan are making the situation even worse as they feel Pakistan Government is complicit in these attacks and is therefore acting as an agent of United States.

The U.S. needs to change its Afghan policy and VERY SOON to pacify that country politically, not militarily. Karzai should be asked to bring all ethnic groups (including Pashtuns) to the table into a Government of national unity, so the healing can begin and foreign forces can leave.

In Pakistan, a huge development effort is needed in the two western provinces bordering Afghanistan. Economic opportunities need to be created, by a massive building program, schools, colleges, markets, roads, highways and airports need to be built to make the area more accessible. Young people need to taken out of madrassahs and enrolled in schools and colleges and they need jobs. Rather than spending hundreds of billions of dollars on war effort, a Martial type plan of (say) $30 billion would revolutionize this area into peace and prosperity within a few years. The Pashtuns are not looking to fight wars, except they have nothing else to do.

If the U.S. cannot do this to attain peace and prosperity in the region and to recompense Pakistan for the havoc wreaked by its policies, then I want it to get the hell out of the country and from that whole region.

Until recently the Pakistani public have been wondering, to what end has the country spent 50% of its budget each year on armed forces, so they can stage a coup from time to time and surrender Swat to rag tag mullahs? In fact there was even been a serious danger of military becoming irrelevant. But thank God the army has now taken the initiative to quell the self appointed sharia leaders of the region. And in this effort, the entire Pakistani nation is behind its military. General Kiyani is a serious man and so far he has set a good example of staying far away from politics. He needs to stay that way and focus on putting down the uprising once and for all. The mullahs may have the support of extremist elements, but not from a vast majority of 170 million Pakistanis. They want peace and prosperity for their country and want to put an end to past rivalries with neighbors. They want to turn their country into an economic powerhouse.

This is a defining moment for Pakistani politicians and its military. The politicians need to put aside their differences and come together to deliver what the people have elected them for - law and order, economic prosperity, health and education, peace and a great deal more. The Military needs to establish its writ over the rogue Taliban elements once and for all so they don't challenge the State of Pakistan ever again with their twisted brand of sharia law. GET ME MY COUNTRY BACK DAMMIT.

U. S. Policy is Flawed in Afghanistan

President Obama's new policy on Afghanistan and Pakistan is seriously flawed and sending more American and Nato troops is fraught with danger.

The question is, who is the U.S. fighting in Afghanistan, the Afghan people? How can a foreign force fight the locals and on what basis - they are fundamentalist fanatics? But aren't there fundamentalist fanatics around the world including the U.S.? If the U.S. is fighting Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, didn't the U.S. have ample opportunity to eliminate them in the past. According to some of the members of CIA's advanced team of operatives (well documented on CNN) they had Osama bin Ladin within sights at Tora Bora even before the Afghan invasion started but Donald Rumsfeld refused to order air raids! Perhaps OBL was needed alive to provide a reason for Iraq invasion.

There is no doubt that Taliban are extremist religious fanatics who wish to impose their archaic view of Islam over Afghanistan. There is also no doubt that this extreme view of religion is rejected by a vast majority of 1.3 billion Muslims around the world. But Taliban have never attacked the U.S. forces until they invaded Afghanistan, so why is the U.S. fighting them and to what end? If the purpose is to bring Taliban into mainstream fold so they moderate their views and become a useful member of the society, bombing and killing them is not going to accomplish the objective.

It is important to understand the ethnic mix of Afghans which is comprised of Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbeks, Shias and the majority Pashtuns. All of the Taliban come from majority Pashtun tribes. Pashtuns straddle across the Pakistan border in Baluchistan and North West Frontier province. The ties between Pashtun tribes go back thousands of years and artificial borders are meaningless to them. In its invasion of Afghanistan, the U.S. was misled by the Northern Alliance (comprising minority non-Pashtun groups) that Taliban is the enemy. Though Hamid Karzai is a Pashtun, but minority non-Pashtuns have held sway over the Afghan Government ever since the U.S. invasion. This has caused a massive backlash amongst Pashtuns who feel they are being deprived of their fair right by the U.S. and its allies. As a result they support and finance the Taliban because they feel they are fighting their battle.

Some brilliant minds in Rumsfeld's Pentagon and the CIA also exacerbated the problem by allowing Afghans to re cultivate poppy, which was completely eradicated by previous Taliban Government. The thinking perhaps was that if Afghans are happy with their cash crop, they will not attack U.S. and Nato forces. But guess what, the cash from poppy crops is flowing into the hands of Taliban with which they are buying weapons to kill U.S. and Nato soldiers.

The solution of Afghanistan does not lie in war, drone attacks or in killing Taliban. Didn't the Soviet Union try this already with a much larger and a more equipped force and failed miserable at it? If the U.S. continues to follow this course, the outcome will be no different. In addition, U.S. drone attacks on Pakistan border areas are radicalizing the Pashtun belt to such an extent that they are becoming a menace to the Pakistan Government to the extent of destabilizing Pakistan. Many in Pakistan believe that sooner or later U.S. will walk away from Afghanistan and leave this enormous problem in their lap, just as it did after the withdrawal of Soviet forces leaving a destabilized Afghanistan in Pakistan's lap.

What Afghanistan needs is peace and security and that will be achieved by dialogue. Pashtuns need a fair share of power and Taliban need to be brought to the negotiating table. A Government of national unity needs to be formed in Afghanistan and foreign troops need to leave soon thereafter. Foreign troops are the main cause of fighting, Pashtuns & Taliban look at them as foreign invaders just as they did the Soviet troops. Only the United Nations troops should be stationed in Afghanistan to ensure stability and peace between various tribes.

Afghanistan has been at war since 1979 and it is time to stop. Both Afghanistan and Pakistan need peace. The drone attacks on Pakistan have accomplished absolutely nothing (regardless of Pentagon's convoluted claims) except for killing poor villagers in the border areas.

What is needed is a massive development effort. A 'Marshall' type plan to pull out Afghanistan and Pakistan's frontier region from the 15th century to the present can bring enormous benefits and change the mindset of the people in that region. Continuation of present policy of more troops and more war will only turn Afghanistan into another Vietnam for President Obama. One hopes he has the foresight not to fall into that trap.

President Obama & Afghanistan

President Obama is getting ready to send another 17,000 troops to Afghanistan. No doubt, things are not going well in that war and Taliban have gained ground lately. But is sending more troops a wise move or will Afghanistan become for Obama what Vietnam became for Johnson - a great folly?

After 9/11 United States had justification to attack Afghanistan because that is where Al-Qaeda planned and perpetrated attacks on New York. The initial military operation was well accomplished, but the subsequent political moves have not been savvy. United States has a fundamental deficiency that not having been a colonial power like U.K. and France, it has never had detailed ground knowledge of far off places like Afghanistan.

The British fought the Afghans for nearly 200 years and could never gain complete control. The Soviet Union occupied Afghanistan with 140,000 troops, air planes, tanks, artillery and all kinds of weaponry and yet it lost the war and had to withdraw in shame leading to its break up. Now the U.S. and its NATO allies want to gain control of Afghanistan with just over 50,000 troops, so what are the chances of NATO's success?

The Afghan problem is no longer military (that purpose was achieved immediate after the US dislodged the Taliban), but it is a political problem. The ethnic Afghan make up comprises Pashtuns, Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbeks and other smaller groups. Pashtuns are in majority and all of the Taliban are Pashtun. Though Mr. Hamid Karzai is a Pashtun, but for many years now the US has vested major power centers with Northern Alliance players and that is not acceptable to the Pashtun majority. After Taliban were dislodged, what was needed was a unity Government with fair representation to all including majority representation to Pashtuns, but that has not happened to this day and that is the root cause of the Afghan problem.

Some of the moderate Taliban were willing to talk to the US to become part of Afghan Government. The former Taliban Foreign Minister, Mullah Mutawakkal offered to mediate with Taliban but because of domination by Non-Pashtun Northern Alliance, both the US and Afghan Government refused to deal with the Taliban. Over time sympathies for Taliban have increased. Various Pashtun Government officials, businessmen and warlords may appear to be with Karzai Government, but they not only sympathize but also fund the Taliban's fight because they feel it is their fight too.

Another disastrous policy that has had enormous impact on Afghan situation is re- plantation of poppy (Taliban Government had completely eradicated it). Some brilliant minds in the CIA & Bush Administration felt that if allowed to grow poppy, Afghans will be happy and content and not fight against them! Well, the outcome has been the opposite, funds generated by sale of poppy are flowing into Taliban hands to purchase more guns and hardware to extend the fight with.

Another significant difficulty in fighting this war is that NATO is a foreign force and Taliban are local. The populace supports the fighters the same way they supported Mujaheddin against Soviet invasion. They consider NATO forces as foreign invaders and feel justified to fight them. The Afghan Government of Hamid Karzai is impotent and considered a puppet regime despite being democratically elected. In reality Mr. Karzai's domain does not extend beyond Kabul and the rest of the country is the wild wild west.

The resolution of Afghan situation is in bringing all parties to the table for a dialogue including the Taliban. After all, it is their country too. Fresh elections need to be called based on fair representation for all to replace the current Northern Alliance dominated Western backed Government. Also NATO troops need to leave Afghanistan as they will always be treated as a foreign occupying force and as long they remain in Afghanistan, Taliban will fight them. They need to be replaced by UN troops drawn from a broad spectrum of nations to oversee peace.

What Afghanistan needs more than anything else is a major reconstruction effort to bring the country out of fifteenth century into the twenty first. Instead of wasting money on fighting, a $50 billion Marshall Plan is needed to build infrastructure, educational and health institutions and capacity building. That entire Frontier region of Pakistan and the whole of Afghanistan could benefit substantially from such an effort. Taliban could be history if an honest effort is made in this direction. Just sending more troops could increase the fight and make Afghanistan into another Vietnam with no end in sight.

IT IS TIME FOR PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST

President Barack Obama's appointment of former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell as Special Envoy to the Middle East is to be applauded. Senator Mitchell is an even handed, shrewd negotiator. He was the main architect of peace in Northern Ireland, which was probably as difficult an assignment as the Middle East if not more due to the length of that dispute. If anyone can bring peace to the Middle East, Senator Mitchell can, especially with the full backing of President Obama.

Irrespective of Israel's recent misguided foray into Gaza, its Government and leading political parties are talking reality after a long time. For the first time its Prime & Foreign Ministers seem to acquiesce the Saudi monarch's peace formula floated in 2002.

Apart from other obstacles, the disarray of Palestinian political leadership will pose a major problem. Mahmoud Abbas, the President of Palestinian Authority is no longer in a position to speak for all Palestinians as he has no writ over Gaza. He is also looked upon by most Palestinians as a U.S./Israeli plant, hence he lacks credibility. The leadership of Hamas has no writ over the West Bank, so they cannot speak for all of Palestine either.

A new leadership needs to emerge amongst the Palestinians, but much of their future leaders languish in Israeli prisons. One Palestinian leader who can command respect in the West Bank and Gaza alike is MARWAN BARGHOUTI and Israel knows it too. Despite incarceration, Barghouti has been instrumental in starting an education program amongst Palestinian prisoners in Israel. He is also responsible for starting a behind the scenes peace movement. Having split from Fatah, he has started his own Political Party - Al-Mustaqbal - the Future. In 2004 his announcement to run for President of Palestinian Authority ran chills down Fatah's leaders and they had to plead with him to withdraw.

Barghouti is possibly the one leader who can unite and speak for all Palestinians and negotiate with Israel a lasting and a permanent settlement. In time, he can also reduce political influence of Hamas in Gaza. Israel needs to release him and many other Palestinians leaders who are languishing in their prisons for no reason except that they oppose Israeli occupation. I hope one of first tasks Senator Mitchell will do, is ask Israel to release him and other Palestinian leaders immediately.

Soon thereafter Palestinian Authority needs to hold general elections in the West Bank & Gaza so a new leadership can emerge through a popular mandate. This is essential if the United States, Israel and Arab countries want a credible Palestinian peace partner. Meanwhile Israel should open all check points to Gaza, so food and fuel can flow again. Freezing the checkpoints has led to digging of numerous tunnels from Gaza to Egypt. If Israel is seeking a long term settlement, it must show compassion and not restrict humanitarian supplies.

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia's peace plan calls for a complete Israeli withdrawal from territories captured in the 1967 i.e all of the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. In return, Israel will not only get recognition from all Arab countries but will have full trading rights with them. This means moving out from the settlements in the West Bank and giving up East Jerusalem. This could pose some political problems for the Israeli Government from right wingers, but Israel has to decide whether it wants to keep fighting for another 60 years or coexist peacefully with a fully empowered Palestinian State next door.

In return, the Palestinians will have to make permanent peace with Israel and forgo all other claims. The refugees expelled from what is now Israel will have to give up their claims in exchange for land in the West Bank.

A great deal of time has been lost due to George W. Bush's foolish policies in the Middle East over the last eight years. However, it is still not too late and if the United States becomes an honest broker, peace in the Middle East can be achieved sooner than most people think.