(
Editor's note: This interview was originally broadcast as part of TheStreet.com's Happy Hour on Thursday. To listen to the audio, click here.)
Nearly six months after the tragic terror in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania, the new offensive against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan only sharpens the focus on the reality that the war against terrorism remains difficult and at times painful. Combined with the recent escalation of violence in the struggle between Israel and the Palestinians, we are reminded of the potential powder keg that is the Middle East. To help us sort through recent developments in the region and look at the progress in our war against terror is Dr. Marvin Zonis.
Dr. Zonis is professor of international business at the Graduate School of Business at the University of Chicago and head of an international consulting firm that bears his name. Dr. Zonis has advised a number of U.S. Presidents regarding U. S. Foreign policy and has written extensively on U.S. foreign policy and politics in the Middle East.
TheStreet.com: Dr. Zonis, welcome back.
Dr. Marvin Zonis: Nice to be back. Thank you very much.
TheStreet.com: Let's begin with the news of last week and this week. Our new assault against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan has left several -- last count seven or so -- U.S. soldiers dead or injured in the first multiple casualties of the campaign and the first downed aircraft in combat. How would you assess the war against terror so far, and more importantly, where do we go from here?
Dr. Marvin Zonis: Well, the Bush Administration has clearly made a decision about where we go from here, which is to begin to strike at terrorist bases and terrorist cells which intelligence suggests exist in countries other than Afghanistan. We know that American troops are in the Philippines, that American troops are being sent to Yemen, that American troops are all over central Asia and will certainly go to some new locations. That's a really startling set of new developments at this massive expansion in the war against terrorism.
Meanwhile, of course, as we see from this ongoing conflict to which you referred -- we haven't finished the job in Afghanistan. They haven't finished it in two ways. One, Al Qaeda is clearly defeated, but they are still in the battlefield. And secondly, Mullah Omar of the Taliban and Osama bin Laden are still at large.
TheStreet.com: Bin Laden is really a focus target. In Afghanistan, we knew exactly what we were going after, Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. But these additional targets -- places like Yemen, Georgia, the Philippines -- the targets seem more ephemeral. Does action against those places risk a splintering of support for this war?
Dr. Marvin Zonis: There is no question that the focus is becoming increasingly diffused, and we are increasingly at risk of offending and angering our coalition partners. Because, really, the targets are getting diffused, we don't know with precise intelligence who these individuals are, how many there are and in which countries. So, I do think that people are talking about mission creep -- that this thing is broadening out in a startling way.
'The riskiest country for the U.S. war on terrorism is Pakistan, and President Musharraf is doing everything he can to stay in power, and we need to be doing more to help him do that.'
TheStreet.com: Dr. Zonis, Eric Gillin in New York. Another hot spot is the recent and rapid escalation in violence between Israel and the Palestinians. It appears that the Palestinians may have actually increased the violence, hoping to scuttle any attempt at the new peace talks. And, Israel has responded in kind. What has to happen to bring peace back to the region and have the events of Sept. 11 put more importance on establishing peace or prolonging the conflict?
Dr. Marvin Zonis: Let me, if I may, take issue with the way you phrased the question, because it's a really important issue and it is not something to which most Americans are calling attention to. And that is, it's really not appropriate to refer to the Palestinians on the one hand in the same way as which we refer to the Israelis.
The reason for that is because Israel has a coherent government which acts in the name of the State of Israel, because that government was democratically elected. In the case of the Palestinians, there is a Palestinian Authority; it is headed by Yasser Arafat, but it's clear that he has only limited control over the Palestinian people.
And particularly that I have in mind is at least two groups we know -- Hamas, an Islamic fundamentalist group primarily in the Gaza strip, and Hezbollah, a group that did its work against Israel in Lebanon, but has now continued to conduct operations against Israel. And Arafat has virtually no control over them, and there is even the question of how much control he has over the Palestinian people as a whole.
The reason that's an important distinction to make is because there is lots of violence being conducted against the State of Israel by individuals and by groups over which no particular National Authority of the Palestinians has any control. Therefore, when the Israelis demand that Yasser Arafat bring this violence to a conclusion, whether he wants to or not, the reality is, he can't.
Now, let me turn to your question. There has been a startling increase in violence, that more and more Israelis are being killed, and, not surprisingly, more Palestinians are still being killed than Israelis, but nonetheless the situation risks a degeneration into an all out war. The question is, what's going on here? There are several things going on.
For a while, some of these Palestinians got smart -- if I may put it this way -- and began to attack only military targets in Israel and only settlers in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and that began to earn them some international credibility because violence against civilians has really damaged the Palestinian cause. The argument was, if they were trying to win their liberation from Israeli control then they'd better not attack Israeli civilians and only Israeli soldiers, or settlers on their territory that they hope to be their own state.
For a while, that was going on and, as I've said, the credibility of the Palestinians was increasing. That is now disintegrated, and once again we see terrible bombings against Israeli civilians in the city of Jerusalem.
'Sadaam [Hussein] is not a lunatic. He tries to stay in power. He's going to try to stay in power by being as careful as possible not to provoke Israel and not to provoke the United States.'
TheStreet.com: One fear in the Israeli conflict is potential involvement from Iraq. How likely is Iraqi action against Israel, and, if Iraq were to launch a scud attack against Israel, who is likely to respond and how?
Dr. Marvin Zonis: You know, the Bush Administration, with increasing support from its supporters in the United States, now says that a military act against Iraq is called for. I have been one of those who thinks that this would be an absolute disastrous idea.
The reason I think it's a bad idea is for the same reason that Iraq will not attack Israel. That's because Israel has overwhelming military force, and Iraq knows that if it does attack Israel in any way -- certainly with scud missiles -- the consequences of that will be Israeli military power whipping out an awful lot of the assets of the Iraqi government and people and effectively end the regime of Sadaam Hussein.
Sadaam is not a lunatic. He tries to stay in power. He's going to try to stay in power by being as careful as possible not to provoke Israel and not to provoke the United States.
TheStreet.com: Shifting back to the war on terrorism for a moment, there is some evidence that the murder of Daniel Pearl,
The Wall Street Journal reporter, was a politically motivated attack on Pakistani President [Pervez] Musharraf for his support of America. Indeed, with Afghanistan next door, many former Taliban and Al Qaeda members have fled into Pakistan. Will Musharraf be able to keep control of his country?
Dr. Marvin Zonis: That's a key question in this whole war on terrorism. And of course, Musharraf went very far out on a limb when he supported the United States, because so many of the people in Pakistan and so many of the groups think that's a disastrous idea. There is no question in my mind that the kidnapping and murder of Daniel Pearl was an attack on Musharraf -- an attempt to weaken his legitimacy and to put him on alert that he's been treading a line that is very dangerous for the continuation of his rule.
When you consider that this is a country with nuclear weapons and that the ruler of that country is very, very shaky -- we are dealing with an extraordinarily dangerous situation. I have no doubt that the riskiest country for the U.S. war on terrorism is Pakistan, and President Musharraf is doing everything he can to stay in power, and we need to be doing more to help him do that.
TheStreet.com: He's got more problems. For the past week, religious rioting between Hindus and Muslims has left more than 400 people dead in India. Why the sudden increase, and what impact could it have on Musharraf?
Dr. Marvin Zonis: It's very interesting that Muslims in India would clearly seek to have Pakistan come to their assistance so that they do not feel at the mercy of the majority Hindu population in India. One of the things, fortunately, that the government of India recognizes is that the dangers of a conflict within India serving as the basis for a conflict between two countries -- Pakistan and India -- which have fought a lot of wars in the past. Hopefully, the government of India will respond vigorously enough against the Hindu fundamentalists who have been killing Muslims in a way that will prevent Pakistan from having to get involved.
'My guess is, the Russians will promise everything and deliver nothing to OPEC because they are desperately eager to increase market share and to generate increased revenues.'
TheStreet.com: I don't want to let you get away without a quick question on the politics of OPEC and Russia. It's clear that Russia did agree to cut exports, but data from the International Energy Agency suggest that Russia's exports actually increased in January. Now, OPEC is meeting with Russia this week in an attempt to get them to extend its pledge to curb exports. What will Russia do, and will it have an impact on global oil prices and on OPEC?
Dr. Marvin Zonis: My guess is OPEC will not be successful in convincing Russia to restrain the expansion of its production and that [of] Russian oil companies. And remember, they are not really part of the government of Russia, although the pipeline facilities are and the export facilities are -- so that the government of Russia could still rein in Russian oil companies.
Nonetheless, my guess is, the Russians will promise everything and deliver nothing to OPEC because they are desperately eager to increase market share and to generate increased revenues. Which, of course, they will do if they increase production no matter what the price is. Their view is that they should keep pumping and not worry about OPEC.
TheStreet.com: A lot of great information here. Dr. Zonis, as always, thanks for being with us, and I hope you'll come back and share your expertise again soon.
Dr. Marvin Zonis: Thank you, gentlemen; I hope so, too.
RSS
