Dr. Muhammad Akram Zaheer

An Iraqi military delegation is going to visit Washington soon, and there is a lot of anticipation and tension in Iraq about this visit. The focus is on the presence of American troops in Iraq, which has been a hot topic among Iraq’s various political groups. Iraqi Shi’a Islamist hardliners are especially eager to speed up the withdrawal of U.S. forces from their country. Since the 2003 invasion that removed Saddam Hussein, the presence of American troops in Iraq has been controversial. At first, these troops were seen as liberators, but over time, many Iraqis, especially Shi’a Islamist groups, have come to see them as occupiers. These groups believe that foreign troops undermine Iraq’s sovereignty and hinder its control over national security and internal affairs. These hardliners, who often have strong connections to Iran, view the American military presence as a way for the U.S. to exert influence in the region, which counters Iran’s influence in Iraq. Their demand for a quick withdrawal aligns with their opposition to U.S. policies in the Middle East. The killing of Iranian General QassemSoleimani by a U.S. drone strike in Baghdad in January 2020 intensified these feelings, leading to louder calls for the U.S. to leave. For the upcoming visit to Washington, these hardliners want the Iraqi delegation to take a firm stand and insist on a clear and quick timeline for the withdrawal of American troops. This position reflects their anti-American views and responds to growing frustration among Iraqis over the foreign military presence, which they blame for ongoing instability and violence. However, the Iraqi delegation faces a difficult situation. The United States has been an important ally, providing military support, training, and financial aid essential for Iraq’s fight against ISIS and other extremist groups. A sudden and unplanned withdrawal could create a power vacuum, potentially leading to more insurgent activities and further destabilization. The delegation needs to carefully balance these issues. While addressing the hardliners’ demands and the broader Iraqi desire for sovereignty, they must also consider the practical need to maintain a strategic partnership with the United States. This partnership is crucial not just for military support but also for economic and political stability. Moreover, the visit will be closely watched by other countries. Iran will be particularly interested in the outcomes due to its interests in Iraq. Other regional allies and adversaries will also be paying attention to how the U.S.-Iraq relationship develops, as it affects regional security dynamics.

In July, the Iraqi government is actively trying to maintain good relations with both the United States and Iran. On July 17, an Iranian-backed militia launched a drone attack on an Iraqi airbase where some of the 2,500 US troops in the country are stationed. There were no casualties, but this attack has raised concerns that the informal cease-fire arranged by Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani between the Iranian-backed militias and the Americans may be falling apart. The militias and their allies in the Iraqi parliament believe that the US is delaying negotiations over the withdrawal of its forces from Iraq. Sudani has stated that the American-backed multinational coalition should leave, but he also wants to create a bilateral military support program with the US and other countries.

On July 8, a Pentagon delegation met with Iraqi officials in Baghdad to discuss the future of American military relations with Iraq, but there were no announcements about progress or a withdrawal timetable. Under pressure from hardline Shi’a Islamists, a Shi’a politician said on Iraqi TV that a withdrawal schedule announcement would come within weeks. However, Washington has not mentioned any timetable, leaving Sudani without political support. An Iraqi military delegation is expected to visit Washington soon, and Shi’a Islamist hardliners want Iraq to push for a quicker withdrawal of American troops.

Meanwhile, on July 13, Iraqi Foreign Minister Fuad Hussein met with US Treasury Under Secretary for Terrorism and Intelligence Brian Nelson in Washington. He urged the US to ease sanctions that have blocked about 30 Iraqi commercial banks from accessing dollars and the international banking system. Hussein claimed that the Iraqi banking sector has made reforms to address American concerns about money laundering benefiting Iran and its proxies. Although the Treasury Department appreciated Iraq’s commitment to reform, it did not indicate any easing of the sanctions. Hussein also met with State Department Under Secretary for Political Affairs John Bass to seek assistance regarding Iranian funds frozen in Iraq, but the State Department also gave no public sign of flexibility.

In a positive development for Baghdad, the State Department announced last week that it had granted another four-month waiver to the Iraqi government, allowing it to buy Iranian electricity without facing American sanctions. The State Department spokesperson said that Baghdad was making steady progress toward finding alternative sources to replace Iranian electricity imports. Given the extreme heat in Iraq this summer, improving the electricity supply is more crucial than ever for the Iraqi people.

Dr M Ali Hamza

The ninth vice president of Indonesia (2001-2004), Hamzah Haz was a smart politician known for his strategic manoeuvring. It was sad to hear about his passing on July 24, 2024.From newspaper journalism to teaching economics, from cabinet ministry of People’s Representative Council (DPR) to serving as a minister of investment, and from the vice presidency to the position of party’s presidential candidate in the 2004 Indonesian presidential election, Haz smartly played his cards. It is said that he adeptly navigated Indonesia’s volatile political landscape during the post-Suharto era. His ability to form alliances and his pragmatic approach to governance helped him gain influence. However, Haz’s tenure was marred by allegations of controversy over his conservative views. Despite these challenges, his political acumen allowed him to maintain a significant role in shaping Indonesia’s political dynamics during a critical period of democratic transition.

Though Haz had a reputation as a wily politician, buthis speech before Muslim clerics at Abubakar’s Solo boarding school in May 2002 is remembered as ill-judged and has attracted lot of criticism. This article is not about a criticism on Haz but to learn from recent history where shrewd politicians have made politically incorrect statements and took inappropriate decisions.

In the world of politics, strategy and cunning are often as crucial as vision and policy. While many politicians adeptly navigate the complexities of governance and public opinion, others, despite their political acumen, have made missteps that have tarnished their legacies. Here are some notable examplesof wily politicians whose ill-judged actions have had significant repercussions.

Richard Nixon, the 37th President of the United States, is perhaps the most infamous example of a shrewd politician undone by his own actions. Known for his foreign policy achievements, particularly in opening diplomatic relations with China and détente with the Soviet Union, Nixon’s presidency was ultimately marred by the Watergate scandal. The attempt to cover up a break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters led to his resignation in 1974, making him the only USpresident to resign from office. Nixon’s involvement in the scandal and the subsequent cover-up was a profound misjudgement that overshadowed his political career.

David Cameron, the former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, is a prime example of a politician whose calculated risk backfired spectacularly. In 2016, Cameron called for a referendum on the UK’s membership in the European Union, confident that the vote would favour remaining in the EU. However, the result was a narrow victory for the Leave campaign, leading to Brexit. The decision to hold the referendum, intended to settle internal party divisions and political pressure, instead resulted in Cameron’s resignation and long-term uncertainty and division in the UK.

Aung San Suu Kyi, once celebrated as a symbol of peaceful resistance and democratic ideals, faced international condemnation for her handling of the Rohingya crisis in Myanmar. As the de-facto leader of Myanmar, her government was accused of ethnic cleansing against the Rohingya Muslim minority. Suu Kyi’s refusal to condemn the military’s actions and her perceived complicity significantly damaged her reputation. Her ill-judged defence of the military at the International Court of Justice in 2019 further alienated her from the global community.

Nicolas Sarkozy, the former President of France, has had his share of legal woes that have overshadowed his political career. Known for his dynamic and often divisive leadership style, Sarkozy faced multiple investigations into alleged corruption and campaign financing violations. In 2021, he was found guilty of corruption and influence peddling, receiving a three-year prison sentence, two of which were suspended. These legal issues and the decisions that led to them have severely tarnished Sarkozy’s legacy as a political leader.

Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, is another politician whose career has been overshadowed by allegations of corruption. While he has been a dominant force in Israeli politics, Netanyahu was indicted on charges of bribery, fraud, and breach of trust in 2019. His alleged involvement in a series of corruption scandals, including accepting expensive gifts and offering regulatory favours in exchange for favourable media coverage, has cast a long shadow over his political achievements. Netanyahu’s attempts to avoid prosecution and his divisive rhetoric have further polarized Israeli society. Moreover, his repeated decisions to launch attacks on Gaza have had profound implications, both for his political career and for Israel’s standing in the world.Netanyahu is facing political isolation and having fractures within his ruling coalitions, making governance increasingly difficult.Israeli citizens, tired of the endless cycle of violence, have staged protests and expressed their dissatisfaction with Netanyahu’s leadership. War crime allegations, human right violations, diplomatic fallout, decline in tourism, stalled negotiation, huge cost of conflict, are the results of Netanyahu worst ill-judged decision. There are critics who believe that he had paid all this price to cover-up his series of corruption scandals and to secure his political career, but in vain.

Imran Khan, the former Prime Minister of Pakistan, came to power with promises of reform and anti-corruption measures. However, his tenure was marked by economic instability and poor management, culminating in a severe financial crisis. Khan’s government struggled with inflation, a burgeoning debt crisis, and an inability to secure consistent international financial support. His policies, including abrupt changes and a lack of coherent strategy, agricultural neglect, bureaucratic paralysis, suppressing political opposition, poor foreign policy, lack of substantial reforms in the education sector, mismanaged privatization, wereseen as mis judgments that undermined his political credibility.

These examples highlight the fragile nature of political power and the delicate balance between strategic political manoeuvring and disastrous mis judgments. These politicians’ ill-judged actions not only impacted their careers but also had far-reaching consequences for their countries and the international community. In the high-stakes realm of politics, even the most astute leaders can see their legacies unravel due to a single misstep. Indeed, the political world is complex, as are the personalities of politicians. Therefore, studying the darker side of wily politicians can be highly beneficial in manifolds.

Author’s email: [email protected]

By: Qamar Bashir

The entire nation is reeling from the onslaught of conflicting narratives and frequent U-turns from various political parties. The public has become increasingly aware of how original narratives have been manipulated and distorted over time. They are frustrated and disillusioned by the constant introduction of new narratives that discard the older ones without any justification, reason, or prudence. This perpetual cycle of shifting stories and changing stances has eroded trust in political discourse and left the people weary of the relentless political maneuvering.

Nawaz Sharif, after his unceremonious ouster in 2017, primarily for refusing to follow the establishment’s lines on pressing national and international issues, invented and injected the narrative of “giving respect to the vote.” This narrative resonated with the people, and the popularity of PML(N) soared to new heights. However, the narrative was mercilessly killed before and after the 2024 Election depriving the PML(N) from much needed political capital and also faced personal humiliation.

He was assured of winning a ⅔ majority but was miserably ditched. He lost his own seat in Mansehra and was only able to save his seat in Lahore, allegedly due to brute interference from the establishment to give him some face-saving. PML(N) allegedly sold its soul and its brand narrative, “Give Respect to Vote”  in exchange for forming the government despite being the minority party in the parliament.

We also saw how our poor Information Minister was forced to hold an emergency press conference where he announced the launch of Operation Azm-e-Istehkam forthwith. However, he had to take a sharp U-turn once his announcement faced stiff opposition from all political parties, including his own.

Later, we experienced another sharp U-turn when the Information Minister, once again without any preparation or homework, announced the government’s intention to ban the PTI. He later had to take a U-turn after facing stiff resistance from all political parties, including some of the most loyal leaders of the PML(N).

The PTI chairman, when ousted unceremoniously from power in 2022, adopted the narrative that all those who claimed to be neutral are akin to animals. He qualified his statement by arguing that only animals, who don’t have minds or visions of their own, could be neutral. He was perhaps implying that the establishment should have supported his party when it was facing the no-confidence motion. However, since it chose not to do so, its claims of neutrality meant that it did not support PTI anymore and had instead shifted its blessings to other parties to bring them to power, for reasons best known only to them.

The constant chastising of the establishment by the PTI chairman after his ouster, terming them traitors, conspirators, and aggressors, and accusing them of seeking direction from a foreign country, finally led to his arrest. This culminated in the May 9 incident, which sealed the possibility of any rapprochement with the establishment.

All of a sudden, after one year of constant incarceration and maintaining the narrative that “neutral” is equal to “animal,” the PTI founder suddenly took an unexpected U-turn, demanding the establishment to become neutral. This U-turn not only amazed other parties and the people at large but also left the party leaders at a loss for words, grappling for arguments to support the narrative they had been opposing since the ouster of the PTI from the government.

Mehr Bano, the newly emerged star spokesperson of PTI, who returned to Pakistan after participating in political advocacy in the UK Parliament, came up with a new set of arguments to support the new narrative. She gave many reasons, one of which was that this narrative was injected to unnerve PML(N) and PPP, putting them in a defensive position and causing them to make mistakes that PTI could exploit for further political mileage.

The set of arguments also included that what the founder meant was that the establishment should stand with the righteous path, stand with justice and truth, and play their role in ensuring the dispensation of justice and the establishment of the rule of law. This implied that, according to them, only PTI is on the righteous path; therefore, the establishment should stand with PTI, help it reclaim its alleged stolen narrative, and put it in power with Imran Khan as Prime Minister.

The Chief Minister of KP came up with his own logic. He argued that PML(N) and PPP are using the establishment to prolong their rule and are entangling the establishment in a trap, pushing it to directly deal with the PTI, enter into a war of narratives with PTI, deal with court cases, and use its influence and power to secure verdicts that directly or indirectly insulate PML(N) and PPP from direct confrontation with PTI, thus helping them to prolong their stay in power.

He warned that the people are holding the establishment responsible for all the failures, incompetencies, inefficiencies, and lack of deliverance of the government, arguing that it was the establishment that brought this incompetent government to power; therefore, they are also responsible for its failure. He advised the establishment to withdraw its support from the government and let it fight its case alone.

Mr. Shibli Faraz, in reply to questions posed by inquisitive journalists, first tried to explain the new narrative of asking the establishment to become neutral but lost his temper in response to subsequent probing questions.

Analysts and commentators are of the view that the ice between PTI and the establishment is not going to melt anytime soon. They argue that the mistrust, bad blood, and animosity between the two have gone too far to be brought back on friendly terms. However, they also argue that the biggest threat faced by the establishment is its deteriorating image, not only among the people of Pakistan but also among most of the political parties in the opposition. They are especially worried about the erosion of their image among expatriate Pakistanis, particularly in the US, the UK, and the rest of the world.

They are also aware that as soon as it mends its fences with PTI, propaganda against it on all forms of social media will come to an end, giving it much-needed relief and improving its standing among the general public, which is pivotal for the performance of its duties within and outside the borders.

Analysts also believe that this war of narratives and frequent U-turns will continue to confuse the people even more, with no possibility of stopping anytime soon.

By: Qamar Bashir

Former Press Secretary to the President

Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France

Former MD, SRBC