Daily Times

When it comes to terror, the whole region has stakes in the matter. That is why the presidents of Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan, during a trilateral summit in Tehran, emphasised the importance of combating the biggest hurdle to the peace and stability of the region — terrorism. Because of it, the peace and economic development of any country affected — or having the potential to be affected — can suffer enormously. All three heads of state have come to the conclusion that terror, being a cross-border phenomenon, requires cross-border, joint cooperation to combat it successfully.

It is interesting that combating terror has become a priority for the Iranians. For once, it seems as though Tehran is on the same page as the US and its allies: to make the region safe against terror attacks and spillovers from the instability and violence plaguing Pakistan and Afghanistan. Despite the US’s hostility towards Iran, Hillary Clinton recently stated that as part of the talks with the Taliban initiative, the US was willing to consider talking to Tehran once again and slashing the sanctions against it.

It is becoming obvious that as the US troop withdrawal looms, all the players in and around Afghanistan are positioning themselves for maximum leverage post-withdrawal. At the same time, Pakistan is making moves in the wake of fraught US-Pakistan relations. It has gone back to reliance on its traditional friendship with China. President Zardari attended the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit. These moves can be seen as Pakistan seeking an alternative to its dependency on the US, especially in the light of the upcoming endgame in Afghanistan.

It must be kept in mind that all our ‘friends’ (old and new) will want to see us make good on our promise to eradicate terrorism. However, for all of our bravado on countering terrorism and trying to convince other regional players of our ‘good intentions’, one question must be asked: are these moves meant to somehow keep the establishment’s ‘agenda’ — vis-à-vis our militant proxies — alive? The PPP has been accused of protecting the army lately and one wonders whether these moves to seek alternatives to the US are somehow aimed at protecting the establishment and its obscure vision of ‘strategic depth’. The government is harping on about ridding the nation of terrorism but does not discuss the elephant in the room: the establishment’s support for the Afghan Taliban. How does the government reconcile these contradictory positions? The US wants us to do something immediately about the terror safe havens in North Waziristan. We are seeking other friends in response, but they too may soon start asking awkward questions about our duality of policy. *