TEHRAN - U.S. President Barack Obama’s decision to withdraw over 30,000 troops from Afghanistan is part of his election strategy for 2012, according to Mohammad Jamshidi, who is the director of the Foreign Policy Department of the Majlis (Iranian Parliament) Research Center.

Jamshidi made the remarks in an exclusive interview with the Tehran Times earlier this week.
Following is the text of the interview:
Q: How much is the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan influenced by U.S. internal issues?
A: Based on Barack Obama’s new decision, nearly 33,000 U.S. troops are scheduled to leave Afghan soil by the end of 2012. The number is exactly equal to the number of troops that Obama deployed to Afghanistan in 2009 in the form of his new strategy to increase the level of security in Afghanistan. However, the timing of this decision is closely linked to U.S. internal issues. In other words, the decision was made to justify the continuation of the U.S. presence in the face of massive public discontent in the months ahead of the U.S. presidential campaign. The impact of (Osama) bin Laden’s killing can also be analyzed in this framework. In opinion polls conducted in the U.S., specifically over the past month, there is an eight percent increase in the number of citizens who believe that the U.S. must “immediately” leave Afghanistan. The U.S. elite are also demanding an immediate exit. At both levels there is great frustration about the prolongation of the war in Afghanistan. This has caused much concern in the U.S. administration, such that Obama himself is warning about the grim prospects for continuing the war in the country. The disagreement between the U.S. administration and the Congress over the issue of the war in Libya can also be evaluated in this framework.
Q: Some U.S. realists like Richard Haas, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, which is based in New York, believe that the main threat to U.S. national security is the fact that its economic position is becoming weaker and thus it is failing to maintain its competitiveness with the world’s other economic powers. Do you agree with this analysis?
A: Barack Obama is now in the election season and he is actually struggling with economic problems, both at the domestic and international level. Despite his presence in the White House over the past few years, he will have no significant advantage over other candidates in the upcoming election. Therefore, he is pursuing foreign policy goals because they do not have a direct impact on U.S. citizens.
Accordingly, symbolic maneuvers, such as the killing of Bin Laden and the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, have actually been orchestrated to cover up Obama’s domestic failures. It is interesting that in his previous presidential campaign, Obama insisted that the main front against terrorism for the U.S. was in Afghanistan and not in Iraq.
U.S. military officials have had serious objections to the latest White House decision because they believe that this decision will greatly undermine U.S. strategic interests in the region. They believe that the military achievements of the U.S. and its allies in Afghanistan are fragile and reversible. In other words, the supposed military victory in Afghanistan is not going to last forever. They believe a hasty exit could harm U.S. interests. However, the Democrats’ political strategy for the upcoming election has paved the way for the reduction of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Therefore, there are no clear prospects for a U.S. military victory in Afghanistan. Even Obama himself cannot claim victory in his speeches about Afghanistan. He does not claim to have defeated Al-Qaeda or the Taliban, nor does he claim that he has been able to convince the Taliban to negotiate with the West. Everyone who is familiar with the current situation in Afghanistan knows that speaking with the Taliban is nothing more than an illusion. All this shows that the U.S. is trying to create some justifications for its unsuccessful foreign policy. Therefore, the process has been harshly criticized at the domestic and international level.
Q: What is the main argument in this harsh criticism and who is making this criticism?
A: The main critics of the White House’s new decision have been the members of the U.S. military establishment, including those engaged in military operations in Afghanistan and those in the Pentagon, namely Petraeus, Mullen, and Gates. They believe that the U.S. has had some achievements over the past two years but these achievements are fragile and reversible. Strategists like Henry Kissinger also have the same view. Kissinger argues that Obama’s exit plan is not based on a clear strategy and in practice is only an act of exiting the country. In other words, this is the same kind of strategic mistake that was made in Afghanistan in 1989.
Q: Is there any confirmed plan to withdraw the remaining U.S. troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2012?
A: It seems that the current U.S. counterinsurgency strategy is to be replaced by special operations. Incidentally, the main political objective behind Obama’s recent decision was to take care of the 30,000 troops that he himself deployed in Afghanistan last year, and he is mostly silent about the rest of the troops because he wants to pass the issue to the next U.S. administration. This shows that he has no commitment to national interests and is only taking care of his own business.
Q: What is the relationship between the U.S.-Afghanistan strategic agreement and the withdrawal of troops from the country?
A: By examining the new U.S. strategy in Afghanistan, we can better understand the real objectives of the new strategic deal between the two countries. The new approach adopted by Obama and supported by his national security advisor, Tom Donilon, and also favored by Joseph Biden, is that the U.S. must return to the Bush strategy of 2002 and 2003. Based on this new strategic approach, the U.S. must have the upper hand in terms of military intelligence, and it must also retain its special operations forces and modern military equipment such as unmanned aircraft, robotic arms, etc. The new U.S. strategic agreement with Afghanistan is actually in line with this approach, particularly because the issue of permanent military bases is emphasized in the agreement. However, the Afghan people will have very strong feelings about this issue.
Q: In light of the new security deal, is the United States preparing for a long-term presence in Afghanistan?
A: Undoubtedly the U.S. is looking for a permanent presence, but this time with a new appearance. In fact, the U.S. and its allies are now pursuing a policy of informal occupation of Afghanistan. The idea of the campaign against terrorism, which has been promoted by the U.S. for the past decade, is in fact paving the way for a new form of occupation. This direct presence and occupation is not possible in Pakistan because public opinion there is strongly opposed to the United States. Therefore, the continuation of the presence in Afghanistan will undoubtedly be a real phenomenon.
Q: How will U.S. military officials’ criticism affect Obama’s reelection campaign?
A: From the very beginning, Obama tried to give government posts to his rivals in order to control the opposition. In fact, he was determined to manage the criticism of his administration. Moreover, one of the salient features of Obama’s decision-making process is that it is always full of contradictory opinions and always faces harsh criticism within his administration. Appointing David Petraeus as the new CIA chief is exactly in line with this policy.
Photo: director of the Foreign Policy Department of the Majlis Mohammad Jamshidi (center)