Who Killed Ambassador Stevens?

 

The screening of the snippets of the provocative and hate filled film, ‘The Innocence of Muslims’ has had a ripple effect across the Muslim world. Crowds from Cairo to Benghazi to Sanaa have registered their protest over the scurrilous film. Some of the protests have turned violent. One cost the life of the dapper and suave Christopher Stevens- the erstwhile United States’ ambassador to Libya -and three of his staff. The chain of guilt for this could be established right to the Florida based pastor, Pastor Jones and the mysterious figure who produced and financed the film.

 

These guys could be said to provide the spark that ignited the passions of the Muslim masses in the Arab Muslim world. However, what is curious and intriguing about the chain of events leading to the late Ambassador’s killing is that he was targeted by an armed group of militants. This means that he was essentially assassinated and the militants probably took cover of the mob and that the assassination was planned. This, of course, is speculation. However, there may an element of truth to this. It could then be said that there are two or more than two groups complicit in the Ambassador’s assassination-one is the Pastor and his ilk and the an obscure force which wants the Americans out of the region. If this theory is true, then the question arises who assassinated the ambassador and why?

 

As goes with establishing the culprits in political assassinations, it would be impossible to point out a group or a state or a group of states complicit in the political murder. Militant groups who ostensibly claim credit for assassinations or are held to be responsible for these are usually patronized by states or intelligence agencies which use these outfits to obscure the real culprit, its intentions and reasons. Who could then be behind the killing/assassination of Ambassador Stevens?

 

Again, the answer is speculative and in the nature of a conspiracy theory. It could be the Syrians or the Iranians or a combination of the two. Or in other words, it could, to use technical jargon of the security world, a joint-op. The logical question here is what would either stand to gain from it?

 

 

The United States has Iran in its cross hairs over Iran’s alleged nuclear program and the international community, even though a mute spectator to the quotidian murders and civil war taking place in Syria, may , at some point in time consider action against Syria. And it may be that the United States is trying to reach out to the Islamist regimes that have come to power in the Middle East and arrive at a modus vivendi with these regimes. The killing strikes at all the three factors or plans. It distracts the attention of the United States and the international community and makes them focus on the rage and the attendant disturbance in the Middle East on account of the fallout of the film. It releases pressure on Iran and throws a spanner into the .pre –emptive strike plan of the Israeli’s and rules out military action against Iran, at least, in the short term. It also allows Syria to carry on with its pogrom against its own people as the world’s attention gets focused on disturbances in the Arab Muslim world. The third goal is also sated: given that the Islamists are ostensibly implicated in the killing, the United States would now naturally have a jaundiced view of the Islamist regimes. In sum then, if these are the real aims and agendas of the perpetrators of the assassination and if they succeed, then it is a coup for them. And , from a broader vantage point , then the killing/assassination is predicated upon the politics and geopolitics of the region.

 

The question now is what kind of a response can and should be formulated by the international community especially the United States towards the region? The first prong of the response should be to stay calm and take a dispassionate and objective view of the situation, tease out linkages and suss out the real agendas. This is, insofar, establishing the guilt and the perpetrators of the crime are concerned. The more important and significant aspect of the response must be and has to be engagement with the Arab Muslim world. This is of both historical and strategic significance. It is only through engagement that the Arab Muslim world will be liberated from the yoke of authoritarianism and be set on the path of democratization. And it is only these that can obviate terrorism and other security problems that emanate from the region. Engagement is then critical. The assassination or the nature of its perpetrators should not throw a spanner into this. It is this lesson that the United States should take to heart. It may even be critical for peace within and without. Let sobriety and a long term view be taken and let not the unfortunate assassination and murder of a good man give short shrift to the larger historical forces panning out in the region