TEHRAN - Martin Love, an American political analyst, believes that the U.S. is not the leader of democracy in West Asia, Latin American or anywhere in the world.

“The U.S. is no champion of real democracy. At least not overseas. Not in the Middle East (West Asia), not in Latin America especially. Chaos has reigned,” Love tells the Tehran Times.

The analyst says U.S. allies are more repressive than others.

“Democracy is less apparent, especially among allies of the U.S. in the Middle East (West Asia) like Saudi Arabia and Israel than it ever has been,” Love notes. 

A decision by the U.S. to leave Afghanistan has also raised questions among some world leaders and Afghan officials and analysts, calling the U.S. move irresponsible.

The U.S. invaded Afghanistan to topple the Taliban regime for hosting Osama bin Laden, the person considered the main architect of the September 11 attacks, and bringing democracy to the country.

However, the Taliban have emerged stronger after two decades of U.S. occupation. Military analysts predict that the Taliban will capture the entire country in future months.

After the attack on Afghanistan, the U.S. invaded Iraq in March 2003 under the false pretext that Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

Love says ensuring the security of the Israeli regime has been the only achievement of the U.S. military presence in the region. 

“The sole clear ‘achievement’ of the U.S. in the Middle East (West Asia) over the last 20 years is ensuring that Israeli Apartheid carries on longer than it should,” Love argues.

Following is the text of the interview:

Q: What are the main reasons for the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan?

A: The U.S. is pulling out of Afghanistan, except to leave some CIA-trained mercenaries behind, because the war has been unwinnable however one defines a “win”. Several thousand U.S. troops died and trillions were spent, not to mention the carnage inflicted on many more thousands of Afghans. 

On the one hand, you see the Biden Administration claiming that the war’s “aims” were allegedly met, and on the other hand spokespersons like Jen Psaki saying that, well, in so many words, the U.S. was defeated. And it was defeated. What WERE the aims of the war? 
That’s a difficult question aside from rewarding the Pentagon and the military and corporations with many billions of dollars and with something more to do in Asia. It was allegedly to eradicate the original al-Qaeda and Usama ibn Laden, who supposedly fomented the 9/11 disaster in New York City. But in truth who really was behind 9/11, even if Usama helped, has never been adequately resolved — intentionally, in the opinion of many observers. The U.S. also wanted to reduce the Taliban and overall establish a military presence and control on critical crossroads in Central Asia. Also, Afghanistan is rich in natural resources and even a prime producer of opium. But it has been the longest war in U.S. history and it was time to fold the U.S. tents, even in part because the U.S. is way over its head in debt. As with Vietnam, the lost war on Afghanistan never should have happened. You can’t put lipstick on a pig.

Q: The U.S. invaded Afghanistan 20 years ago to eradicate the Taliban but now Americans talk about the necessity of negotiations between the Afghan government and the Taliban. What is the implication of such a policy shift?

A: The Taliban may be stronger now than ever, and has of late taken over many key districts and border crossings in Afghanistan. Even some “government” soldiers are fleeing the country, and one can wager that before the summer is over the Taliban will have retaken Kabul. 

The U.S. really has no choice but to hope there are “negotiations” between the U.S. installed “government” in Kabul and the Taliban if only to keep the idea of that “government” alive. But it is unlikely it will survive. The U.S. has already abandoned the thousands of Afghans who assisted the U.S. with various services like translating. It canceled the idea of giving them visas to come to the U.S., which may be a death sentence for them. This is a sorry way to treat them.

Q: The Taliban is highly likely to take full control of Afghanistan. Why is the Afghan army not able to preserve territory despite two decades of training by the U.S. and its allies?

A: The current Afghan army has been completely dependent on U.S. support, and now with that support quickly vanishing, it’s not hard to imagine the panic in the ranks. Desertions are likely to ramp up dramatically. The fact is that no one can defeat a committed opposition of national zealots whose sole aim is to win back independence and reject an occupation by a foreign power as the U.S. has been. Training by U.S. forces was probably more bribery than anything else. Payment for showing up.

Q: How do you assess some Arab regimes' dependence on the U.S. to guarantee their security? Do you predict a fate like Afghanistan for them?

A: The critical factor regarding whether Arab regimes dependent on U.S. support survive rests with their general population. We saw, for example, what happened to Mubarak in Egypt in 2011. He was overwhelmed by popular opposition. Whether anything like this can happen in, say, Saudi Arabia is anyone’s guess. Mubarak in any case was an easier target than the Saudis are likely to be, even though the ruling family is not popular in the Kingdom. Yet the Saudis are none too popular in the U.S., too, especially after the bloody Khashoggi murder.

What binds the U.S. and Saudi Arabia are the vast oil reserves there, the Petrodollar, and tradition for decades. But if the Saudis begin to fail, the U.S. could abandon them, too. The U.S. clearly is not a country that is good on its word: look what happened to the JCPOA. The best deal the U.S. ever made in recent memory was summarily trashed by Trump and oaf Pompeo. It’s worth noting that Trump has been voted the worst U.S. president and Pompeo the worst U.S. secretary of state ever in a recent poll in the U.S.

Q: What have been the main achievements of U.S. presence in West Asia over the two past decades? Democracy or chaos?

A: The sole clear “achievement “of the U.S. in the Middle East (West Asia) over the last 20 years is ensuring that Israeli Apartheid carries on longer than it should. No one else has benefitted at the bottom, not even Americans, from the U.S. in the region except the Zionists and perhaps the Saudis, whom the U.S. protects. “Democracy” is less apparent, especially among allies of the U.S. in the Middle East (West Asia) like Saudi Arabia and Israel than it ever has been. The U.S. is no champion of real democracy. At least not overseas. Not in the Middle East (West Asia), not in Latin America especially. Chaos has reigned.