Consider the changes in the Middle East since the attack of 9/11 on the US:

In Afghanistan, the ultraconservative government of the Taliban has been overthrown, but the prevailing opinion in the country remains so ultraconservative that a Muslim who converted to Christianity was threatened with execution. Iraqi president Saddam Hussein has been overthrown and is a prisoner on trial for sundry crimes. But sectarian strife continues. Shortly after 9/11, the then-Secretary of State Colin Powell persuaded President Pervez Musharraf to support the US in the pursuit of Osama bin Laden, but it is doubtful how far this filtered down through the Pakistani Army. Pakistani Army Intelligence remains suspiciously sympathetic to Al Qaeda, and it’s an open question as to who controls what territory along the Afghan-Pakistani border.

Nationalism has re-emerged as perhaps the one force as strong as religion. Iran is the prime example. India is equally insistent on nukes as a sovereign right. A difference is that India is supported by the US while Iran is not. Iraqi Kurds are feeling their oats after what can be called their liberation with the downfall of Hussein. Now, suppose these Kurds decide to carry their liberation a step further and declare an independent state of Kurdistan in the Kurdish-populated areas of northern Iraq. There are also significant Kurdish populations in adjacent areas of Syria, Iran, and Turkey. What would these Kurds do if they had an independent Kurdistan next door? They might migrate and settle in it. Or they might seek its expansion to include them. It is less likely that those governments would keep quiet. Here are the ingredients of a wider war in the Middle East. What does the US do if this happens while American troops are still in Iraq?

Historically, the US and Britain have supported Iraqi Kurds. During the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, the CIA had covert aid programmes for them. After the first Gulf War, they enforced no-fly zones for Iraqi aircraft as a means of protecting the Kurds. What would the US and Brit-ain do if they were confronted with a war against the Kurds by an Iraqi-Syrian-Turkish-Iranian coalition?

On the fringes of the area, Pakistan and India have refrained from using their nuclear weapons. But what would either of them do in the face of temptations to strengthen their regional positions and perhaps grab Kashmir while they hoped no one was looking?

None of this necessarily followed 9/11. The initial US reaction to 9/11 did not need to go beyond Afgha-nistan. It was Afghanistan and its Taliban government that shielded bin Laden. After the victory over the Taliban, the US should have pursued him more vigorously. There was no Iraq-Al Qaeda connection until after the US established an American presence in Iraq. Hence, there was no need to invade.

Iran would still be hard to get along with. The Pakistani-Indian and the Israeli-Palestinian standoffs would still be intractable and dangerous. But the US standing in the rest of the world would be immeasurably better. — The Christian Science Monitor