The political bomb detonated on December 12, 2013 when Indian vice-consul Devyani Khobragade was the arrested in the broad daylight in New York. She was treated rather harshly by the U.S police officers, on top of all she was subjected to the humiliating nude search. The woman is accused of visa fraud since she allegedly underpaid her maid. Devyani Khobragade was released on bail, but should the U.S. authorities have put her on felon’s dock, she could have faced 10 years in prison.

This incident sparked protests and severe irritation in India on both the official and public levels, since such treatment of a person that enjoys diplomatic immunity was perceived as unacceptable . The situation is heated by the fact that according to the Indian traditions one can only arrest and handcuff an educated woman like Devyani Khobragade in the utmost cases, which means that she should have committed a serious felon. The country saw mass protests, people were burning American flags, calling for a boycott of American goods and restaurants, some of the latter were trashed. Because of this point of discord a number of Indian politicians , including the speaker of the Indian Parliament , refused to meet with their American counterparts.

The Indian Ministry of Foreign Affairs urged the United States to stop prosecution of the Indian vice-consul and warned the U.S. side there would be a number of serious steps to follow. The U.S. diplomats in India lost a number of privileges they enjoyed due to their status.

India said that the recreational enterprise on the territory of the U.S. embassy in the heart of Delhi , with its restaurants and shops is to be closed to any non-diplomatic redsident or visitor and that it should cease all “commercial activities” by January 16. For decades the U.S. citizens employed in India , and the guests of the American mission enjoyed this club.

The reaction of the Indian authorities to the incident was supported by Pakistan, Pakistani ambassador to New Delhi said, referring to the Vienna Convention, that this kind of treatment of diplomatic representatives to foreign countries is unacceptable.

In the midst of anti-American campaign, the Indian press remembered how in 2010 two senior Indian diplomats faced an equally disrespectful treatment in the U.S. airports: they were searched and forced to remove their turbans.

Some media sources believe that the current crisis in India , that goes after the name of “Made-gate” is the most serious discord between the two countries since 1998. Last time around Washington reacted rather critically to the nuclear explosions carried out by Delhi.

Many observers believe that Washington has buried its own geopolitical interests in the region, that is believed of great strategical importance to the U.S. The reasons are a plenty but the foremost is the opposition to China, along with preserving political influence in Pakistan and Kabul , particularly in the context of the forthcoming withdrawal of the U.S. troops from Afghanistan.

Others believe that the two countries have accumulated a number of long-standing problems in the political, economic and other areas that are blocking the way of peaceful cooperation. Last year , for example, saw the growing tension between the two countries in the domains of bilateral trade , intellectual property protection and visa issuance for the Indian information technology wokers .

Therefore, the incident with the vice-consul of India wasn’t disregarded and caused a long train of consequences .

According to Foreign Ministry spokesman Syed Akbaruddin, the U.S. demanded India to withdraw Devyani Khobragade’s immunity, so she left the United States on January 9. Simultaneously, the Indian side demanded one of the American diplomats to India to pack up and go home.

Speaking about the international repercussions of the December incident , the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs of India Kamal Nath , noted that the kind of behavior showed by the United States should be taken seriously by all countries, for tomorrow a similar story could happen to any of them.

Yuri Kirillov, an expert on the Middle East and North Africa, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

The Justice and Development Party (JDP) – the Islamist party which has been ruling the country since 2002 – originated from Refah Partisi. One of its founders – present Prime Minister Erdoğan – received the relay baton from the hands of his teacher Erbakan.

The trial process, which reminds us of who governs politics in Turkey today, continues the sequence of trials of the military. They include the Ergenekon case, which took place only a month ago, a conspiracy against the government, the imprisonment verdicts issued earlier to more than 300 military for preparing terrorist acts aimed at destabilisation.

In fact, this is the echo of the confrontation between the Islamists and the Turkish army, which, for a long time, considered itself to be the successor of Kemal Ataturk – the founder of secular Turkey.

Although the current process is Turkey’s internal matter, its regional subtext should not be disregarded in the context of the ongoing turbulent Arab Spring near Turkey.

After the Islamists’ success (which was unexpected for many) at the elections in Egypt and Tunisia, as well as the deepening of the crisis in Syria, prospects have emerged for these forces to strengthen their positions at the centre of power, in place of the former elites. A number of Arab political forces, especially the Muslim Brotherhood and similar groups, have focused their attention on the development experience according to the Turkish model. These trends, obviously, appealed to the JDP’s leadership and increasingly inspired them for political involvement, and not only that, in the internal affairs of the countries undergoing the “Arab awakening”.They have revived the long-cherished dreams of Ankara’s Islamist elite to obtain the status of the leader or “big brother” in the Arab-Muslim region.

However, as the subsequent events of the Spring have shown, the leadership of the Islamist parties in Egypt and Tunisia turned out to be incapable to put an end to the post-revolutionary turmoil. Their rule just exacerbated the existing problems in all aspects, and in the field of security in particular.

In Syria, the anti-government opposition was joined, under the mask of the revolution, by the most militant elements of the international terrorist forces.

As a result of the perturbations and the overall imbalance of the situation in the region, the system of economic relations established by Turkey with a number of Arab countries during the rule of the authoritarian leaders, has been shaken. Ankara suffered damage economically and financially due to the internal war and overthrow of Gaddafi in Libya, which used to be one of the strongholds of Turkey’s entrepreneurship in the Arab world. There were about 30,000 Turks here engaged in the implementation of projects worth $15 billion dollars.

The Ankara–Syria relations – once friendly and mutually beneficial for both countries – now have been knocked out. Bilateral trade was growing rapidly, the visa regime was removed, but Ankara’s withdrawal from this trajectory in 2011 shook the cooperation structure like an earthquake.

In addition to the expenses for the support of rebels, the Turkish authorities had to provide shelter to more than 400,000 Syrian refugees. The presence of so many people is fraught with the destabilisation of normal life in the region, which leads to dissatisfaction among the local population.

Experts are warning that the rebellion in Syria fomented with Turkey’s help can have a boomerang-like effect on Turkey itself, and the Syrian religious war will spill into Turkey.

Turkey’s regional geopolitical ambitions were challenged by the overthrow of President Mohamed Morsi in Egypt as the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood had been considered by Ankara as one of the most important partners.

Ankara’s relations with Egypt began to show signs of strain after Turkey’s leadership condemned the rise of the military in Egypt and the overthrow of Morsi. Cairo responded with an official protest to the interference in its internal affairs.

A very subdued reaction to the coup in Egypt from the West (especially from Turkey’s close ally – the US), the support for the Egyptian military on the part of Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf monarchies increased Erdoğan’s concerns about the military, interprets Atilla Yesilada, political analyst at Global Source Partners, Istanbul.

There is no denying that Turkey has outpaced the Arab world in terms of the level of the secularisation of society. Today, when in a number of the Spring countries there is a growing divide in society and an increasing confrontation between the Islamists, who came to power on the protest wave, and the liberal pro-secular forces, logically Ankara should side with the latter.

However, in reality, its authorities, following their narrow party interests, are playing into the hands of those forces in the Arab countries which, by striking the Islamist chords, are pulling their countries back.

Yuri Kirillov, an expert on the Middle East and North Africa, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

While the world is silently waiting for the White House to “punish” Syria for the alleged usage of the chemical weapons against the civilians, the Syrian rebels are a busy crowd. The “rebels” means a number of at times rivalry groups that are brought together by the only “grand” purpose – to bring down Bashar Assad.

At the first the “opposition” as they like to call themselves, including the National coalition, was supporting the Western claims that it was the Assad regime that used chemical weapons. Later on they’ve become the keen supporters of the Western intervention in Syria. They wanted the air strike to be launched as fast as now.

After the speech delivered by President Obama the head of the National coalition has set out on a trip across Europe, demanding from every country that he has visited to launch an attack against Syria. To make his demands look even more legitimate, the rebels once again engaged in the fights with the regular troops. The leaders of the “opposition” can’t help but wait to see the American missiles and bombs to rain on the innocent heads. They found themselves unable to break the Assad regime, so the last source of hope for them is the Western allies. They believe that the foreign intervention should be that decisive blow that will turn the tides in their favor.

At the same time anyone who advocates the air strikes against its own compatriots is bound to lose any relevance and trust in the eyes of the common Syrian people. For this reason try to save their public image. For this reason the political and the information coordinator of the rebels have been rejecting all blames in him providing the Western allies with a list of the possible targets for them to strike.

The observers are trying to guess what can the foreign air strikes bring to the table, what advantage can it bring to the “free fighters”. One of the Syrian opposition commanders says that he has no information on the possible targets of those strikes, so there’s no cooperation.

As the war goes on even more opposition fighters find themselves bewildered and confused since they don’t know what to except. As the tension rises, the Islamists especially those connected with Al-Qaeda, don’t expect any good from the strikes. Many of those have already been the targets of their “dear allies” before in the different parts of the Middle East. They fear that their vehicles can quite possibly be bugged.

The Syrian crisis is not resolving, it can be suppressed by the usage of brute force, but the inner conflicts is not going anywhere. The West is going to teach Assad a lesson, the one that has already been learned by the citizens of Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq. And the outcome is always the teacher’s responsibility.

Yuri Kirillov,  an expert on the Middle East and North Africa, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

This visit by a British naval frigate came on the second anniversary of the date NATO’s air campaign in Libya got underway after the UN Security Council adopted Resolution No. 1973 okaying a no-fly zone in March 2011.

Then the military coalition, which included both Britain and France, perverted the resolution and became a club that rained powerful blows on military and civilian targets alike in Libya.

During the six-month military operation, a number of Arab analysts questioned the West’s widely publicized intentions to protect Libyan civilians against “victimization by a dictator.”

They suspected the perpetrators of wanting to harm the country in order to cash in on the reconstruction of oil-rich Libya after the war and squeeze competitors out of the market.

Time has proved them right. They destroyed what the Libyan people had created. Now, however, they simply hope to get extract billions from the country in contracts to rebuild its economy and military capability, sell it weapons and train its personnel.

Against this backdrop, the second anniversary of the start of NATO operations in Libya passed almost unnoticed, without fanfare either by the government or in the media.

After all, what is there to celebrate? That is not surprising according to the British newspaper The Independent: the Libyan government is in ruins and its people are at the mercy of armed groups.

Security in Libya today is fragile: Authority is shaky in various parts of the country due to the former rebels’ independence and tribal skirmishes.

The clashes during March that occurred in Mezda 170 kilometers southwest of the capital between the al-Kantrar and al-Masshia tribes are examples of that. Hundreds of houses were burned and looted, and more than 1500 families fled their homes.

Blood was shed again in the southern town of Sebha during fighting between members of the Berber Tubu tribe and Arab tribes. The region is dominated by the language of vengeance and revenge that relies on unregulated access to weapons. According to members of the National Congress, 70% of all weapons remaining after the war are still in the hands of the populace.

The trouble is that a sea of abandoned weapons left after the regime was overthrown is being dispersed to many countries where conflicts are ripening or actively unfolding. According to a recently published UN report, Libya has become a major source of illegal weapons for neighboring countries and the entire region. The report was prepared by a panel of UN experts monitoring an arms embargo imposed on Libya in February 2011. The document says that the deadly flow from Libya includes light and heavy weapons, including various types of air defense systems, explosives and mines.

These illicit weapons flows are fueling armed conflicts in Africa and the Middle East and are enriching the arsenals of non-state actors, including terrorist groups.

It says that the largest flow of weapons originates in Misurata and Benghazi and reaches civil war-torn Syria through Turkey and Lebanon.

In 2012, weapons smuggling from Libya into neighboring Egypt also increased, and some reached the Gaza Strip through Egyptian territory.

The report says that the most dangerous thing is that 18 months after the overthrow of the regime most of the weapons remain under the control of non-state actors and former rebel brigades.

Such a large flow of weapons and goods cannot go unnoticed by the local government. The authors say that it is probably aware of what is happening even if it is not directly involved in the transactions. The authorities have been unable to seal the borders, which have a total length of 6000 kilometers.

Libya, which was drained by the war and by the loss of thousands of its sons, needs stability, security and a return to normality. Realizing its weakness, official Tripoli has said that it expects the European Union to help train security forces to protect the country’s borders.

This is the background of the visit to Tripoli by the HMS Kent and other military delegations from EU countries. According to the British newspaper The Guardian, Great Britain is competing with other European countries, particularly France and Italy, to increase military sales in Libya.

But what will become of the weapons in the current unstable environment in which the former security forces were disrupted with NATO’s help and the formation of new ones is stalled? Could they fall into the hands of people who disobey the authorities, and could they add to the arsenals of various extremist elements outside Libya?

The lesson to be learned from the turbulent events in Libya since February 2011 is that those who organized them relied heavily on foreign support and foreign forces that have their own interests. The country is in debt to its patrons, although its leaders reject rumors that they are granting NATO any bases or facilities.

Yu. Kirillov is an expert on the Middle East and North Africa. This article was written expressly for New Eastern Outlook.