Connect with us

Middle East

Iran’s Competing Futures: Global Economic Participant or Regional Religious Hegemon?

Published

on

As the official deadline for the nuclear deal approaches, many are expressing their apprehension over the consequences that may emerge should a deal be reached and sanctions on the Islamic Republic are lifted.

The anxiety mostly has to do with concerns over regional and global stability that may be threatened if Shia Iran plans to export more than oil, gas, and pistachios. Like its Islamic Revolution ideology, for example.

While there is no doubt that Iran – a country that is often accused of aspiring to be a hegemonic power driven by aspirations to dominate the Middle East by spreading its religious ideology – would have a greater influence on Sunni Azerbaijan and the five majority Sunni Central Asian states, there is no evidence that suggests their influence would extend past a purely economic one. In fact, the governments of these former Soviet Republics have high-ranking members that were once affiliated with the Communist Party during the Soviet era. Members who are still deeply suspicious of theocratic rule.

For these states, who have been independent for almost 25 years, there are clear opportunities that may arise from new trade developments in the region. As talks of recreating the ancient Silk Road – the name for the ancient trade route between the Mediterranean Sea and China – continue, the possibility that Iran will no longer be off-limits is being eagerly anticipated. Because the Caspian Sea offers little trade potential at the moment due to its contested legal status, this situation may offer opportunities for Central Asia that will allow it to cut back its reliance on countries like Russia to the north and China to the east. A southern route through Iran would effectively change the dynamics of trade, giving the five central Asian countries more leverage at the bargaining table with their superpower neighbors.

A passage through Iran also offers a shorter non-Russian route for shipping Central Asian oil and gas to Europe. The European Union is also looking to decrease its dependence on Russian supplies so it is actively looking to diversify its gas suppliers. Receiving gas from the Caspian Region – known as the Southern Gas Corridor Project – via this route would be enormously advantageous for them. However, this would take a minimum of five years and maybe even closer to a decade before any of these projects would be functional.

In general, coming to a nuclear agreement is welcome among ordinary Iranians who have suffered a great deal from the international sanctions slapped on them by the United States and other nations. These sanctions have imposed restrictions on trade and international banking which have seriously hurt Iran’s economy. To the Iranian people, a deal means more jobs which would lead to a higher standard of living. While many would argue that the Iranian people have gotten a raw deal, it is important to remember that Iran’s Guardian Council regime has often tried to deliberately provoke the United States. When presented with evidence to support it was enriching uranium in the early 2000s, Iran’s regime admitted it had hidden a uranium enrichment program from the world for almost two decades. Iran continued to enrich uranium openly in defiance to the United Nations. Things got worse when Iran’s former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a very controversial leader, insisted that Iran would not stop enriching uranium and that the West had no business interfering in their affairs. He publicly announced that it was Iran’s intention to destroy the nation of Israel and eventually defeat the United States – the “Great Satan.” This certainly hurt the side effort by calmer voices in Iran that tried to emphasize nuclear energy alone.

The United States – despite Iran’s insistence that it was pursuing a uranium enrichment program only to build nuclear power plants – was convinced Iran was building a nuclear weapon and saw Iran’s actions as deliberately violating the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Under its provisions, the nations with nuclear weapons at the time agreed not to give nuclear weapons – or the knowledge on how to build them – to any other nation. The United States and its allies – especially Israel and Saudi Arabia – are worried that should Iran acquire nuclear weapons, it would throw the Middle East into turmoil. They believed other countries would want to build their own nuclear weapons and a regional nuclear arms race would ensue that would be tinged with religious extremism.

To be fair, Iran has made real progress in recent years. With the election of Iran’s current president, Hassan Rouhani, the country has taken a different stance toward the nuclear issue. President Rouhani criticized the nuclear stand-off with the West and brought much attention to the state of Iran’s economy that was being smothered by the sanctions. The sanctions isolated Iran from the rest of the world and President Rouhani started negotiations with the P5+1 countries which led to an interim treaty in 2013 that stated Iran would seriously limit their uranium enrichment program in exchange for temporary relief from the sanctions.

However, as many are aware, Iran’s president is the elected head of government but largely fills a ceremonial position. The Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Sayed Ali Khamenei, is the one who calls the political shots. He has the power to veto any legislation passed by the executive branch per Iran’s unique “Islamic government” constitution. Not surprisingly, there are deep rifts in the country’s government caught in what some might consider a nasty power struggle. On one side are the reformists led by President Rouhani and on the other conservatives led by Ayatollah Khamenei. The reformists want Iran to become more democratic while the conservatives want to keep the country in line with the fundamentalist Islamic social codes introduced by Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979.

Even though Ayatollah Khamenei has been behind President Rouhani on the nuclear issue, these rifts could prevent Iran from improving its global image and from making further progress socially, economically and politically. Unfortunately, the country already has a reputation to some for thuggish behavior as both a violator of human rights and as one of the largest exporters and contributors of terrorism. Even though an argument can be made that the rights and opportunities of women have improved in recent years, the country has lost too many of their best and brightest citizens to relocate to the West and other countries that are more modern and democratic. If sanctions are lifted and it is truly their desire to get involved with projects like the Southern Gas Corridor Project, Iran will need to take some serious steps toward addressing its internal problems, worrying more about being a major participant in the global economy and less about aspirations to be a regional religious hegemon. Right now it seems like most of the country favors the former objective overwhelmingly. But the Guardian Council undoubtedly still dreams of the latter. Checking that desire, or enacting some type of reform on the Guardians, could be the most interesting immediate future for Iran when it comes to economic plans in the greater Caspian region.

Continue Reading
Comments

Middle East

North Africa: Is Algeria Weaponizing Airspace and Natural Gas?

Published

on

In a series of shocking and unintelligible decisions, the Algerian Government closed its airspace to Moroccan military and civilian aircraft on September 22, 2021, banned French military planes from using its airspace on October 3rd, and decided not to renew the contract relative to the Maghreb-Europe gas pipeline, which goes through Morocco and has been up and running since 1996–a contract that comes to end on October 31.

In the case of Morocco, Algeria advanced ‘provocations and hostile’ actions as a reason to shut airspace and end the pipeline contract, a claim that has yet to be substantiated with evidence. Whereas in the case of France, Algeria got angry regarding visa restrictions and comments by French President Emmanuel Macron on the Algerian military grip on power and whether the North African country was a nation prior to French colonization in 1830.

Tensions for decades

Algeria has had continued tensions with Morocco for decades, over border issues and over the Western Sahara, a territory claimed by Morocco as part of its historical territorial unity, but contested by Algeria which supports an alleged liberation movement that desperately fights for independence since the 1970s.

With France, the relation is even more complex and plagued with memories of colonial exactions and liberation and post-colonial traumas, passions and injuries. France and Algeria have therefore developed, over the post-independence decades, a love-hate attitude that quite often mars otherwise strong economic and social relations.

Algeria has often reacted to the two countries’ alleged ‘misbehavior’ by closing borders –as is the case with Morocco since 1994—or calling its ambassadors for consultations, or even cutting diplomatic relations, as just happened in August when it cut ties with its western neighbor.

But it is the first-time Algeria resorts to the weaponization of energy and airspace. “Weaponization” is a term used in geostrategy to mean the use of goods and commodities, that are mainly destined for civilian use and are beneficial for international trade and the welfare of nations, for geostrategic, political and even military gains. As such “weaponization” is contrary to the spirit of free trade, open borders, and solidarity among nations, values that are at the core of common international action and positive globalization.

What happened?

Some observers advance continued domestic political and social unrest in Algeria, whereby thousands of Algerians have been taking to the streets for years to demand regime-change and profound political and economic reforms. Instead of positively responding to the demands of Algerians, the government is probably looking for desperate ways to divert attention and cerate foreign enemies as sources of domestic woes. Morocco and France qualify perfectly for the role of national scapegoats.

It may be true also that in the case of Morocco, Algeria is getting nervous at its seeing its Western neighbor become a main trade and investment partner in Africa, a role it can levy to develop diplomatic clout regarding the Western Sahara issue. Algeria has been looking for ways to curb Morocco’s growing influence in Africa for years. A pro-Algerian German expert, by the name of Isabelle Werenfels, a senior fellow in the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, even recommended to the EU to put a halt to Morocco’s pace and economic clout so that Algeria could catch up. Weaponization may be a desperate attempt to hurt the Moroccan economy and curb its dynamism, especially in Africa.

The impact of Algeria’s weaponization of energy and airspace on the Moroccan economy is minimal and on French military presence in Mali is close to insignificant; however, it shows how far a country that has failed to administer the right reforms and to transfer power to democratically elected civilians can go.

In a region, that is beleaguered by threats and challenges of terrorism, organized crime, youth bulge, illegal migration and climate change, you would expect countries like Algeria, with its geographic extension and oil wealth, to be a beacon of peace and cooperation. Weaponization in international relations is inacceptable as it reminds us of an age when bullying and blackmail between nations, was the norm. The people of the two countries, which share the same history, language and ethnic fabric, will need natural gas and unrestricted travel to prosper and grow and overcome adversity; using energy and airspace as weapons is at odds with the dreams of millions of young people in Algeria and Morocco that aspire for a brighter future in an otherwise gloomy economic landscape. Please don’t shatter those dreams!

Continue Reading

Middle East

Breaking The Line of the Israel-Palestine Conflict

Published

on

The conflict between Israel-Palestine is a prolonged conflict and has become a major problem, especially in the Middle East region.

A series of ceasefires and peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine that occurred repeatedly did not really “normalize” the relationship between the two parties.

In order to end the conflict, a number of parties consider that the two-state solution is the best approach to create two independent and coexistent states. Although a number of other parties disagreed with the proposal, and instead proposed a one-state solution, combining Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip into one big state.

Throughout the period of stalemate reaching an ideal solution, the construction and expansion of settlements carried out illegally by Israel in the Palestinian territories, especially the West Bank and East Jerusalem, also continued without stopping and actually made the prospect of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian crisis increasingly eroded, and this could jeopardize any solutions.

The attempted forced eviction in the Sheikh Jarrah district, which became one of the sources of the conflict in May 2021, for example, is an example of how Israel has designed a system to be able to change the demographics of its territory by continuing to annex or “occupy” extensively in the East Jerusalem area. This is also done in other areas, including the West Bank.

In fact, Israel’s “occupation” of the eastern part of Jerusalem which began at the end of the 1967 war, is an act that has never received international recognition.

This is also confirmed in a number of resolutions issued by the UN Security Council Numbers 242, 252, 267, 298, 476, 478, 672, 681, 692, 726, 799, 2334 and also United Nations General Assembly Resolutions Number 2253, 55/130, 60/104, 70/89, 71/96, A/72/L.11 and A/ES-10/L.22 and supported by the Advisory Opinion issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 2004 on Legal Consequences of The Construction of A Wall in The Occupied Palestine Territory which states that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territories under Israeli “occupation”.

1 or 2 country solution

Back to the issue of the two-state solution or the one-state solution that the author mentioned earlier. The author considers that the one-state solution does not seem to be the right choice.

Facts on the ground show how Israel has implemented a policy of “apartheid” that is so harsh against Palestinians. so that the one-state solution will further legitimize the policy and make Israel more dominant. In addition, there is another consideration that cannot be ignored that Israel and Palestine are 2 parties with very different and conflicting political and cultural identities that are difficult to reconcile.

Meanwhile, the idea of ​​a two-state solution is an idea that is also difficult to implement. Because the idea still seems too abstract, especially on one thing that is very fundamental and becomes the core of the Israel-Palestine conflict, namely the “division” of territory between Israel and Palestine.

This is also what makes it difficult for Israel-Palestine to be able to break the line of conflict between them and repeatedly put them back into the status quo which is not a solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

The status quo, is in fact a way for Israel to continue to “annex” more Palestinian territories by establishing widespread and systematic illegal settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Today, more than 600,000 Israeli settlers now live in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

In fact, a number of resolutions issued by the UN Security Council have explicitly and explicitly called for Israel to end the expansion of Israeli settlement construction in the occupied territory and require recognition of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of the region.

Thus, all efforts and actions of Israel both legislatively and administratively that can cause changes in the status and demographic composition in East Jerusalem and the West Bank must continue to be condemned. Because this is a violation of the provisions of international law.

Fundamental thing

To find a solution to the conflict, it is necessary to look back at the core of the conflict that the author has mentioned earlier, and the best way to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is to encourage Israel to immediately end the “occupation” that it began in 1967, and return the settlements to the pre-Islamic borders 1967 In accordance with UN Security Council resolution No. 242.

But the question is, who can stop the illegal Israeli settlements in the East Jerusalem and West Bank areas that violate the Palestinian territories?

In this condition, international political will is needed from countries in the world, to continue to urge Israel to comply with the provisions of international law, international humanitarian law, international human rights law and also the UN Security Council Resolutions.

At the same time, the international community must be able to encourage the United Nations, especially the United Nations Security Council, as the organ that has the main responsibility for maintaining and creating world peace and security based on Article 24 of the United Nations Charter to take constructive and effective steps in order to enforce all United Nations Resolutions, and dare to sanction violations committed by Israel, and also ensure that Palestinian rights are important to protect.

So, do not let this weak enforcement of international law become an external factor that also “perpetuates” the cycle of the Israel-Palestine conflict. It will demonstrate that John Austin was correct when he stated that international law is only positive morality and not real law.

And in the end, the most fundamental thing is that the blockade, illegal development, violence, and violations of international law must end. Because the ceasefire in the Israel-Palestine conflict is only a temporary solution to the conflict.

Continue Reading

Middle East

Iran unveils new negotiation strategy

Published

on

Image source: Tehran Times

While the West is pressuring Iran for a return to the Vienna nuclear talks, the top Iranian diplomat unveiled a new strategy on the talks that could reset the whole negotiation process. 

The Iranian parliament held a closed meeting on Sunday at which Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian briefed the lawmakers on a variety of pressing issues including the situation around the stalled nuclear talks between Iran and world powers over reviving the 2015 nuclear deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

The Iranian foreign ministry didn’t give any details about the session, but some lawmakers offered an important glimpse into the assessment Abdollahian gave to the parliament.

According to these lawmakers, the Iranian foreign ministry addressed many issues ranging from tensions with Azerbaijan to the latest developments in Iranian-Western relations especially with regard to the JCPOA. 

On Azerbaijan, Abdollahian has warned Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev against falling into the trap set by Israel, according to Alireza Salimi, a member of the Iranian Parliament’s presiding board who attended the meeting. Salimi also said that the Iranian foreign minister urged Aliyev to not implicate himself in the “Americans’ complexed scheme.”

In addition to Azerbaijan, Abdollahian also addressed the current state of play between Iran and the West regarding the JCPOA.

“Regarding the nuclear talks, the foreign minister explicitly stated that the policy of the Islamic Republic is action for action, and that the Americans must show goodwill and honesty,” Salimi told Fars News on Sunday.

The remarks were in line with Iran’s oft-repeated stance on the JCPOA negotiations. What’s new is that the foreign minister determined Iran’s agenda for talks after they resume. 

Salimi quoted Abdollahian as underlining that the United States “must certainly take serious action before the negotiations.”

In addition, the Iranian foreign minister said that Tehran intends to negotiate over what happened since former U.S. President Donald Trump withdrew the U.S. from the JCPOA, not other issues. 

By expanding the scope of negotiations, Abdollahian is highly likely to strike a raw nerve in the West. His emphasis on the need to address the developments ensuing the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA in May 2018 could signal that the new government of President Ayatollah Seyed Ebrahim Raisi is not going to pick up where the previous government left. 

This has been a major concern in European diplomatic circles in the wake of the change of administrations in Iran. In fact, the Europeans and the Biden administration have been, and continue to be, worried about two things in the aftermath of Ayatollah Raisi taking the reins in Tehran; one is he refusing to accept the progress made during six rounds of talks under his predecessor Hassan Rouhani. Second, the possibility that the new government of Ayatollah Raisi would refuse to return to Vienna within a certain period of time. 

With Abdollahian speaking of negotiation over developments since Trump’s withdrawal, it seems that the Europeans will have to pray that their concerns would not come true. 

Of course, the Iranian foreign ministry has not yet announced that how it would deal with a resumed negotiation. But the European are obviously concerned. Before his recent visit to Tehran to encourage it into returning to Vienna, Deputy Director of the EU Action Service Enrique Mora underlined the need to prick up talks where they left in June, when the last round of nuclear talks was concluded with no agreement. 

“Travelling to Tehran where I will meet my counterpart at a critical point in time. As coordinator of the JCPOA, I will raise the urgency to resume #JCPOA negotiations in Vienna. Crucial to pick up talks from where we left last June to continue diplomatic work,” Mora said on Twitter. 

Mora failed to obtain a solid commitment from his interlocutors in Tehran on a specific date to resume the Vienna talk, though Iran told him that it will continue talks with the European Union in the next two weeks. 

Source: Tehran Times

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Finance2 hours ago

Montenegro on Course for Stronger Economic Recovery in 2021

The Western Balkans region is rebounding from the COVID-19-induced recession of 2020, thanks to a faster-than-expected recovery in 2021, says...

Environment4 hours ago

UNESCO ‘eDNA’ initiative to ‘unlock’ knowledge for biodiversity protection

To understand the richness of biodiversity across World Heritage marine sites, the UN scientific organization launched on Monday a project to protect...

Americas6 hours ago

America’s Two-Tiered Justice System

The Constitution states only one command twice. The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be “deprived...

Africa Today8 hours ago

‘Overzealous’ security services undermining South Sudan peace

State security forces in South Sudan have been responsible for imposing new and potentially arbitrary restrictions against the country’s most prominent civil society leaders, issuing “credible” death threats that have undermined peace...

Reports10 hours ago

In highly uneven recovery, global investment flows rebound

After a big drop last year caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, global foreign direct investment (FDI) reached an estimated $852 billion in the...

Defense12 hours ago

American submarine mangled in the South China Sea

Tensions in the western Pacific have been simmering for the past many months. The western world led by the United...

Human Rights14 hours ago

Restore sexual, reproductive health rights lost during COVID, rights expert urges

Sexual and reproductive health rights, are human rights, the independent UN expert on the right to health reminded Member States...

Trending