Connect with us

Middle East

An Islamic Cold War: Navigating the Iranian-Saudi Relationship



Could Iran and Saudi Arabia’s willingness to use fellow Middle Eastern nations, like Syria and Yemen, as proxies in their conflicts against one another threaten to move the world closer to the brink of an Islamic Cold War?

In their efforts to win the battle to be the dominant regional power within the Gulf and to control the world’s oil markets, the history of the Saudi Arabian and Iranian relationship has taken many forms. With the Saudis claiming the cultural high-ground based on it being the birthplace of Islam and the Arabic language, and the Iranians feeling a cultural supremacy based on civilizational and historical legacy, the animosity each side feels toward the other does not appear destined to wane any time soon. The winding road of the relationship, and the security approaches taken by the two nations, seem to be largely based on Arabic tribal tendencies:

1.A disposition to appease rather than resist a powerful opponent if at all possible, and to avoid irreparable confrontation if a clash is inevitable.

2.A tendency to wait for events to unfold before reacting, rather than seek to anticipate them.

3.A propensity to give priority to immediate, clear demands rather than to long-term strategic considerations when the two come into conflict. (Safran)

Further complicating this relationship in the modern day have been the roles that the United States and Russia play. Both the United States and Russia have played politics within Iran and the surrounding region, supplying many of the weapons and money that have been used in various conflicts. The United States has also been pushing Saudi Arabia for years to strengthen mutual military ties in an effort to gain a bigger foothold in the Middle East. It is the US ‘meddling’ in this way that Iran has repeatedly used as a rallying call for many of the Shia fundamentalists rising up within the region, trying to push out the “Great Satan” and not coincidentally point to Saudi Arabia’s complicity in facilitating this ‘evil’ as an equal transgression.

It is the Syrian conflict, however, that appears to be the key crisis with the biggest global impact. When the Arab Spring moved into Syria the Assad regime came under siege from the majority Sunni community. Seen as an opportunity by Saudi Arabia to weaken the Iranian sphere of influence, it was quick to back Syrian rebels. Iran could not afford the loss of the Assad regime and so it engaged on his behalf. The intervention of both Iran and Saudi Arabia, however, has now seen this civil uprising become a war based on opposing Islamic ideologies and has ultimately fostered the unintentional rise of the Islamo-fascist group, DAESH. Meanwhile, the United States still sits with the ‘original rebels,’ desperately trying to convince everyone to keep the conflict as a purely civil insurrection against the Assad regime. The stakes could not be higher for all sides.

Currently the mass exodus of people from Syria trying to escape the violence threatens both the United States and all nations that are taking in the massive influx of refugees. Lacking even basic infrastructure to properly vet the tens of thousands of refugees flowing across borders, this represents a major threat not only to the immediate region but also to host nations as the oblivious importing of terrorist agents hidden within the refugee population is highly plausible. Currently the Sunni Gulf states have not accepted any of the refugees for just these reasons. With the instability that many of those countries already have at home, they are not keen to now import potentially even more security problems.

Also in January of 2015 Russia and Iran signed a military cooperation deal. According to the Associated Press, Iranian defense minister Hossein Dehghan emphasized that, “Iran and Russia are able to confront the expansionist intervention and greed of the United States through cooperation, synergy and activating strategic potential capacities. … As two neighbors, Iran and Russia have common viewpoints toward political, regional and global issues.” With Russia now moving military capabilities into Syria under the auspices of “fighting DAESH,” this now puts the United States and Russia firmly at odds and potentially face-to-face on the battlefield. Russia, however, does not find itself in quite the quandary that the United States does. Keen to continue its support of Saudi Arabia and not lose control of its relations with the other Gulf States, the United States must continue to engage in the fight against DAESH while still needing to support the Syrian rebels attempting to overthrow the Assad regime. This is the same regime, however, that Russia has declared support for and whom Iran also supports. America and Russia might find themselves in the very situation that they spent decades trying to avoid during the Cold War: direct military engagement against one another.

Aside from the obvious military threat that America now finds itself in, it also finds itself both target and victim of an artificial suppression of oil prices by Saudi Arabia. In a direct assault on American shale oil and natural gas producers, the Saudis have worked to keep production high and prices low. “When the price per barrel remains so low, these ‘alternative’ industries in America…have no choice but to cash in on the opportunity and refocus on its traditional industrial models. This slows down advancement in alternative fuels and repositions the Saudi-American energy juggernaut back into a place of primacy.” (Crosston) Additionally this suppression of oil prices also works to adversely affect Iran. As Dr. Matthew Crosston further states, “There is no doubt that Saudi Arabia enjoys keeping Iran in check and does not wish to see the wanna-be regional hegemon ever truly compete for supremacy in the region. Keeping world oil prices low does this quite succinctly and efficiently, without even having to engage in any verbal or diplomatic animosity with the Shiite Republic.”

Additionally, the recent Iranian nuclear accord (JCPOA) is clearly seen by Saudi Arabia as the biggest threat going forward. The deal paves the way for Iran to aspire to the role as dominant player in the region, leaving Saudi Arabia to feel backed into a corner. The deal also opens up Iran’s pipelines for the sale of oil and the added revenues would allow Tehran to flow even more money into Syria, Hezbollah, and possibly entertain new initiatives in the Gulf (many in Saudi Arabia feel the Houthi rebellion in Yemen is exactly what this kind of initiative could look like). There is almost no scenario where the nuclear agreement and an easing of the strife between the U.S. and Iran can be seen as a good thing for Saudi Arabia. And with many of the negotiations having happened behind closed doors the Saudis have long felt a sense of betrayal. If the situation within the Saudi monarchy worsens in terms of its own internal dissension and unrest, then America could find the royal finger pointed straight at it.

For Tehran the deal with the Americans is a political tightrope. It has an aging military and its economy has been hard hit. So there was tremendous internal pressure to make a deal. With the Russian agreement firmly in hand, Russian troops on their way to shore up Assad, and the nuclear deal struck, Tehran has to at least feel like maybe some breathing room is finally available. What remains to be seen is whether this breathing room is a new opportunity for global assimilation and responsible behavior or simply a respite before beginning in earnest an Islamic Cold War with its hated Wahhabist rival.

Continue Reading

Middle East

The role of spin doctors in the Eastern Ghouta crisis



When it comes to war, it is exceedingly important to get all the facts straight: always remember there are—at least—two sides to every story and be careful to distinguish reality from propaganda.

Many words have been spoken about the ongoing crisis in Eastern Ghouta: the Damascus district, in fact, is paying the price of the umpteenth conflict between pro-Syrian government forces and rebels.

The protests against President Bashar al-Assad have been going on in the area since 2011 and the next year the rebel fighters managed to establish their control over the territory.

The initial tensions rapidly developed into a full-blown war that did not spared civilians—including a large percentage of children—from being a target.

In the last few weeks, a global campaign of solidarity—#IAmStillAlive—has been launched on social media platforms to support the children trapped in the rebel-held enclave, where there is almost no food left, nor medical supplies and humanitarian access has been completely cut off.

In this regard, it is necessary to remember that international aid convoys have been regularly delivered from the United Nations, the Syrian government, the Syrian Arab Red Crescent and Russia. It became known, anyway, that the supplies do not always reach civilians falling, instead, directly in the hands of the rebels.

But who are exactly the so-called “rebels”?

Numerous groups are active inside the besieged region and, despite being in opposition to each other, they stand together against the Syrian Arab Army.

Jaysh al-Islam represents the largest factionwith an estimated 10-15,000 members. Formerly allied with Al-Nusra Front—al-Qaeda’s branch in Syria— they conducted several deadly attacks, such as the infamous “Adra massacre”.

The Syrian Military claimed that in last December 2013 over 80 people were executed in the city of Adra and, during the following days, dozens of others were kidnapped and use as human shields.

Geopolitical analyst Patrick Henningsen believes that the foreign encouragement of rebel forces was to blame for that tragedy; in an interview with RT he goes even further, claiming that “there is involvement by the Western intelligence agencies that have links to some of those radical jihadist groups.

The Hay’-at Tharir al-Sham and the Faylaq al-Rahman—which is also affiliated to the Free Syrian Armyorganizations are linked to al-Qaeda and they are responsible for a huge amount of atrocities, including the heinous attack that took place on 16 December 2016 in the Al-Midan neighborhood in Damascus, when jihadi-father Abu Nimr al-Suri sent his two daughters to die in a suicide-bombing attack against the police station.

The Ahrar al-Sham coalition is probably the biggest terrorist group in Syria and it is currently aligned with Jaysh al-Islam against al-Nusra Front.

The criminal organizations above—some more than others—aim at the extermination of Syrian religious minorities, proving themselves to be nothing but terrorist groups.

Furthermore, they are said to have received “donations” from Saudi Arabia, Qatar ,Turkey and the US, although they rejected those claims.

The Western Media seemed initially reluctant to highlight the Tafkiri-Jihadi inspired nature of the rebels, depicting them as “moderate rebels” or “freedom fighters”.

Once again, it is necessary to check the accuracy of sources of information and report on solid facts exclusively.

It can be quite tricky, since much of the country is inaccessible to journalists on the ground and news coming out is often filtered through “media activists” or unofficial outlets.

Every major newspaper and outlet gleaned the information from the often quoted Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), a UK-based monitoring group—actually a one-man band—run by Rami Abdul Rahman.

According to the New York Times “military analysts in Washington follow its body counts of Syrian and rebel soldiers to gauge the course of the war,” as well as providing mainstream media with daily updates about the Syrian crisis.

In the same article from the NYT, he admitted to receive “small subsidies from the European Union and one European country that he declines to identify.

Mr. Abdul Rahman—born Osama Suleiman—is a three-term convicted criminal in Syria, due to his years of activism against the Assad regime.

He fled to the United Kingdom eighteen years ago and the government relocated him to Coventry, in the West Midlands region; he has not returned to his home country ever since.

In the UK, he has had direct access to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London, where has been documented meeting with the former Foreign Secretary William Hague.

Both Hague and current Foreign Minister Tobias Ellwood endorse Rahman’s political position.

Among Rahman’s network of contacts there is Rafid al-Janabi, better known as “Curveball”. The Iraqi defector played a crucial role in the 2003 Iraq War, falsely accusing Saddam Hussein of having weapons of mass destruction and pushing the US and its allies into launching offensive.

In 2011 he eventually admitted that he “had the chance to fabricate something to topple the regime,” and spread the fake information that became the centerpiece of then-Secretary of State Colin Powell’s pro-intervention speech at the United Nations.

It is hard to believe that the Western press never considered to examine its main source’s political connections and background before using hisnot-necessarily-objective reports.

Funded in 2013 by  ex-military officerJames Le Mesurier, the White Helmets NGO aims to rescue civilian survivors trapped in bombed buildings and the people who   volunteer for the corps are hailed as some sort of heroes in the West.

The Netflix heart-breaking Oscar-winning documentary (“The White Helmets”, 2016) focuses indeed on the “perilous work of volunteers who brave falling bombs to rescue civilians from the carnage of Syria’s civil war.”

They present themselves as an unarmed, non-governmental and neutralorganization, yet they have had a leading role in various controversial events.

Although they claim to be apolitical, they actually actively campaign for a no-fly zone and they are largely funded by Western governments which advocate for regime change.Their principal funder is, in fact, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), along with the UK, and Europe.

They work exclusively in rebel-controlled areas, which raised doubts about the independence of their reports; in addition, some volunteers happened to be photographed while assisting in terrorist executions.

In 2016 members of the group were caught staging a rescue scene, later justified as their version of the popular ‘mannequin challenge,’ in which people were supposed to freeze for the camera. They apologized for the fact calling it an “error of judgment,” but the footage has been subject of harsh criticism on social media.

This does not mean that their effort as rescue workers is unappreciated, but it truly indicates the need to examine whatever information they provide with a critical eye.

In order to understand the reasons that could lead media to distort information, we have to introduce the concept of “spin”.

Spin is a form of propaganda used by public relations agencies—referred as “spin doctors” in this case—which provide a biased interpretation of facts and data to influence public perception on significant matters.

Cited as an invaluable source of information by Western media outlets, the Syria Campaign is a public relations and marketing company that, among other operations, branded and promoted the White Helmets to the international public.

The agency presents itself as impartial and non-political, yet they not only called for a no-fly zone, but also pushed for military intervention in several occasions.

They even attacked the UN’s work in Syria by publishing a 50-page report on a dedicated website that used a UN logo soaked in blood.

Ironically, among the supporters of their anti-UN campaign was the previously mentioned Ahrar Al-Sham.

The supposed most-reliable media outlets feed us altered and even fake news sometimes.

The majority of information we have about the Syria’s war do not come from  disinterested observers: citizen journalists and activists, in fact, are either pro-rebel or pro-regime, which is no guarantee of objectivity.

In conclusion, we have a duty to question where the news is coming from, whether it has been manipulated or whether there is an intentional attempt to shape our own opinion.

Continue Reading

Middle East

Three Years of Saudi Heinous Crimes in Yemen

Sondoss Al Asaad



Yemen a miserable isolated Arab country has been devastated by an ongoing Saudi bloody war. Since March 2015, Saudi Arabia and its gulf allies (GCC) have launched a vicious military campaign against Yemen to reinstall its former government. Recently, the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s visit to the UK has refocused attention on this silent conflict.

The collation has imposed a blockade on the port of Hodeida city, the main entry point for food and medicines and has been repeatedly accused of unlawful airstrikes on civilian targets which amount to war crimes. Obviously, the U.K., U.S. and other Western governments back, supply weapons and provides training to the GCC soldiers.

Amid the global silent and the mainstream media hypocrisy, the criminal collation systematically targets residential areas, claiming it would control arms transfer to the Houthi rebels. Saudi Arabia regards the Houthis as Iranian proxies and intervened to check their advance. These heinous massacres have prompted accusations by some Western opposition MPs and human rights groups of significant responsibility for civilian casualties. Thousands of Yemenis have been killed and the infrastructure has been thoroughly pulverized.

The GCC collation has imposed a blockade on Yemen’s air, sea and land borders in November 2017 in response to Huthis firing missiles towards Riyadh airport, closing an aid lifeline to tens of thousands of starving Yemenis. The U.K. government denies that its forces are advising the Saudis on specific targets, though they admit that, after a raid, British officers can give advice on future targeting policy.

A UN panel of experts that reviewed 10 Saudi airstrikes found Saudi denials of involvement in these specific airstrikes were implausible, and individuals responsible for planning, authorising or executing the strikes would meet the standard for the imposition of UN sanctions. The panel reported early in January, “even if the Saudi Arabia-led coalition had targeted legitimate military objectives … it is highly unlikely that the principles of international humanitarian law of proportionality and precautions in attack were respected.”

At the end of February, Russia vetoed a UK draft resolution that included a condemnation of Iran for violating the UN arms embargo in Yemen over claims that it supplied the missiles used by the Houthis that were fired towards Riyadh.The ongoing war has witnessed heinous atrocities, which emphasizes the urgent need of taking all necessary and possible steps to stop the war, bring the perpetrators to justice and ensure impunity.

Since the beginning of the military campaign, the coalition has targeted numerous facilities including schools, hospitals, airports, ports, universities, water and electric utilities, roads, bridges.  Although international conventions grant full protection for civilian installations, the Saudi warplanes have systematically targeted civil facilities using several internationally forbidden weapons, during the systemic raids over densely populated areas.

Medics have voiced alarm over the raging spread of the cholera epidemic in the impoverished country, saying that one child is infected every minute. Malnourished children, who number more than two million in Yemen, are greatly susceptible. Yemeni Health Ministry says that the Saudi aerial embargo has prevented patients from travelling abroad for treatment, and the entry of medicine into the country has been blocked. Over the following three years, the war has engulfed the entire country causing unbearable suffering for civilians. Due to the relentless bombardment, many civilians have been killed or injured, and a humanitarian crisis has spiraled, while the world ignores this raging war and hears little about its devastating consequences.

Various hospitals were shut because of the bombarding, and the insufficient medical teams. Further, vaccinations of major infectious diseases have been banned, amid the growth of the indicators of child malnutrition, and the spread of epidemics. In addition, more than 95% of doctors, nurses and consultants have been killed or fled the country. The lack of medicines has caused the deaths of many with Thalassemia and Anemia who need a monthly blood transfusion. Dialysis centres have made an SOS to save the lives of more than 6 thousand patients with Renal failure by providing them with necessary medical supplies, pointing out that the number of deaths of patients with renal failure exceeded 17 deaths in every 8 months.

The blockade imposed by the coalition has left more than 12,000 people killed, 49,000 injured and around 20 million people in need of humanitarian assistance. It has also created the world’s largest food security emergency. Human Rights Watch has accused the Saudi-led coalition of committing war crimes, saying its air raids killed 39 civilians, including 26 children, in two months. Additionally, The International Committee of the Red Cross has said that the number of suspected cholera cases in war-torn Yemen has hit one million. More than eight million Yemenis are on the verge of starvation, making Yemen the scene of, what the United Nations calls, the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.The Saudi regime has launched his war to eliminate the Houthis movement and to reinstall a Riyadh-friendly regime in Yemen.

However, the collation has failed to achieve its geopolitical and ideological objectives regardless of spending billions of dollars and enlisting the cooperation of its vassal states as well as some Western countries. The world’s largest humanitarian crisis caused by Saudi prolonged military onslaught has pushed millions of Yemenis to the brink of starvation. Unfortunately, the UN has not yet taken any effective measures to halt the humanitarian tragedy for the sake of the ultimate objective that Saudi Arabia is pursuing in the country, which is eliminating the threat of the Houthis. Obviously, the Saudis have not achieved their basic goals; hence, they are seeking revenge on the innocent Yemenis through their aimless bombardment.

Continue Reading

Middle East

West using JCPOA as lever to pressurize Iran



Recently, Reuters claimed European countries had commenced negotiations with Iran over the country’s role in the region in order to ease U.S. President Donald Trump’s concerns over the Iran nuclear deal known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

Reuters alleges that the talks got off the ground on the fringes of the Munich security conference, with Yemen and certain regional issues taking center stage, and that the negotiations are going to continue in the future.

“European powers and Iran have started talks over Tehran’s role in the Middle East and will meet again this month in Italy as part of efforts to prove to U.S. President Donald Trump that they are meeting his concerns over the 2015 nuclear deal,” wrote Reuters.

What is worth mentioning about the Reuters’ report is that the news agency claims the talks between Iran and Europe on regional issues conducted is phased. Reuters says the first round of the negotiations were held on the sidelines of the Munich security conference with the Yemen war top of the agenda, and that the Europeans hope to discuss the role of the groups supporting Iran in Lebanon and Syria. A few points need to be taken into account in this regard.

First, regional talks with Iran has been one of the common demands of the U.S. and the European Union following the conclusion of the JCPOA. When the nuclear deal was signed in July 2015, many analysts unanimously believed that Washington and the European Troika intended to use the JCPOA as a springboard for regional talks with Tehran.

Efforts by Germany, Britain and France to hold regional talks with Iran can be analyzed accordingly. Here, France seeks to play the role of a leading player. The trip to Iran by French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian comes within the same framework. Paris has promised Washington to spare no effort to hold negotiations with Iran on the Islamic Republic’s regional policies. Accordingly, Germany and Britain have got on board with France, too.

The second point is that while the general meeting of the UN General Assembly was underway in New York last summer, key talks were held between U.S. President Donald Trump and senior European officials over Iran’s regional policies and their connection with the JCPOA. In the talks, French President Emmanuel Macron promised his U.S. counterpart to channel and manage missile and regional talks with Iran. This comes as the fundamental principles of Iran’s foreign policy will remain unchanged. The principles include Iran’s backing for resistance groups, and above all, the country’s firmly dealing with the regional threats made by the U.S. and its allies and cronies. This firm approach by Iran will shatter the U.S. and Europe’s hope for regional talks with Iran. Still, the European officials believe the commencement of regional negotiations with Iran (even if unofficial), per se, can serve as a starting point to curtail Iran’s power and influence in the region. Thirdly, the Iranian diplomacy apparatus’ insistence on the unchangeable and general strategies of the country’s foreign policy, namely support for resistance groups, promotion of the resistance discourse, and fighting Takfiri terrorism will play a key role in foiling the ploys adopted by the U.S. and the European Union for talks.

One should bear in mind that the European Troika are channeling the talks on behalf of the U.S. and in coordination with the Trump administration. What Iran will employ to counter the joint game launched by Washington, Paris, London and Berlin will be the determination to safeguard the country’s strategic and behavioral principles in the region. It goes without saying that with this firm and prudent defense, the U.S. and the European Troika will not achieve any of their objectives in restricting Iran’s maneuvering power in the region. And lastly, the U.S. and the European Union are using the JCPOA as a lever to channel regional talks with Iran and pressure Tehran into giving in to Washington’s regional demands. In other words, Instead of serving its function as an independent legal document, the JCPOA has turned into a political tool to exert pressure on Iran. Here, too, the Iranian diplomacy and foreign policy apparatus should act very prudently and consider “safeguarding Iran’s regional power” as its red line, not “safeguarding the JCPOA.” Obviously, Washington and the European Troika should get to understand the definitive principle that Iran will not compromise on its fundamental strategies in the region.

First published in our partner Tehran Times

Continue Reading




Copyright © 2018 Modern Diplomacy