Forgive the presumptuousness of thinking a mere American Intelligence Studies professor is able to give a few lessons about innovative geostrategy to a foreign state, but sometimes it takes eyes on the outside, far away from the forest, to be able to see unique young saplings that have the potential to grow into great redwoods, even though they may currently be completely ignored.
I believe this is just such the case today when we look at the global position of Iran as it considers the many different paths and perspectives moving forward after the JCPOA. If I am being honest, so far the outlook appears less-than-rosy, as the same old-same old seems to be dominating. For the sake of the greatest future of Iran and a more peaceful global community, status quo orthodoxy should be discarded.
Sometimes it must seem utterly comedic trying to navigate the relationship waters with the West. Since the signing of the JCPOA there have been half a dozen accusations from EACH side protesting how the spirit if not the letter of the accord has been breached. America, for its part, seems to exhibit something akin to ‘signer’s remorse,’ more obsessed about finding areas to critique the Islamic Republic rather than emphasizing how to work successfully within this new and exciting dialogue. Iran, for its part, feels strain from all sides, inside and out: internally, the domestic authorities want to tightly manage and maximize the success to be gained out of the accord in a competent and non-chaotic way (without any major political change); externally, many different foreign sides not-so-secretly hope the accord becomes the actual undoing of the government, a facilitator of local unrest and creator of a new regime, exorcising for America at least the ghosts of 1979.
And thus, the frustrating banality of politics: over-determined to make the status quo immutable. American worries about not trusting Iran are as common and inane as Iranian worries about not trusting the United States. The JCPOA could and should be a spur for new thinking and new engagement. So far, on that note, it has been basically irrelevant. It is perhaps even understandable why that is so: Iran sees the greatest capitalization of the accord to be about increasing its economic stability and prosperity. It no doubt will do just that. But it could also do so much more. But that will require both sides, American and Iranian, to be willing to see the future in a more innovative geostrategic light and be less enslaved to the old orthodoxy where the two simply must remain adversaries. It does not have to be that way. In fact, if people on either side could take a moment to step back and breathe, then the INEVITABILITY of this transformation would be more apparent. Yes, I said ‘inevitability’ and meant it: a new day will come. The only real question is will the leaders in Washington and Tehran take advantage of it?
One of the biggest relationship elephants in terms of making such change between Iran and America is Saudi Arabia. Indeed, the ‘special’ relationship between the US and Saudi royal family now goes back decades. While both sides have always emphasized the strategic defense aspects of the relationship – how the Saudis have been a de facto ‘silent affirmer’ of American interests in the region, the Islamic partner Americans can work with – this has come with a steep cost: the political development of Saudi society, the evolution of its governmental system and emergence of civil liberties and citizen rights has been, to put it kindly, abysmally glacial. While many military figures would characterize this as a necessary evil to maintain a major power Islamic partner in the area, the true reality is that this moral turpitude is better explained by the economic energy dependence from which America has been unable to wean itself away and which the Saudis have brilliantly maintained and managed. Until now. And this is where the biggest opportunity sits hidden for Iran. America has finally managed to position itself to where it is at least realistic to see a near future where it is not overly dependent on foreign fossil fuels. This means the ‘special’ relationship with Saudi Arabia is inevitably going to undergo great change. Trust me. When the day comes that the United States no longer sees Saudi Arabia as an essential lynchpin in feeding the energy needs that power its global economic primacy, then the very next day will mark the rewriting of the Saudi-American relationship. Saudi Arabia seems to recognize this better than most: just observe some of its more self-injurious oil pricing decisions over the last several years and most recent declarations about the country’s need to push away from natural resource dependency and be more economically ‘diverse.’ So what will you do, Iran, when this comes to pass? Do you see this for the immense opportunity that it is or have you been ignoring it, determined to remain stuck in a status quo where America remains the so-called ‘Great Satan’ while you remain the hub of a supposed ‘axis of evil?’ Rightly or wrongly, the responsibility to create that new future with America rests on your shoulders. But will you take it?
As America moves off away from this foreign economic energy dependence, a political and diplomatic vacuum will emerge in the Islamic world. Who is going to fill it? Who will be the next great Islamic partner for America? Who can be? There are few true contenders. Honestly, there really have been only two: Iran and Saudi Arabia. Political relevance, military capability, economic potential, and cultural influence have always made you two the natural rivals for regional hegemony and American attention. One only need look at the situation in Yemen to understand how much this is true and dangerous when mismanaged. The unique economic relationship between Saudi Arabia and America in the post-Cold War basically shut you out, Iran, and your resentment over that fact (along with the endless sanctions) did not exactly encourage your best or most innovative behavior to enact change. That same reality has also powered an American blindness to certain disturbing behaviors from the Saudi side, whether that be reckless suppression domestically, clumsy maneuvers against civilian areas in Yemen, or the Faustian bribing of local radical extremists that basically meant the Kingdom de facto exported terrorism abroad in order to keep greater calm at home. But as I said, those days are the old orthodoxy. Maintaining it is egregiously short-sighted and a bit bull-headed. This is of course how most governments in the world tend to initially behave even when a new, better path appears before them. Oh how we rely on our status quo. Can you do differently, Iran, or are you just as much a slave to it as everyone else?
I am not naïve. I know that the only way an initiative from you, Iran, would be received more promisingly from the United States is if you worried just a little bit less about political change within your own borders. It is a disconcerting prospect, most assuredly. On the one hand, you have China as an example of how change can be embraced and fostered without tremendous political upheaval. While the United States criticizes that pace of change, that is just America being America. Sometimes it cannot get out of its own way. But on the other hand, you have what was once the Soviet Union, an example of what happens when change dictates to a state rather than the other way around. You probably surmise: if we cannot guarantee the Chinese path for ourselves, we cannot risk the Soviet one. It is a damnable conundrum, no doubt. But your great progress and positive change on the global stage can only come through such risks, by endeavoring to navigate through such conundrums and emerge on the other side. Your current path, where you think you can maximize the JCPOA while maintaining an adversarial relationship with the United States (and thus, consequently, guaranteeing American resistance to your very progress), is untenable. More importantly, it’s unnecessary. So here I sit, in the odd position of suggesting how two ‘enemies’ should actually look beyond their respective noses to see how much better off each will be as partners moving forward. Many assume that those of us within Intelligence Studies deal only in subterfuge, in deceit and deception. ‘Spymakers’ cannot be trusted, after all. But that is Hollywood hyperbole, where the real world suddenly thinks it is a mirror reflecting the fake world of Bond and Bourne. In truth, the best form of Intelligence Studies is simply gaining new insights from information and thus opening up new pathways to inflict LESS damage, not more. In the end, our mission is not to create chaos but curtail it. An American-Iranian partnership would be the best curtailing.
And so, Supreme Leader, if a ‘spymaker’ can be a peacemaker without contradiction or hypocrisy, then why can’t Iran be a partner to America? It can. It should. Seize the opportunity.
Israeli contrasts: Likud’s favoured soccer teams veers left as Bibi turns further right
The contrast could not be starker. As Israel plays a dangerous game of US politics by restricting or banning visits by controversial Democratic members of Congress to seemingly please President Donald J. Trump’s prejudiced electoral instincts, the owner of a notorious Jerusalem soccer club draws a line in the sand in confronting his racist fan base.
The contrast takes on added significance as prime minister Benyamin Netanyahu woes Israel’s far-right in advance of elections on September 17 given that storied club Beitar Jerusalem has long been seen as a stronghold for his Likud party.
Mr. Netanyahu’s barring of Congresswomen Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar was as much a response to Mr. Trump’s tweeted suggestion that they should not be allowed to visit Israel as it was catering to his right-wing base that includes Beitar’s fans.
Beitar is the only Israeli squad to have never hired a Palestinian player. Its fans, famous for their racist slogans and bullying tactics, have made life impossible for the few Muslim players that the club contracted in its history.
Messrs. Netanyahu and Moshe Hogeg, the Beitar owner and tech entrepreneur who founded social mobile photo and video sharing website Mobli and crypto transactions platform Sirin Labs, are both treading on slippery ground.
Mr. Netanyahu, who initially raised out of respect for the US Congress no objection to the planned visit by Ms. Tlaib and Ms. Omar, has ensured that Israel for the first time in decades can no longer be sure of bi-partisan support in the Congress and beyond and is likely to become a partisan issue in the run-up to next year’s US presidential election.
His pandering to Mr. Trump sparked rare criticism from the American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC), Israel’s most powerful and influential lobby in the United States even though AIPAC agrees that Ms. Tlaib and Ms. Ilham support the Boycott, Diversification and Sanctions (BDS) movement that targets Israel.
“We disagree with Reps. Omar and Tlaib’s support for the anti-Israel and anti-peace BDS movement, along with Rep. Tlaib’s calls for a one-state solution. We also believe every member of Congress should be able to visit and experience our democratic ally Israel first hand,” AIPAC tweeted.
A breakdown of bi-partisan support for Israel may not be what Mr. Netanyahu wants, but it may be, in a twist of irony, what Israel needs. It would spark a debate in the United States with a potential fallout in Israel about whether Mr. Netanyahu’s annexationist policy and hard-line approach towards Palestinian aspirations serves Israel’s longer-term best interests.
Israel’s toughening stand was evident on Tuesday when police broke up an annual soccer tournament among Palestinian families in East Jerusalem on assertions that it was sponsored by the Palestinian Authority, which is barred from organizing events in the city. The tournament’s organizer denied any association with the Authority.
In a dismissive statement, Israeli public security minister Gilad Erdan’s office scoffed: “We’re talking about scofflaws who lie and blame the agency that enforces the law when they know full well that the Palestinian Authority is involved in the event that Minister Erdan ordered halted.”
The incident was emblematic of an environment that prompted columnist and scholar Peter Beinart, writing in The Forward, a more than 100-year old, left-wing Jewish weekly, to argue that “the United States has a national interest in ensuring that Israel does not make permanent its brutal occupation of the West Bank and blockade of the Gaza Strip.
By taking on La Familia, a militant Beitar Jerusalem fan group that has driven the club’s discriminatory policy, Mr. Hogeg is going not only against Mr. Netanyahu’s policies that emphasize Israeli Jewish nationalism at the expense of the rights of Palestinians with Israeli citizenship as well as those subject to occupation.
He is also challenging a global trend spearheaded by civilizational leaders like Indian prime minister Narendra Modi who, two weeks after depriving Kashmiri Muslims of their autonomy, is planning to build detention camps for millions of predominantly Muslim Indians suspected of being foreign migrants, Victor Orban who envisions a Muslim-free Hungary, and Xi Jinping who has launched in China’s troubled, north-western province of Xinjiang the most frontal assault on Islam in recent history
The degree of polarization and alienation that civilizational policies like those of Messrs Netanyahu, Modi, Xi and Orban is highlighted by the fact that Mr. Hogeg’s battle with his fans is over a name.
Ali Mohammed is Beitar Jerusalem’s latest acquisition. The only Muslim thing about him is his name. Mr. Mohammed is a Nigerian Christian.
That wasn’t good enough for the fans who demand that he change his name. During Mr. Mohammed’s first training session fans chanted “Mohamed is dead” and “Ali is dead.”
Unlike his predecessors, Mr. Hogeg seems unwilling to back down. He has threatened to sue the fans for tarnishing Beitar’s already battered reputation and demand up to US$500,000 in damages. Lawyers for Mr. Hogeg have written to fans demanding an apology.
“They are very good fans; they are very loyal. They love the club and what it represents … but they’re racist and that’s a big problem,” Mr. Hogeg said.
Convinced that the militants are a minority that imposes its will on the majority of Beitar fans, Mr. Hogeg takes the high road at a time that the likes of him threaten to become an endangered species.
“I was surprised to find that Mohamed is not Muslim, but I don’t care. Why should it matter? He’s a very good player. As long as the player that comes respects the city, respects what he represents, respects Israel, can help the team and wants to play then the door will be open. If those radical fans will fight against it, they will lose. They will simply lose,” Mr. Hogeg said.
“Today Saudi Arabia finally lost the war on Yemen.”
On August 17th, an anonymous German intelligence analyst who has perhaps the world’s best track-record of publicly identifying and announcing historical turning-points, and who is therefore also a great investigative journalist regarding international relations (especially military matters, which are his specialty) headlined at his “Moon of Alabama” blog, “Long Range Attack On Saudi Oil Field Ends War On Yemen”, and he opened:
Today Saudi Arabia finally lost the war on Yemen. It has no defenses against new weapons the Houthis in Yemen acquired. These weapons threaten the Saudis economic lifelines. This today was the decisive attack:
Drones launched by Yemen’s Houthi rebels attacked a massive oil and gas field deep inside Saudi Arabia’s sprawling desert on Saturday, causing what the kingdom described as a “limited fire” in the second such recent attack on its crucial energy industry. …
The Saudi acknowledgement of the attack came hours after Yahia Sarie, a military spokesman for the Houthis, issued a video statement claiming the rebels launched 10 bomb-laden drones targeting the field in their “biggest-ever” operation. He threatened more attacks would be coming.
New drones and missiles displayed in July 2019 by Yemen’s Houthi-allied armed forces
Today’s attack is a check-mate move against the Saudis. Shaybah is some 1,200 kilometers (750 miles) from Houthi-controlled territory. There are many more important economic targets within that range. …
The attack conclusively demonstrates that the most important assets of the Saudis are now under threat. This economic threat comes on top of a seven percent budget deficit the IMF predicts for Saudi Arabia. Further Saudi bombing against the Houthi will now have very significant additional cost that might even endanger the viability of the Saudi state. The Houthi have clown prince Mohammad bin Salman by the balls and can squeeze those at will.
He went on to say that the drones aren’t from Iran but are copies from Iran’s, “assembled in Yemen with the help of Hizbullah experts from Lebanon.”
He has been predicting for a long time that this war couldn’t be won by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman al-Saud (MbS). In the present report, he says:
The war on Yemen that MbS started in March 2015 long proved to be unwinnable. Now it is definitely lost. Neither the U.S. nor the Europeans will come to the Saudis help. There are no technological means to reasonably protect against such attacks. Poor Yemen defeated rich Saudi Arabia.
The Saudi side will have to agree to political peace negotiations. The Yemeni demand for reparation payments will be eye watering. But the Saudis will have no alternative but to cough up whatever the Houthi demand.
The UAE was smart to pull out of Yemen during the last months.
If he is correct (and I have never yet found a prediction from him turn out to have been wrong), then this will be an enormous blow to the foreign markets for U.S.-made weapons, since the Sauds are the world’s largest foreign purchasers of those, and have spent profusely on them — and also on U.S. personnel to train their soldiers how to use them. So (and this is my prediction, not his), August 19th might be a good time to sell short U.S. armament-makers such as Lockheed Martin.
However: his prediction that “the Saudis will have no alternative but to cough up whatever the Houthi demand” seems to me to be the first one from him that could turn out to have been wrong. If the Sauds have perpetrated, say, $200 billion of physical damage to Yemen, but refuse to pay more than $100 billion in reparations, and the Housis then hit and take out a major Saudi oil well, isn’t it possible that the Sauds would stand firm? But if they do, then mightn’t it be wrong to say, at the present time, that: “Today Saudi Arabia finally lost the war on Yemen.”? He has gone out on limbs before, and I can’t yet think of any that broke under him. Maybe this one will be the first? I wouldn’t bet on that. But this one seems to me to be a particularly long limb. We’ll see!
The message behind the release of Iranian oil tanker
The Gibraltar court ordered the Iranian oil tanker Grace 1 to be released. The tanker was seized by the British Royal Marines about a month ago.
This verdict was the ending of an elaborate game designed by John Bolton National Security Advisor of the United States and Mike Pompeo, carried out by the Britain government.
With seizing the tanker, Bolton was trying to put psychological and political pressures on Iran and force other countries to form a consensus against Iran, but he couldn’t fulfill any of these goals.
Iran’s firm, logical and wise answer to the seizure of Grace 1 (like making solid legal arguments) and the seriousness of our country’s armed forces in giving a proper response to Britain’s contemptuous act, made the White House lose the lead on reaching its ends.
Washington imagined that the seizure of Grace 1 will become Trump’s winning card against Iran, but the release of the tanker (despite disagreement of the U.S.) became another failure for the White House in dealing with Iran.
Obviously, London was also a total loser in this game. It is worth noting that U.S. was so persistent about keeping the oil tanker in custody that John Bolton traveled to London and insisted on British officials to continue the seizure of the ship. Their failure, however, clearly shows that the White House and its traditional ally, Britain, have lost a big part of their power in their relations with Iran.
Clearly, the illegal seizure of the Iranian oil tanker by Britain proceeded by the seizure of a British tanker by Iran and the following interactions between the two countries is not the whole story and there is more to it that will be revealed in coming days.
What we know for sure is that London has to pay for its recent anti-Iran plot in order to satisfy Washington; the smallest of these consequences was that Britain lost some of its legal credibility in international arena as it illegally captured an Iranian oil tanker.
The order of the Gibraltarian court revealed that London had no legal right to seize the Iranian oil tanker and nobody can defend this unlawful action. Surely, Iran will take all necessary legal actions to further pursue the matter.
In this situation, the Islamic Republic of Iran is firm on its position that it doesn’t have to follow the sanctions imposed by the European Union on other countries (including Syria).
No entity can undermine this argument as it is based on legal terms; therefore, Iran will keep supporting Syrian nation and government to fight terrorism. This is the strategic policy of the Islamic Republic and will not be changed under the pressure or influence of any other third country.
Finally, it should be noted that the release of Grace 1 oil tanker was not only a legal and political failure for Washington and London and their allies but it was also a strategic failure. Undoubtedly, the vast consequences of this failure will be revealed in near future.
From our partner Tehran Times
Defying the Herd: “Personhood,” War and the Triumph of Peace
Art, we may learn from Picasso, is “the lie that lets us see the truth.” In this connection, Swiss artist...
Criminal Silence of Ummah on Kashmir
“The world suffers a lot. Not because of the violence of bad people, but because of the silence of good...
Turkey’s Turn to East could have Deadly Economic Affects
Turkey’s appetites to be the European since when it was an Empire of Ottomans is still being pushed back as...
World Bank Launches Stakeholders Consultations to Support Peace in Afghanistan
The World Bank today launched a stakeholder’s consultation to identify economic initiatives to support and sustain peace in Afghanistan once...
Microplastic pollution is everywhere, but not necessarily a risk to human health
Tiny plastic particles known as microplastics are “everywhere – including in our drinking-water”, but they are not necessarily a risk...
The Russiagate hoax is now fully exposed
The last leg of the Russiagate hoax to become exposed was on August 16th, when Gareth Porter bannered at The...
Brazilian stakeholders of UNIDO-GEF project trained on biogas
The United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), the Ministry of Science, Technology, Innovations and Communications (MCTIC), and the International Center...
Defense2 days ago
India’s veiled nuclear threat
Energy3 days ago
Rummaging through trash to find clean energy
South Asia3 days ago
India’s Constitutional Revocation and Prevalent Security Environment of Kashmir
Newsdesk3 days ago
World Bank Supports Maldives in its Journey Towards Resilience and Prosperity
Intelligence1 day ago
Fighting Corporate Espionage by a Counterintelligence Agent
South Asia2 days ago
Kashmir: A Victim of the Influence of Major Powers
Americas2 days ago
Empathy, Survival and Human Oneness: Informed Reflections on Trump’s Atavistic Worldview
Green Planet2 days ago
The Invisible Water Crisis