Connect with us

Middle East

The Apocalyptic Islamic Global Jihad Groups and International Community: the 7th Century is Back (A)

Published

on

The history of humanity is, in essence, the history of wars, peace agreements, balances of power, and cycles of wars. Every time any protagonist attempted to achieve hegemony, other protagonists strove to prevent him from reaching that objective by adopting a policy of balancing through retaliation and alliances.

In the course of these struggles over hegemony, unipolar, a bi-polar or multi-polar international system crystallized, and this was determining factor for the shaping of the existing political borders and establishment of the present-day sovereign political entities.

However, Neil Ferguson (Foreign Policy, May-June, 2004) raises an important question: can international relations move towards an era in which there are no hegemonies and there is no balance of power? Does nature acknowledge a phenomenon of imbalance? And if so, what are the operative ramifications of that reality in an era of active transnational protagonists possessing radical world perspectives, and seeking to create a different international reality, as is the case with the Apocalyptic Islamic Global Jihad Groups.

Why is a possibility that an era of non-hegemony liable to develop?

The Weakness of the United States. Three impending crises undermining the United States ability to lead the free world: legitimacy, economic pressures, and isolationism. Our reality is characterized with hatred of the rich and the powerful, and the United States is afflicted with both of those, which manifests itself in profound hostility from both allies and enemies.

The problem with the US is that is seeks to establish a world order based on liberal-democratic regimes and by elimination authoritarian and totalitarian regimes. This has become a belief system, almost a religion. The US deeply believes this approach will facilitate moderation, promote freedom, and prevent wars.

However, the US is faced with external economic dependency; internal pressures for isolationism; and an attrition of its military might. It possesses enormous power but lacks the legitimacy to exercise it around the world. In that respect, Rousseau was right: “The powerful will never be powerful enough to sustain its domination unless he transforms power into a right and obedience into an obligation”. The US lacks both.

Bruce Bauer, in his “To Hate America,” claims that anti-Americanism is a chronic enmity. Studies indicate that it is not significant in Asia and Africa; more significant in South America and Europe and very significant in the Islamic countries. Lee Harris (Policy Review, December, 2002), notes that hatred of America is absolute anti-Americanism. To oppose America means to be on “the right and just side of history”. Hatred of America has become the “opiate of the intellectuals”.

Fareed Zakaria (Foreign Policy, September-October, 2004) stresses that in the post-modernist, which is a post-ideological era, anti-Americanism has become an extremely powerful trend, more powerful than any other country in history and that arouses extreme antagonism against it. However, a world in which the US will not take a global role is a world lacking a unifying adhesive political stability and unable to deal with the new dangers posed by the Apocalyptic Islamic Global Jihad Groups, a world of outlaw nations and pervasive violence.

Fuad Ajami deals with the fallaciousness of anti-Americanism. Everyone seeks to imitate America, but at the same time hate America. The most outstanding example is Saudi Arabia. Its policy expresses harsh anti-Americanism, though it depends on the US security belt and military umbrella. Saudi-Arabia is busy with an intensive active policy to spread its Wahhabi-Hanbali version of Islam around the world, by spending many billions of dollars, and at the same time, it pays other billions of dollars as “protection” money to Islamic organizations and terrorist groups around the world.

Bernard Lewis formulated this attitude regarding to the Arab-Islamic political culture: on the one side, an admiration and the desire to imitate the progressive West, but on the other, hatred and hostility.

The Decline of Europe. Evidence show clearly that Europe is old, multinational and multicultural, and in a fast process of collapse. This is the same old Europe, assuming new dimensions of a common union seeking to achieve economic power and to establish a different cultural system. At the same time, Europe is afflicted by new problems, which are liable to lead to its decline:

a) The severe trauma of two World Wars manifests itself in an unmitigated aspiration to maintain quiet, even if it is imaginary, and reflects a policy of hedonistic pacifism, a phenomenon that symbolizes lack of willingness to fight for basic national values. Europe despises the US, which is perceived as a factor that disturbs international order and interfere with Europe’s ability to hegemony, and expresses hostility towards Israel, as if were it to disappear the Middle East would cease to be a “keg of dynamite.” Pathological hatred for Israel has become the major generator of Europe policy. It believes that the cycle of terrorism and violence in the Middle East is due to Israel, which slaughters Palestinian children at will. For Europe, the problem is not the Islamic religious ideology to occupy the world, and Europe is the forefront, but the “ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” Since Europe believes that “Islam and terrorism do not go together,” Israel has become the scapegoat to all European troubles and hardships.

b) The advanced age of the native European population, while the birthrate is negative (1.4 children per 1000 people, as opposed to a required even minimum of 2.1). By the year 2040, one of every three European will be over the age of 65, and at the same time the uncontrolled immigration of Muslims, with a birthrate three and four times that of the Europeans, causes severe social and cultural problems, and arouses fundamental questions of national identity. A reliable forecasts agree that in 2040, there will be a Muslim majority in several Western European countries.

c) Appeasement policy and political correctness as the primary strategy to attain quiet. The fear of arousal of widespread domestic violence, especially in the Muslim neighborhoods, who have no desire to assimilate, creates a “mental paralysis” in European public opinion and policy-makers. The expanding Muslim population poses the greatest threat to pluralistic democracy of the free world.

Samuel Huntington, in his The Clash of Civilizations, claims that the most significant division between the US and Europe is cultural. The United States is a religious country, and old Europe is secular. The Americans are devoted and patriotic to their country and to their religion, and define many issues in terms of good and evil; while Europe has a very low commitment to religion and nationalism. In a series of surveys, the countries were rated according to the level of their religiosity. The US was first with a ranking of 1.7; Ireland: 4.1; Poland: 5.2; Italy: 5.9; Britain: 11.6; Germany: 12.1. For Europe, there is a strong trend that transforms secularism and pacifism into a religion.

Jean Francois Ravel, in his “Europe’s Anti-American Obsession”, Europe believes that Americans are controlled by money, and their foreign policy is characterized by isolationism, and degenerate fascist politics. But it is specifically Europe, which invented the most repulsive ideologies, in which totalitarian regimes flourished, and it was precisely the US which rescued Europe from itself. Possessed by the obsession of their hatred, the anti-American fools forget that the US acts for world peace. It is specifically the security provided by the US that enables Europe to claim, paradoxically, that military might is no longer important as if they are residents of a post-historical world.

Economic Crises in Asia. Asia is seeking to become a significant factor in the International politics, by means of economic growth. In recent decades it was Japan, by employing a policy of competition through imitation. However, in the last decade it has slowed down, and local giants have begun to challenge it. Firstly, it was Korea, which followed the Japanese model, in the shadow of the North Korean military threat. Thereafter, China began its march, with an economic policy, which poses a substantial threat to the old world markets, and India, a nuclear power, which is also threatened by a neighboring enemy – Pakistan, aligns itself, like China, in more specific economic areas. China has the best chance, as within three decades its GNP surpasses that of the United States. At the same time, researchers claim that a severe economic crisis is threatening China, which will have dire ramifications and consequences throughout the world.

The significance of these three trends – the weakening of the legitimacy of the US; the continued decline of Europe; and the possibility of economic collapse in Asia in general and in China in particular – is that the world is not progressing towards a multi-polar world, but rather is liable to be a world without hegemonic power, a world without polarity. The upshot will be an era of declining empires and religious fanaticism, which will initiate processes of multi-dimensional decline: First, severe economic crises, which are liable to lead to a world-wide collapse; second, a dreadful rise of Islamic vicious terrorist groups on a world scale; third, an era of military crises, wars which will unfold over sources and resources. The result is likely to be political anarchy, to the withdrawal of civilization into fortified enclaves where chaos reigns.

To this future reality, a world of anarchy with no stabilizing world powers to enforce order and of continued trends of aggressive, fanatical Islamic terrorism – two scientific approaches have crystallized.

One approach, by Samuel Huntington, in his July 1993 article and his 1995 book, regarding the clash of civilizations. He proves that seven or eight civilizations exist in the world and Islam is at odds and antagonistic conflict with all of them throughout the world. Huntington claim, that “the Arab borders are blood borders” and this has brought The Economist to identify 32 major conflicts conducted in the world in the year 2000. 70% involved Muslims against others. Bernard Lewis in his April 1990 Atlantic Monthly article, determined that this was not a religious cold war between the Third World and the secular world, as Juergensmeyer claimed, but rather a genuine clash of cultures and was the first to coin the phrase “clash of civilizations”.

The second approach, is that of a “clash within Islam”, as expressed by Emanuel Sivan (A Confrontation within Islam), Moshe Maoz (YI, January 13, 2002), and other Israeli orientalists and Political Scientists, who claim that the primary, substantive clash is within Islam, between the moderate branch of Islam, who are the majority, and the extreme branch, who are the minority and will fail.

However, though all evidence clearly show that Huntington is by all means right, still, one can view these two approaches along the same continuum: In the first stage, the motto is activity within Arab-Islamic society. Fanatic Islam seeks to overthrow the existing Arab and Muslim regimes, which it refers to as the “New Jahiliyah, being the near enemy (al-‘Aduw al-Qarib), and in the second stage, it aspires to challenge the Western infidels, which it refers to as the “New Crusaders” or the far enemy (al-‘Aduw al-Ba’id).

This is the position of the religious exegetes of fanatic Islam, like Abu al-A’la al Mawdudi, Sayyid Qutb, Yusuf al-Qaradawi and many others, and this is the essence of the Islamic struggle: the genuine Islam according to the exegesis against both the New Jahiliyah (Arab-Muslim) and the New Crusaderism. In between they play a mix-operative terrorist strategy – against the West and Arab-Islamic countries.

When do empires decline? Quigley’s raises three trends: a) when they begin to squander their internal resources and do not turn to create new ones. b) When the mutual bond between the components of society weakens and the internal gaps increase. c) When ignorance spreads and the masses are drawn towards extreme religious fanaticism.

Huntington in the summary chapter of his Clash of civilizations, characterizes it as “cultural suicide”. The manifestations: a) an increase in the levels of crime, drugs and violence, which create a turbulent society with deep cleavages. b) A sharp decline in the institution of marriage and an increase in the rates of divorce and one-parent households. c) A decrease in interpersonal trust, with a rise in social alienation and anomic society. d) A slackening in the work ethic and in collective giving and enhancement of the trends of personal satisfaction. e) A decrease in the commitment to scientific intellectual activity for the continuation of progress and modernity. f) Absence of a unifying consensus and a decrease in national identification and loyalty. Multi-nationalism and Multiculturalism.

On the basis of understanding these dimensions one can assert that scientific and technological superiority does not override moral decay and political collapse of states. It was Jan Maserik, former Czech Foreign Minister who claimed: for a nation whose back is broken, it will be of no avail that each citizen has a tank in his yard and a warplane on his roof.” Indeed, a National strength can never persist without national honor, patriotism; commitment and determination to defend national interests, and adhesive common grounds. Defeatism, Douglas MacArthur stated, engenders a much more difficult and cruel war. There is not even one case in history in which defeatism has produced peace.

It is frightening to observe that the reactions in the free world today and the absence of a joint vision and common strategy regarding the threats stemming from the challenges posed by Apocalyptic Islamic Global Jihad Groups, reflect, in an astounding way, the international situation on the eve of World War II, and the absence of a uniform policy regarding Nazi Germany.

In May 1939, when it was clear that the clouds over Europe are leading to an all-out war, the influential British newspaper, The Times of London, published a harsh editorial, criticizing Churchill and his “belligerent, war-mongering” government, which was leading Britain into war, while a successful alternative exists, the “Munich Agreement”, which proves that it is possible to bring peace to Europe by means of diplomatic agreements. However, it was Churchill who was remarkably on target, in reacting to Chamberlain’s defeatist policy: “You have chosen shame out of fear of war and you have received both the shame and the war”. Indeed, these words are tantamount to the political situation today regarding Islamic onslaught to occupy the Free World.

The circumstances are that the world witness a violent aggressiveness of Islamic Bolshevism, according to Huntington, which will manifest itself in pressure to bring about changes in regimes and politics, massive immigration, but primarily attempts to gain control, first of the Dar al-Islam lands, from China to Spain, and after succeeding, to expand at the expense of the Dar al-Harb. World terrorism is primarily Islamic. More than 90 percent of world terrorism and more than 70 percent of world violence are Islamic. This religious fanaticism flourishes in societies that do not aspire to modernization and progress, which reject the basic values of democracy, pluralism, freedoms, open criticism, and equal rights.

The dominant idea in Islam, as defined by Islam itself, is absolute submissiveness and devotion to Allah and that humanity must respect the laws of the Islamic religion, while they have neither respect nor appreciation for other religions. Everything is perceived as legitimate self-defense, “the soul, religion, the land and Arabism”.

This phenomenon manifests itself in the syndrome: he hits me and he cried-out, he overtook me and grumbled (Darabni wa-Baka Sabaqni wa-Shtaqa). Aggression is perceived in the Arab-Islamic political culture as a routine and consensual phenomenon, while in contrast, any defensive action taken by its opponents in response to its acts of aggression evokes a severe reaction: “What did I do”? “Why am I being attacked”? “I, the miserable, the exploited one, who has done nothing, am standing against brutal belligerency and aggressiveness” Indeed, this is a deeply rooted cultural phenomenon: “the victimhood Syndrome.” They sincerely wholeheartedly believe that they are the pure victim and that all of their horrific vicious inhumane actions are merely justified acts of retaliation, in order to preserve their honor, their soul and their lands.

In contrast, Western culture acts as if it bears responsibility for being the victim. Everyone continues to declare that it is not a war against Islam in order to underscore his political tolerance. For Western leaders, in ignorance or cowardice, Islam is a religion of peace and there are only few extremist Muslims who hijacked the religion. It is even forbidden to put together “Islamic” and Terrorism.” For them, poverty and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is the true cause, but not Islamic aggressiveness, terrorism, supremacism and brutality. No wonder the Free World is in a so deep mired situation, due to this shameless behavior.

However the truth is that the Apocalyptic Islamic Global Jihad groups have declared war against the Free World in the name of Allah. From their vantage point, it is their duty to control and occupy the world; that their religion is the only legitimate religion to impose on the entire humanity; and that it is a religious war and they are pretty sure Allah’s religion will prevail. This is the reason why we must stop apologizing and appeasing, and paying protection money, because we are fighting for our own lives, for our own existence. We fight to defend the Free World and all what have achieved against the epitome of evil and primitiveness. This is the “just war”, ever in history, as much as the Free World waged against Nazism and Communism.

However, the problem lies precisely in the cultural dimension, in the profound differences in cultural values, in the externalization of guilt syndrome. The Middle East is a greenhouse, unprecedented in its intensity, of authoritarianism, despotism, patrimonialism, corruption and incitement of hatred by the ruling political elite, while at the same time of poverty, exploitation and the misery of the masses.

The connection line between these two trends is in externalizing the guilt towards colonialism and imperialism, exploitation and racism against Western culture, which is hostile to Islam and the Arabs. However, Arab-Islamic political culture has no feelings of guilt or remorse; a culture that has no guilt conscience toward the other, and is unwilling to assume responsibility and self-criticism. This is a culture with the deep feeling that it is always right, and for that it externalizes the guilt and blames the “other” for that which transpires. It is essential to appreciate the significance of the phenomenon.

Jews and Christians internalize guilt. Jews turn one cheek in the sense of “we have sinned, we have transgressed, and we have committed crimes”; and the Christians turn the other cheek in the sense of “mea culpa”. In contrast, Arabs externalize guilt: “do I have a problem? You are guilty!” You will not find among them the phenomenon so characteristic to the Judeo-Christian culture: Doubts, guilt feelings and remorse, the agonizing conceptions perhaps we are not right, perhaps we should have acted or reacted differently? And what is our share of the blame? Western culture attempts to understand the other side; to learn his misery, to see the logic behind his actions and understand why he did what he did. All these are contrary to the Arab-Islamic political culture.

The Egyptian intellectual, residing in the US, Nonie Darwish has put it directly:

‘Arab’ means never having to say you are sorry. To expect Arab and Muslim leadership to apologize is a reflection of the West naïve and wrong expectations of Arab culture. In the Arab world to take responsibility and say sorry is taken as unmanly sign of weakness that may get a person into more trouble. Those who admit guilt, even it is accidental are given no mercy and may end up taking all the blame and being brutally punished.

It is a norm for the Arabs to deny a fact and to blame the other rather than admit to the wrongdoing and apologize. Honesty is not rewarded. Any admission of guilt is a sign of weakness. Yet, how can we expect them to apologize, when most of Arabs blame Israel for all the world wrong-doings, even September-Eleven? How can we expect the Arab countries to sincerely cooperate to end terror and its barbaric brutality. American should stop judging other cultures with American value system, and especially stop expecting Arab-Muslim culture to respond rationally according to Western standards.        

Herewith the explanation of the Egyptian ‘Amr Ismail (Ilaf, October 30, 2004):

Why do we not see things the way the rest of the world sees them? Why do we always feel that someone is plotting and conspiring against us, and that they are the cause of our social and economic problems and our cultural backwardness? Why are we not capable of criticizing ourselves and we consider everyone who tries to do so a resolute enemy of our people and their principles? Why do we speak by means of rifles, bombs and car bombs and hurry to accuse all of our critics from within of treason and of being influenced by the West? Why are we the only nations in the world still using Islam as a religion in all aspects of life? Why are we slitting throats and detonating cars in the name of Allah, while at the same time protest when Muslims are described as terrorists? Why our brain is incapable of comprehending that democracy is the best regime and that it brought those who adopted it advancement and comfort?

The Egyptian writer, Sayyid al-Qimi (Roz al-Yusuf, May 5, 2005) blames that the responsibility for terrorism in Egypt lies with those who create a cultural atmosphere conductive to terrorism. The fight against terrorism requires combating extremist trends among Muslim clerics and in the Arab media. For him, a barrier separates the Muslim’s mind from the rest of the world around him, making him loose the capacity to distinguish Good from Evil. He only recognizes the values of Halal and Haram, permissible vs. prohibited. Muslims are burdened with many repressive restrictions. Freedom of thought and expression are fenced in by Islamic restrictions. He brings many day by day examples of Arab behavior and activity to prove his claims, declaring that terrorism had grown when the Arabs allowed Islamist thought to infiltrate Media and Schools. This is the legitimacy to kill and terrorize innocent people.  

Continue Reading
Comments

Middle East

Inside the Beltway: Iran hardliners vs Iran hardliners

Dr. James M. Dorsey

Published

on

Alarm bells went off last September in Washington’s corridors of power when John Bolton’s national security council asked the Pentagon for options for military strikes against Iran.

The council’s request was in response to three missiles fired by an Iranian-backed militia that landed in an empty lot close to the US embassy in Baghdad and the firing of rockets by unidentified militants close to the US consulate in the Iraqi port city of Basra.

“We have told the Islamic Republic of Iran that using a proxy force to attack an American interest will not prevent us from responding against the prime actor,” Mr. Bolton said at the time.

Commenting on the council’s request, a former US official noted that “people were shocked. It was mind-boggling how cavalier they were about hitting Iran.”

Then US Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, like Mr. Bolton an Iran hawk, worried that military strikes would embroil the United States in a larger conflagration with Iran.

The request, moreover, seemed to call into question US President Donald J. Trump’s promise to America’s European allies that he would rein in Mr. Bolton who has a long track record of advocating military action against Iran.

Months before joining the Trump administration in the spring of 2018, Mr. Bolton drafted at the request of Mr. Trump’s then strategic advisor, Steve Bannon, a plan that envisioned US support “for the democratic Iranian opposition,” “Kurdish national aspirations in Iran, Iraq and Syria,” and assistance for Iranian Arabs in the oil-rich Iranian province of Khuzestan and the Baloch who populate the Pakistani province of Balochistan and Iran’s neighbouring Sistan and Baluchistan province.

Frustrated by the Trump administration’s failure to respond to his suggestions, Mr. Bolton published the memo in December 2017.

Almost to the day two years after the publication and two months before the 40th anniversary of the Iranian revolution, Mr. Bolton asserted in a policy speech in Cairo, that the United States had “joined the Iranian people in calling for freedom and accountability… America’s economic sanctions against the (Iranian) regime are the strongest in history, and will keep getting tougher until Iran starts behaving like a normal country.” Mr Bolton was referring to harsh US sanctions imposed in 2018 by Mr. Trump after withdrawing the United States from the 2015 international agreement that curbed Iran’s nuclear program.

Mr. Bolton’s plan stroked with Saudi thinking about the possibility of attempting to destabilize Iran by stirring unrest among its ethnic minorities. The thinking was made public in a November 2017 study by the International Institute for Iranian Studies, formerly known as the Arabian Gulf Centre for Iranian Studies, a Saudi government-backed think tank.

The study argued that Chabahar, the Indian-backed Iranian deep-sea port at the top of the Arabian Sea, posed “a direct threat to the Arab Gulf states” that called for “immediate counter measures.” Pakistani militants claimed in 2017 that Saudi Arabia had stepped up funding of militant madrassas or religious seminaries in Balochistan that allegedly serve as havens for anti-Iranian, anti-Shiite fighters.

Mr. Bolton’s memo followed an article he wrote in The New York Times in 2015 headlined ‘To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran’ at the time that President Barak Obama was negotiating the international agreement to curb Iran’s nuclear program.

Mr. Bolton argued in the op-ed that diplomacy would never prevent the Islamic republic from acquiring nuclear weapons. “The inconvenient truth is that only military action like Israel’s 1981 attack on Saddam Hussein’s Osirak reactor in Iraq or its 2007 destruction of a Syrian reactor, designed and built by North Korea, can accomplish what is required. Time is terribly short, but a strike can still succeed,” Mr. Bolton wrote.

The memo was written at about the same time that Mr. Bolton told a gathering of the Iranian opposition group Mujahedin-e-Khalq that “the declared policy of the United States of America should be the overthrow of the mullahs’ regime in Tehran” and that “before 2019, we here will celebrate in Tehran.”

While Mr. Bolton has remained outspoken even if he has been careful in his wording as national security advisor, other past advocates of military action against Iran have taken a step back.

Mike Pompeo has since becoming secretary of state hued far closer to the Trump administration’s official position that it is pursuing behavioural rather than regime change in Iran. But as a member of the House of Representatives, Mr. Pompeo suggested in 2014 launching “2,000 sorties to destroy the Iranian nuclear capacity.”

While the Trump administration has largely explained its hard line towards Iran as an effort to halt the country’s missile development, roll back its regional influence, and ensure that the Islamic Republic will never be able to develop a nuclear weapon, Mr. Bolton has suggested that it was also driven by alleged Iranian non-compliance with the nuclear accord.

“Report: Iran’s secret nuclear archive ‘provides substantial evidence that Iran’s declarations to IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency) are incomplete & deliberately false.’ The President was right to end horrible Iran deal. Pressure on Iran to abandon nuclear ambitions will increase,” Mr. Bolton tweeted this month, endorsing a report by the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security.

Based on Iranian documents obtained by Israel, the report identified an allegedly undeclared Iranian nuclear site. “Documentation seized in January 2018 by Israel from the Iranian ‘Nuclear Archive’ revealed key elements of Iran’s past nuclear weaponization program and the Amad program more broadly, aimed at development and production of nuclear weapons. The material extracted from the archives shows that the Amad program had the intention to build five nuclear warhead systems for missile delivery,” the report said.

Similarly, Mr. Bolton this month told Israeli prime minister Benyamin Netanyahu on a visit to Jerusalem that “we have little doubt that Iran’s leadership is still strategically committed to achieving deliverable nuclear weapons. The United States and Israel are strategically committed to making sure that doesn’t happen.”

Mr. Bolton’s assertion contrasted starkly with then Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats’ assessment in his 2017 Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community that “we do not know whether Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons.”

Mr. Bolton’s hardline position within the Trump administration could be cemented if Iran were to decide that upholding the nuclear agreement no longer served its interest. Anti-agreement momentum in Iran has been fuelled by the European Union’s seeming inability or unwillingness to create a financial system that would evade US sanctions and facilitate trade with Europe.

Mr. Bolton’s hard line has also been bolstered by the imposition of European Union sanctions on Iran’s ministry of intelligence and two individuals on charges of plotting to kill leaders of an Iranian Arab separatist movement in Denmark and the Netherlands.

An Iranian abrogation of the nuclear agreement would likely lead to a reshuffle of the Iranian cabinet and the appointment of hardliners that would in turn bolster Mr. Bolton’s argument that the Iran issue has to be resolved before the United States can militarily truly disengage from the Middle East and South Asia.

Hardliners like Mr. Bolton may have one more development going for them: Disillusionment in Iran with the government of President Hassan Rouhani is mounting.

The disappointment is being fuelled not only by the failure of the nuclear accord to drive economic growth and the government’s mis-management of the economy and inability to take on nepotism, vested interests such as the Revolutionary Guards and the growing income gap accentuated by the elite’s public display of ostentatious wealth, but also the fact that Mr. Rouhani appears to have lost interest in reform and implementing change.

“Unfortunately, Mr. Rouhani´s second term has been extremely ignorant (about the demands) of the twenty-four million people who make up Iranian civil society. Most of the reformists believe that he no longer wants to interact (with the reform movement). All that concerns him is to emerge from the remaining two years (of his second term) undamaged, and thus maintain his privileged spot in the pyramid of power,” said Abdullah Naseri, a prominent reformist and adviser to the former president Mohammad Khatami. Mr. Naseri was referring to the 24 million people who voted for Mr. Rouhani.

A reformist himself, Mr. Khatami warned that “if the nezam (establishment) insists on its mistakes… (and) reform fails, the society will move toward overthrowing the system.”

The roots of Mr. Bolton’s thinking lie in a policy paper entitled US Defense Planning Guidance that has been in place since 1992. The paper stipulates that US policy is designed “to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources under consolidated control be sufficient to generate global power.” The paper goes a long way in explaining why the US and Saudi Arabia potentially would be interested in destabilizing Iran by stirring unrest among its ethnic minorities.

Iran scholar Shireen Hunter suggests that squashing Iran’s ambition of being a regional and global player may be one reason why senior Trump administration officials, including Mr. Bolton, Mr. Pompeo and Rudolph Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer, alongside the Saudis support the Mujahedin e-Khalq even if its domestic support base is in question.

“The MEK was willing to support Saddam Hussein and cede Iran’s (oil-rich) Khuzestan province to Iraq. There is no reason to think that it won’t similarly follow U.S. bidding,” Ms. Hunter said referring to the Mujahedeen’s support of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s.

Mr. Bolton appeared to be fortifying what amounted to the most hard-line approach towards Iran in an administration that was already determined to bring Iran to its knees by elevating Charles M. Kupperman, a long-time associate and former Reagan administration official, to deputy national security adviser.

Mr. Kupperman, a former Boeing and Lockheed Martin executive, previously served on the board for the Center for Security Policy, a far-right think tank advocating for a hawkish Iran policy founded by  Frank Gaffney, a former US government official who is widely viewed as an Islamophobe and conspiracy theorist.

Similarly, Mr. Trump, reportedly on Mr. Bolton’s advice, hired this month Richard Goldberg as the national security council’s director for countering Iranian weapons of mass destruction.

As a staffer for former Senator Mark Kirk, Mr. Goldberg helped write legislation that served as the basis for the Obama administration’s sanctions regime on Tehran prior to the nuclear deal. He went on to work for the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which advocates a hard line towards Iran.

Earlier, Mr. Bolton hired Matthew C. Freedman, who in March 2018, together with Messrs. Kupperman and Bolton registered the Institute for a Secure America as a non-profit organization on the day that Mr. Trump announced Mr. Bolton’s appointment as national security advisor.

A long-standing Bolton associate and one-time member of Mr. Trump’s transition team, Mr. Freedman worked in the 1980s and 1990s as a foreign lobbyist with Paul Manafort, who managed Mr. Trump’s election campaign for several months and was last year convicted as part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into alleged collusion between the campaign and Russia to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.

Messrs. Bolton, Kupperman and Freedman also established in 2015 the Foundation for American Security and Freedom to campaign against the Iran nuclear deal.

David J. Rothkopf, a former Clinton administration official who wrote a definitive history of the National Security Council described Mr. Bolton as a man “who has never crossed a bridge he hasn’t burned behind him, who is surrounding himself with what appears to be a second-tier group of advisers who have spent a disproportionate amount of time on the swamp side of things — as consultants or working on his extreme political projects.”

Said journalist and political commentator Mehdi Hasan: “You underestimate John Bolton at your peril… In 2003, Bolton got the war he wanted with Iraq. As an influential, high-profile, hawkish member of the Bush administration, Bolton put pressure on intelligence analysts, threatened international officials, and told barefaced lies about weapons of mass destruction. He has never regretted his support for the illegal and catastrophic invasion of Iraq, which killed hundreds of thousands of people. Now, he wants a war with Iran.”

Continue Reading

Middle East

Syria’s Kurds: The new frontline in confronting Iran and Turkey

Dr. James M. Dorsey

Published

on

US President Donald J. Trump’s threat to devastate Turkey’s economy if Turkish troops attack Syrian Kurds allied with the United States in the wake of the announced withdrawal of American forces potentially serves his broader goal of letting regional forces fight for common goals like countering Iranian influence in Syria.

Mr. Trump’s threat coupled with a call on Turkey to create a 26-kilometre buffer zone to protect Turkey from a perceived Kurdish threat was designed to pre-empt a Turkish strike against the People’s Protection Units (YPG) that Ankara asserts is part of the outlawed Kurdish Workers Party (PKK), a Turkish group that has waged a low-intensity war in predominantly Kurdish south-eastern Turkey for more than three decades.

Like Turkey, the United States and Europe have designated the PKK as a terrorist organization.

Turkey has been marshalling forces for an attack on the YPG since Mr. Trump’s announced withdrawal of US forces. It would be the third offensive against Syrian Kurds in recent years.

In a sign of strained relations with Saudi Arabia, Turkish media with close ties to the government have been reporting long before the October 2 killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul that Saudi Arabia is funding the YPG. There is no independent confirmation of the Turkish allegations.

Yeni Safak reported in 2017, days after the Gulf crisis erupted pitting a Saudi-UAE-Egyptian alliance against Qatar, which is supported by Turkey, that US, Saudi, Emirati and Egyptian officials had met with the PKK as well as the Democratic Union Party (PYD), which Turkey says is the Syrian political wing of the PKK, to discuss the future of Syrian oil once the Islamic State had been defeated.

Turkey’s semi-official Anadolu Agency reported last May that Saudi and YPG officials had met to discuss cooperation. Saudi Arabia promised to pay Kurdish fighters that joined an Arab-backed force US$ 200 a month, Anadolu said. Saudi Arabia allegedly sent aid to the YPG on trucks that travelled through Iraq to enter Syria.

In August last year, Saudi Arabia announced that it had transferred US$ 100 million to the United States that was earmarked for agriculture, education, roadworks, rubble removal and water service in areas of north-eastern Syria that are controlled by the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces of which the YPG is a significant part.

Saudi Arabia said the payment, announced on the day that US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo arrived in the kingdom, was intended to fund stabilization of areas liberated from control by the Islamic State.

Turkish media, however, insisted that the funds would flow to the YPG.

“The delivery of $100 million is considered as the latest move by Saudi Arabia in support of the partnership between the U.S. and YPG. Using the fight against Daesh as a pretext, the U.S. has been cooperating with the YPG in Syria and providing arms support to the group. After Daesh was cleared from the region with the help of the U.S., the YPG tightened its grip on Syrian soil taking advantage of the power vacuum in the war-torn country,” Daily Sabah said referring to the Islamic State by one of its Arabic acronyms.

Saudi Arabia has refrained from including the YPG and the PKK on its extensive list of terrorist organizations even though then foreign minister Adel al-Jubeir described in 2017 the Turkish organization as a “terror group.”

This week’s Trump threat and his earlier vow to stand by the Kurds despite the troop withdrawal gives Saudi Arabia and other Arab states such as the United Arab Emirates and Egypt political cover to support the Kurds as a force against Iran’s presence in Syria.

It also allows the kingdom and the UAE to attempt to thwart Turkish attempts to increase its regional influence. Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Egypt have insisted that Turkey must withdraw its troops from Qatar as one of the conditions for the lifting of the 18-month old diplomatic and economic boycott of the Gulf state.

The UAE, determined to squash any expression of political Islam, has long led the autocratic Arab charge against Turkey because of its opposition to the 2013 military coup in Egypt that toppled Mohammed Morsi, a Muslim Brother and the country’s first and only democratically elected president; Turkey’s close relations with Iran and Turkish support for Qatar and Islamist forces in Libya.

Saudi Arabia the UAE and Egypt support General Khalifa Haftar, who commands anti-Islamist forces in eastern Libya while Turkey alongside Qatar and Sudan supports the Islamists.

Libyan and Saudi media reported that authorities had repeatedly intercepted Turkish arms shipments destined for Islamists, including one this month and another last month. Turkey has denied the allegations.

“Simply put, as Qatar has become the go-to financier of the Muslim Brotherhood and its more radical offshoot groups around the globe, Turkey has become their armorer,” said Turkey scholar Michael Rubin.

Ironically, the fact that various Arab states, including the UAE and Bahrain, recently reopened their embassies in Damascus with tacit Saudi approval after having supported forces aligned against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for much of the civil war, like Mr. Trump’s threat to devastate the Turkish economy, makes Gulf support for the Kurds more feasible.

Seemingly left in the cold by the US president’s announced withdrawal of American forces, the YPG has sought to forge relations with the Assad regime. In response, Syria has massed troops near the town of Manbij, expected to be the flashpoint of a Turkish offensive.

Commenting on last year’s two-month long Turkish campaign that removed Kurdish forces from the Syrian town of Afrin and Turkish efforts since to stabilize the region, Gulf scholar Giorgio Cafiero noted that “for the UAE, Afrin represents a frontline in the struggle against Turkish expansionism with respect to the Arab world.”

The same could be said from a Saudi and UAE perspective for Manbij not only with regard to Turkey but also Iran’s presence in Syria. Frontlines and tactics may be shifting, US and Gulf geopolitical goals have not.

Continue Reading

Middle East

‘Gadkari effect’ on growing Iran-India relations

Published

on

If the ‘Newton Effect’ in physics has an equivalent in international diplomacy, we can describe what is happening to India-Iran relations as the ‘Gadkari Effect’.

Like in the case of the 18th century English scientist Isaac Newton’s optical property of physics, the minister in the Indian government Nitin Gadkari – arguably, by far the best performing colleague of Prime Minister Narendra Modi – has created a series of concentric, alternating rings centered at the point of contact between the Indian and Iranian economies.

‘Gadkari’s rings’ around the Chabahar Port in the remote province of Sistan-Baluchistan in southeastern Iran are phenomenally transforming the India-Iran relationship.

The first definitive signs of this appeared in December when the quiet, intense discussions between New Delhi and Tehran under Gadkari’s watch resulted in the agreement over a new payment mechanism that dispenses with the use of American dollar in India-Iran economic transactions.

Prime facie, it was a riposte to the use of sanctions (‘weaponization of dollar’) as a foreign policy tool to interfere in Iran’s oil trade with third countries such as India. (See my blog India sequesters Iran ties from US predatory strike.)

However, the 3-day visit to Delhi by the Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif on January 7-9 highlighted that the application of the payment mechanism to the Indian-Iranian cooperation over Chabahar Port holds seamless potential to energize the economic partnership between the two countries across the board. In a historical sense, an opportunity is at hand to make the partnership, which has been ‘oil-centric’, a multi-vector ‘win-win’ relationship.

The meeting between Gadkari and Zarif in Delhi on Tuesday signaled that the two sides have a ‘big picture’ in mind. Thus, the opening of a branch of Bank Pasargad in Mumbai is a timely step. Pasargad is a major Iranian private bank offering retail, commercial and investment banking services, which provides services such as letters of credit, treasury, currency exchange, corporate loans syndication, financial advisory and electronic banking. (It is ranked 257th in the Banker magazine’s “1000 banks in the world”.)

Bank Pasargad is establishing presence in India just when the Chabahar Port has been ‘operationalized’ and a first shipment from Brazil carrying 72458 tons of corn cargo berthed at the port terminal on December 30.

More importantly, the discussions between Gadkari and Zarif have covered proposals for a barter system in India-Iran trade. Iran needs steel, particularly rail steel and locomotive engines “in large quantities, and they are ready to supply urea,” Gadkari told the media.

Then, there is a proposal for a railway line connecting Chabahar with Iran’s grid leading northward to the border with Afghanistan. Zarif summed up the broad sweep of discussions this way:

“We had very good discussions on both Chabahar as well as other areas of cooperation between Iran and India. The two countries complement each other and we can cooperate in whole range of areas… We hope that in spite of the illegal US sanctions, Iran and India can cooperate further for the benefit of the people of the two countries and for the region.”

Paradoxically, the collaboration over Chabahar Port, which has been a “byproduct” of India-Pakistan tensions, is rapidly outgrowing the zero-sum and gaining habitation and a name in regional security. There are many ways of looking at why this is happening so.

Clearly, both India and Iran have turned the Chabahar project around to provide an anchor sheet for spurring trade and investment between the two countries. This approach holds big promises. There is great complementarity between the two economies.

Iran is the only country in the Middle East with a diversified economy and a huge market with a fairly developed industrial and technological base and agriculture and richly endowed in mineral resources. It is an oil rich country and the needs of Indian economy for energy, of course, are galloping.

Second, Chabahar Port can provide a gateway for India not only to Afghanistan and Central Asia but also to Russia and the European market. Logically, Chabahar should be linked to the proposed North-South Transportation Corridor that would significantly cut down shipping time and costs for the trade between India and Russia and Europe.

Thus, it falls in place that the Trump administration, which keeps an eagle’s eye on Iran’s external relations, has given a pass to the Indian investment in Chabahar. Prima facie, Chabahar Port can provide access for Afghanistan to the world market and that country’s stabilization is an American objective. But then, Chabahar can also provide a potential transportation route in future for American companies trading and investing in Afghanistan and Central Asia.

According to a Pentagon task force set up to study Afghanistan’s mineral wealth, that country is sitting on untapped rare minerals, including some highly strategic ones worth at least 1 trillion dollars. Indeed, President Trump has pointedly spoken about it to rationalize the US’ abiding business interests in Afghanistan. Now, from indications of late, conditions have dramatically improved for an Afghan settlement that provides for enduring US presence in that country.

We must carefully take note that Iran is in effect supplementing the efforts of Pakistan and the US to kickstart an intra-Afghan dialogue involving the representatives from Kabul and the Taliban.

Importantly, China has also adopted a similar supportive role. A high degree of regional consensus is forging that security and stability of Afghanistan should not be the stuff of geopolitical rivalries.

The bottom line is that Iran’s own integration into the international community, which the Trump administration is hindering, is inevitable at some point sooner than we believe.

The disclosure that behind the cloud cover of shrill rhetoric against Iran, Washington secretly made two overtures to Tehran recently to open talks shows that Trump himself is looking for a deal to get out of the cul-de-sac in which his Iran policies have landed him.

Washington cannot but take note of the constructive role that Tehran is playing on the Afghan situation. (Interestingly, Zarif and Zalmay Khalilzad, US special representative on Afghanistan who go back a long way, have paid overlapping visits to Delhi.)

There is an influential constituency of strategic analysts and opinion makers within the US already who recognize the geopolitical reality that American regional policy in the Middle East will forever remain on roller coaster unless and until Washington normalizes with Tehran. They acknowledge that at the end of the day, Iran is an authentic regional power whose rise cannot be stopped.

From such a perspective, what Zarif’s discussions in Delhi underscore is that while Iran is keeping its end of the bargain in the 2015 nuclear deal, it is incrementally defeating the US’ “containment strategy” by its variant of “ostpolitik”, focused principally on three friendly countries – Russia, China and India.

This is where much depends on the Indian ingenuity to create new webs of regional partnerships. There are tantalizing possibilities. Remember the 3-way Moscow-Baghdad-Delhi trilateral cooperation in the bygone Soviet era?

That is only one model of how the three big countries – Russia, India and Iran – can have common interest to create sinews of cooperation attuned to Eurasian integration. It is a rare convergence since there are no contradictions in the mutual interests of the three regional powers.

The Indian diplomacy must come out of its geopolitical reveries and begin working on the tangible and deliverable. That will make our foreign policy relevant to our country’s overall development. Gadkari has shown how geo-economics makes brilliant, purposive foreign policy. Equally, he followed up diligently what needed to be done to get Chabhar project going so that an entire architecture of cooperation can be built on it. Zarif’s extraordinary remarks testify to it. Even a hundred theatrical performances on the Madison Square Garden wouldn’t have achieved such spectacular results in a short period of time.

*Nitin Jairam Gadkari is an Indian politician and the current Minister for Road Transport & Highways, Shipping and Water Resources, River Development & Ganga Rejuvenation in the Government of India.

First published in our partner MNA

Continue Reading

Latest

Trending

Copyright © 2018 Modern Diplomacy