Connect with us

Middle East

The Greatness of a ‘Normal’ Iran: The Real Challenges for a Post-JCPOA

Published

on

The recent Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agreements between Iran and the international community will, no doubt, have a major impact on Iranian domestic politics. The agreements open the door to an increased opportunity for improved foreign relations and international business agreements that will be needed to help Iran emerge from years of economic hardship created by international sanctions. The question will be whether Iran will itself walk through this doorway to a more inclusive future in the international community or whether it will slowly close the door, untrusting of those waiting on the other side.

One thing is sure, however, and that is that whether or not Iran chooses the path of better international engagement, it will be done at Iran’s pace, and given the current structure of its ruling elite, that pace will be slow moving. The Iranian ideological structure is built to retain the status quo and given the level of distrust of the international community any amount of cooperation will be hotly contested. With conservatives firmly in control of the real sources of power, any foreign investment and involvement in the country goes against the grain of their core principles as was recently echoed when Ayatollah Khamenei recently said, the JCPOA is “just an excuse and a tool for penetration” and “an instrument for imposing their demands”. The push, however, will come from working and middle class Iranians who have suffered from years of recession and high inflation and are keen to see the economic inequality between themselves and those that have continued to prosper during the sanctions reduced.

Ideally a potential path for Iran would be one similar to that taken by China, starting in the late 1970s. Overcoming the trajectory set in place by Mao Zedong, reformers, led by Deng Xiaoping, moved the nation away from the communist ideology of the past and towards a more western capitalist approach. This would, however, be a difficult path for Iran. In Iran, unlike China, the Ayatollah inherits his power through Islamic ideology and without it his place at the top of the ruling structure would be in jeopardy. It is this resistance to relinquish any semblance of control that has highlighted Ayatollah Khamenei’s tenure to date. Since gaining power in 1989 Ayatollah Khamenei has not hesitated to use violence against his own people, as we saw in the Green Revolt of 2009, in order to retain firm control of the nation and to ensure alignment with the direction set forth in the 1979 Revolution. This violence, however, has also severed the delicate bond needed between the greater society and its ruling elite and is further exacerbated by the extreme economic hardships being suffered by the common Iranian.

Given the unlikelihood of any meaningful reform to the leadership structure of Iran there are, however, steps that can be taken to bring some measure of prosperity back into the common Iranian’s life without the wholesale changes that would require nothing short of another revolution. The first step would be to produce a more stable environment through which business and trade can be conducted within the private sector. The government would need to relinquish some of the control that it pulled from the private sector and tone down, somewhat, the anti-foreign rhetoric, allowing the international community greater access to investment opportunities throughout Iran. The JCPOA has gone a long way towards beginning the process of improving Iran’s standing within the international community and the government should work to not lose that momentum. Some forces inside Iran favor a stricter Iran that is resistant to interaction with outside nations and more isolationist, not unlike North Korea. It will be up to leaders like Rouhani to counter these groups and move Iran towards a more inclusive role in the global community.

The state should also ensure that it not fall into the trap of relying simply on the easy money that an easing of sanctions and a return of its oil and gas exports will bring. Wealth brought on by the export of oil and gas and used to purchase foreign-made products will not have the desired effect in reducing the state’s crippling unemployment problem, so emphasis should be given to the promotion of building a larger breadth of industry, such as manufacturing and agriculture, that could begin to support job growth among the largely unemployed youth of the nation. This is an important distinction to be made with a nation that has the rich cultural diversity and history of Iran.

The national economy is currently faced with at least five major imbalances that must also be addressed: (1) An international payments imbalance due to a highly over-valued exchange rate, increasing reliance of imports, lagging genuine non-oil-based exports, and a precarious and uncertain future oil-export market; (2) A budget imbalance caused by rising expenditures in the face of stagnant and doubtful revenues; (3) A resource imbalance due to artificially low prices for water, power, and fuels that encourage ever-expanding demand; (4) A monetary and financial imbalance resulting from government-directed low interest rates, non-performing banking assets, rising defaults, and an increasing flow of savings into the informal market and capital flight; (5) Finally, a labor imbalance resulting from the rising work force, inadequate in housing and industry, and an anti-business labor code. (Amuzegar, 2014)

Another key element going forward, and particularly in the case of President Rouhani, as his campaign platform is focused on such items, is progress in levels of freedoms, civil liberties, and political rights. Since his election Rouhani has focused mainly on the nuclear talks and to this point he has gotten a pass on some of these campaign promises not being addressed but as the JCPOA grows more distant in the rear view mirror he will be held more and more accountable for his inaction on these items. If Rouhani is to retain the level of support from the Iranian public that brought him into office then he will need to make significant progress into these areas. The unelected political elite do not share Rouhani’s vision for an increase in these freedoms and civil liberties, as they come into direct conflict with their conservative ideologies. So it is imperative that Rouhani work to find means to bridge the ideological gap.

Within Rouhani’s power to affect change in a positive manner, and in keeping with his campaign pledges, include items such as increased freedom of speech. Currently media outlets can be prosecuted for such things as criticizing government organizations and it is well within Rouhani’s power to encourage more restraint in these instances. Another important major platform promise that Rouhani will need to address was his promise to uphold the rights of women and to address cases of discrimination against them. The removal of restrictions on the participation of females in government, and enrollment of female students in certain academic disciplines, are all key items of concern.

A final matter of concern is that of governmental transparency. Currently there is a considerable lack of basic and reliable information needed to conduct basic business with regards to the nation’s economic issues. A key impediment to this much needed privatization is the lack of ownership structures needed to ensure proper transfers of entities to the private sector. Commitments to the observance of law and transparency throughout the legal process is also essential in establishing even the most basic of environments necessary for the successful integration of foreign businesses. This is where Iran is at the moment. The REAL success of the JCPOA is not so much in Grand Strategy proclamations and reinvigorating Empire, but rather in the small incremental successes of normalcy for the Iranian common people.

Continue Reading
Comments

Middle East

Turkey and the time bomb in Syria

Mohammad Ghaderi

Published

on

The Turkish attack on northern Syria has provided conditions for ISIS militants held in camps in the region to escape and revitalize themselves.

Turkey launched “Operation Peace Spring” on Wednesday October 9, claiming to end the presence of terrorists near its borders in northern Syria. Some countries condemned this illegal action of violation of the Syrian sovereignty.

The military attack has exacerbated the Syrian people’s living condition who live in these areas. On the other hand, it has also allowed ISIS forces to escape and prepare themselves to resume their actions in Syria. Before Turkish incursion into northern Syria, There were many warnings that the incursion would prepare the ground for ISIS resurgence. But ignoring the warning, Turkey launched its military attacks.

Currently, about 11,000 ISIS prisoners are held in Syria. ISIS has claimed the responsibility for two attacks on Qamishli and Hasakah since the beginning of Turkish attacks.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump said that Turkey and the Kurds must stop ISIS prisoners from fleeing. He urged European countries to take back their citizens who have joined ISIS.

It should be noted that the U.S. is trying to prove that ISIS has become stronger since the U.S. troops pulled out before the Turkish invasion, and to show that Syria is not able to manage the situation. But this fact cannot be ignored that ISIS militants’ escape and revival were an important consequence of the Turkish attack.

Turkish troops has approached an important city in the northeast and clashed with Syrian forces. These events provided the chance for hundreds of ISIS members to escape from a camp in Ayn Issa near a U.S.-led coalition base.

 The camp is located 35 kilometers on the south of Syria-Turkey border, and about 12,000 ISIS members, including children and women, are settled there. The Kurdish forces are said to be in charge of controlling these prisoners.

Media reports about the ISIS resurgence in Raqqa, the former ISIS stronghold, cannot be ignored, as dozens of terrorists have shot Kurdish police forces in this city. The terrorists aimed to occupy the headquarters of the Kurdish-Syrian security forces in the center of Raqqa.  One of the eyewitnesses said the attack was coordinated, organized and carried out by several suicide bombers, but failed.

In response to Turkey’s invasion of Syria, the Kurds have repeatedly warned that the attack will lead to release of ISIS elements in the region. Turkey’s President Recep Tayyib Erdogan denied the reports about the escape of ISIS prisoners and called them “lies”.

European officials fear that ISIS prisoners with European nationality, who have fled camps, will come back to their countries.

Kurdish forces are making any effort to confront Turkish troops in border areas, so their presence and patrol in Raqqa have been reduced.

Interestingly, the Turkish military bombarded one of temporary prisons and caused ISIS prisoners escaping. It seems that ISIS-affiliated covert groups have started their activities to seize the control of Raqqa. These groups are seeking to rebuild their so-called caliphate, as Kurdish and Syrian forces are fighting to counter the invading Turkish troops. Families affiliated with ISIS are held in Al-Hol camp, under the control of Kurdish forces. At the current situation, the camp has turned into a time bomb that could explode at any moment. Under normal circumstances, there have been several conflicts between ISIS families in the camp, but the current situation is far worse than before.

There are more than 3,000 ISIS families in the camp and their women are calling for establishment of the ISIS caliphate. Some of SDF forces have abandoned their positions, and decreased their watch on the camp.

The danger of the return of ISIS elements is so serious, since they are so pleased with the Turkish attack and consider it as an opportunity to regain their power. There are pictures of ISIS wives in a camp in northern Syria, under watch of Kurdish militias, showing how happy they are about the Turkish invasion.

In any case, the Turkish attack, in addition to all the military, political and human consequences, holds Ankara responsible for the escape of ISIS militants and preparing the ground for their resurgence.

Currently, the camps holding ISIS and their families are like time bombs that will explode if they all escape. Covert groups affiliated with the terrorist organization are seeking to revive the ISIS caliphate and take further actions if the Turkish attacks continue. These attacks have created new conflicts in Syria and undermined Kurdish and Syrian power to fight ISIS.

From our partner Tehran Times

Continue Reading

Middle East

The Turkish Gambit

Dr. Arshad M. Khan

Published

on

The only certainty in war is its intrinsic uncertainty, something Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan could soon chance upon.  One only has to look back on America’s topsy-turvy fortunes in Iraq, Afghanistan and even Syria for confirmation.

The Turkish invasion of northeastern Syria has as its defined objective a buffer zone between the Kurds in Turkey and in Syria.  Mr. Erdogan hopes, to populate it with some of the 3 million plus Syrian refugees in Turkey, many of these in limbo in border camps.  The refugees are Arab; the Kurds are not.

Kurds speak a language different from Arabic but akin to Persian.  After the First World War, when the victors parceled up the Arab areas of the Ottoman Empire, Syria came to be controlled by the French, Iraq by the British, and the Kurdish area was divided into parts in Turkey, Syria and Iraq, not forgetting the borderlands in Iran — a brutal division by a colonial scalpel severing communities, friends and families.  About the latter, I have some experience, having lived through the bloody partition of India into two, and now three countries that cost a million lives.   

How Mr. Erdogan will persuade the Arab Syrian refugees to live in an enclave, surrounded by hostile Kurds, some ethnically cleansed from the very same place, remains an open question.  Will the Turkish army occupy this zone permanently?  For, we can imagine what the Kurds will do if the Turkish forces leave.

There is another aspect of modern conflict that has made conquest no longer such a desirable proposition — the guerrilla fighter.  Lightly armed and a master of asymmetric warfare, he destabilizes. 

Modern weapons provide small bands of men the capacity and capability to down helicopters, cripple tanks, lay IEDs, place car bombs in cities and generally disrupt any orderly functioning of a state, tying down large forces at huge expense with little chance of long term stability.  If the US has failed repeatedly in its efforts to bend countries to its will, one has to wonder if Erdogan has thought this one through.

The Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 is another case in point.  Forever synonymous with the infamous butchery at Sabra and Shatila by the Phalange militia facilitated by Israeli forces, it is easy to forget a major and important Israeli goal:  access to the waters of the Litani River which implied a zone of occupation for the area south of it up to the Israeli border.

Southern Lebanon is predominantly Shia and at the time of the Israeli invasion they were a placid group who were dominated by Christians and Sunni, even Palestinians ejected from Israel but now armed and finding refuge in Lebanon.  It was when the Israelis looked like they were going to stay that the Shia awoke.  It took a while but soon their guerrillas were harassing Israeli troops and drawing blood.  The game was no longer worth the candle and Israel, licking its wounds, began to withdraw ending up eventually behind their own border.

A colossal footnote is the resurgent Shia confidence, the buildup into Hezbollah and new political power.  The Hezbollah prepared well for another Israeli invasion to settle old scores and teach them a lesson.  So they were ready, and shocked the Israelis in 2006.  Now they are feared by Israeli troops.   

To return to the present, it is not entirely clear as to what transpired in the telephone call between Erdogan and Trump.  Various sources confirm Trump has bluffed Erdogan in the past.  It is not unlikely then for Trump to have said this time, “We’re leaving.  If you go in, you will have to police the area.  Don’t ask us to help you.”  Is that subject to misinterpretation?  It certainly is a reminder of the inadvertent green light to Saddam Hussein for the invasion of Kuwait when Bush Senior was in office. 

For the time being Erdogan is holding fast and Trump has signed an executive order imposing sanctions on Turkish officials and institutions.  Three Turkish ministers and the Defense and Energy ministries are included.  Trump has also demanded an immediate ceasefire.  On the economic front, he has raised tariffs on steel back to 50 percent as it used to be before last May.  Trade negotiations on a $100 billion trade deal with Turkey have also been halted forthwith.  The order also includes the holding of property of those sanctioned, as well as barring entry to the U.S.

Meanwhile, the misery begins all over again as thousands flee the invasion area carrying what they can.  Where are they headed?  Anywhere where artillery shells do not rain down and the sound of airplanes does not mean bombs.

Such are the exigencies of war and often its surprising consequences. 

Author’s Note:  This piece appeared originally on Counterpunch.org

Continue Reading

Middle East

Could Turkish aggression boost peace in Syria?

Published

on

On October 7, 2019, the U.S. President Donald Trump announced the withdrawal of American troops from northeast Syria, where the contingent alongside Kurdish militias controlled the vast territories. Trump clarified that the decision is connected with the intention of Turkey to attack the Kurdish units, posing a threat to Ankara.

It’s incredible that the Turkish military operation against Kurds – indeed the territorial integrity of Syria has resulted in the escape of the U.S., Great Britain, and France. These states essentially are key destabilizing components of the Syrian crisis.

Could this factor favourably influence the situation in the country? For instance, after the end of the Iraqi war in 2011 when the bulk of the American troops left the country, the positive developments took place in the lives of all Iraqis. According to World Economics organization, after the end of the conflict, Iraq’s GDP grew by 14% in 2012, while during the U.S. hostilities the average GDP growth was about 5,8%.

Syria’s GDP growth should also be predicted. Not right away the withdrawal of U.S., French, British, and other forces, but a little bit later after the end of the Turkish operation that is not a phenomenon. The Turkish-Kurdish conflict has been going on since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire when Kurds started to promote the ideas of self-identity and independence. Apart from numerous human losses, the Turks accomplished nothing. It is unlikely that Ankara would achieve much in Peace Spring operation. The Kurds realize the gravity of the situation and choose to form an alliance with the Syrian government that has undermined the ongoing Turkish offensive.

Under these circumstances, Erdogan could only hope for the creation of a narrow buffer zone on the Syrian-Turkish border. The withdrawal of the Turkish forces from the region is just a matter of time. However, we can safely say that the Turkish expansion unwittingly accelerated the peace settlement of the Syrian crisis, as the vital destabilizing forces left the country. Besides, the transfer of the oil-rich north-eastern regions under the control of Bashar Assad will also contribute to the early resolution of the conflict.

It remains a matter of conjecture what the leaders of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Russia agreed on during the high-level talks. Let’s hope that not only the Syrians, but also key Gulf states are tired of instability and tension in the region, and it’s a high time to strive for a political solution to the Syrian problem.

Continue Reading

Latest

Trending

Copyright © 2019 Modern Diplomacy