Connect with us

Middle East

The “ceasefire” in Syria

Giancarlo Elia Valori

Published

on

The previous two Syrian “ceasefires” of February and September last were substantial failures. Mediated by too diverging interests, they were bogged down in a zero-sum game among the irregularities committed by all the groups involved.

At strategic and geopolitical levels, many sources still speak of a “tripartite” option for Syria’s future, which could be based precisely on the three agreements of December 30, 2016.

One of them is between the Syrian government and the jihadist “rebels”; then there is a list of mechanisms to monitor the agreement and finally the Astana agreement ends with a letter of intent between the parties so as to begin – after the “ceasefire” – the negotiations which will lead to the end of the conflict.

The agreement signed in the Kazakh capital comes after Assad’ Syrian Arab Army maintaining and sometimes expanding its recent positions, while the jihadists have lost control of half of Aleppo, by also losing the suburbs of Damascus and some large areas in the Idlib province.

The first and most evident political goals are that the Russian Federation wants to capitalize on its new role as Middle East power broker, graciously presented to it by the foolishness of the United States and its European allies, and that Assad also aims at keeping and strengthening his recent positions to soon achieve peace and, above all, the unity of his country.

The maps of the Syrian Chiefs of Staff show that, after this truce, the Syrian attacks will go deep into the centre of the areas still in the hands of the various rebel groups and Daesh, starting from the Mediterranean coast and the border areas between Syria and the Lebanon.

Turkey, which has signed the “ceasefire” along with Russia and Iran, wants to limit the great damage caused to it by the conflict, with the masses of refugees – as many as 2 million people – who are already in Turkey with the other Syrian populations.

Those who would come after Assad’s regime conquering Idlib – as is likely.

Obviously, Turkey hopes that its new role in Syria will be noticed by Bashar al-Assad’s regime and that hence the Kurdish issue will not materialize in a State built by the YPG between Syria and Iraq, which can lap the Turkish Kurdish areas to its border.

On the other hand, an autonomous and independent Kurdistan in Northern Syria could become a sort of geopolitical buffer that would enable Russia, Iran and other powers to have a right of way in the great Middle East region, which would certainly change all the games we have so far experienced in that area and in the Mediterranean.

An essay of the ”Russian National Institute for Research on Global Security” works on the assumption that there is a US primary interest in a great “Sunnistan” at the core of future Syria and Western Iraq.

With a corresponding “Shiite State” in Southern Syria.

It is still the old attempt to extend the pipeline going from Qatar up to Turkey’s Mediterranean border, without touching the Iranian-Shiite areas.

It is the old ethnic federalism, detrimentally experienced for the Balkans, which still inspires the US “line” in the region.

A model derived from the analyses – far more refined than we may think – developed at the time by Samuel Huntington.

Russian, Syria and Turkey do not want this – albeit up to a certain extent.

Russia does not want to military ruin itself for a united Syria; Turkey does not want insecure borders in Northern Syria, while Iran only wants to cover its area of influence to the border with Syria.

If the Syrian war became too long or too expensive, or strategically useless, the Three Powers of Astana’s last “ceasefire” may also accept “federalism” in the region of Bashar al-Assad’s current regime.

Federalism, however, designed by them – certainly not from the United States, which would not even have a proxy State to do the dirty work.

At that juncture, the United States could resort to the strategy of “bloody borders” – as the US analyst Ralph Peters called them – to reshape the local strategic potentials according to its interest.

And hence manage its competitors’ resources with a “long war”.

The confidential documents quoted by our sources speculate that – according to US plans – Bashar may be replaced by a “less polarizing” Alawite presidential candidate and that Iran – given the new and scarcely friendly Trump’s Presidency in the offing – may want to immediately solve the Syrian issue, by gaining control of its border areas and its ethno-religious enclaves.

It is worth recalling, however, that currently at least 70% of the Syrian people want Bashar al-Assad’s regime and only 30%, including Kurds, show they like other options.

Let us revert to the “ceasefire” of December 30, 2016, to be mostly considered a sort of Putin’s personal initiative.

If it holds for the month of formal validity, Turkey and Russia will sponsor the peace talks between Bashar al-Assad’s government and the seven major Syrian jihad organizations, except for Daesh and the Al-Nusra Front – that is Al Qaeda – which have already signed the “ceasefire” in Astana, the Kazakh capital.

The signatory organizations are relevant, even militarily.

They include Feilak al Sham, a jihadist organization sponsored by Turkey, with 19 detachments and 4,000 operational militants.

The second jihadist group is Ahrar al-Sham, or Harakat Ahrar al-Sham al-Islamiya, with 80 hit squads and a potential of 16,000 jihadists active in all the strategic sites of the Syrian war: Damascus, Homs, Latakia, Hama, Daraa and Idlib.

The signatories to the “ceasefire” in Astana also include Jaish al-Islam, with as many as 64 hit squads and a total of 12,000 armed jihadists.

There is also the jihadist group of Tuwar al-Sham, with eight battalions totaling about 3,000 militants operating in Aleppo, Idlib and Latakia.

Another group that has signed the ceasefire is Jaish al-Mujahideen, with 13 operating centers and 9,000 active militants.

Then there is also Jaish Idlib, obviously operating mainly in the Idlib region, with three great battalions totaling 6,000 fighters.

Finally, in Astana there were also the plenipotentiaries of Jabhat al-Shamiya, a group with 5 battalions in Aleppo, Idlib and Damascus and an estimated force of 3,200 operational militants.

Hence if Bashar al-Assad’s government, which is really supported by its citizens, should think of some sort of territorial autonomies, Russia and even Turkey would recommend quiet local autonomism as opposed to US-style “federalism”.

A system in which also the small and large groups which have signed the ceasefire in Astana may reinvent themselves as local militias, while their old funders leave with their tail between their legs.

For the record, during negotiations Turkey asked to remove the Iranian and Hezbollah forces from the Syrian territory, that obviously denied to the Russian Foreign Minister, Lavrov, that free favour to Turkey and, indirectly, to Saudi Arabia.

Moreover, Ahrar al-Sham, belongs to Al Qaeda – hence to the al-Nusra Front – and initially Turkey did not agree to include the group among the signatories to the Astana ceasefire.

Nevertheless it was precisely Saudi Arabia to directly oblige Ahrar al-Sham to adhere to the Astana Agreement.

The agreement envisages, inter alia, the stop of the Syrian Air Force’s raids against the Syrian “rebels” – air war actions which, where necessary, may be carried out only by Russia.

The signatory groups are required to leave their positions – indicated in the text of the Agreement – which allows to more easily identify and neutralize the Daesh and Al-Nusra Front emplacements.

The text of the Agreement includes a statement providing support by the powers present in Syria to a strong territorial unity of the Syrian government – so that Turkey will not have the Kurdish State, in which not even Russia is interested, and this will remain one of the many US broken promises in the region.

None of the signatories can try to gain more territory while the “ceasefire” is in force.

Finally none of the signatories has insisted on overthrowing Bashar al-Assad.

Furthermore, all signatories shall permit the delivery of humanitarian aid throughout the part of Syria not controlled by the groups excluded from the “ceasefire”.

It is explicitly written in the text of the “ceasefire” agreement that all forces shall withdraw from Aleppo’s Castle Street.

Hence the Turkish attack on Kurds has only been postponed, with or without the naive support of the United States, which will certainly leave that glorious Indo-European tribe to its fate.

The jihadist groups, hit in their Saudi and Qatari “leadership”, will not be as dangerous as they are today.

Not even Saudi Arabia wants to die for Syria.

If Saudi Arabia and Qatar have some territorial or financial reason to cease support for the Syrian jihadists, they will slacken off and loosen their grip.

Russia has won across the board. It has wiped the United States out of the Middle East and it has put together two historical opponents, namely Turkey and Iran, into a credible geopolitical project.

Iran is another winner of the Astana Agreement.

Once ensured the security of its borders, it can fully play the new game of the gas pipelines it will operate after the end of the conflict.

The Iraqi army is already at the gates of Raqqa – the eradication of Daesh is only a matter of time.

In short, if the “ceasefire” holds, the whole Syrian and Middle East strategic scenario will change completely.

Also the Kurds are taking Raqqa, with the usual and effective harshness.

Assad’s Army has conquered the outskirts of Wadi Barada, previously held by the jihadists of Jabhat Fatah al-Sham.

The remaining pockets in Homs and Aleppo will be reduced and later Assad’s Army will conquer the primary areas of the territory, currently held by Daesh.

If, as is likely, the truce works and the jihad that signed the Astana Agreement is reduced significantly, for Syria the fight will only be against Daesh, with the help of its strategic supporters.

In this case there will be no escape, no way out.

Advisory Board Co-chair Honoris Causa Professor Giancarlo Elia Valori is an eminent Italian economist and businessman. He holds prestigious academic distinctions and national orders. Mr Valori has lectured on international affairs and economics at the world’s leading universities such as Peking University, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Yeshiva University in New York. He currently chairs "La Centrale Finanziaria Generale Spa", he is also the honorary president of Huawei Italy, economic adviser to the Chinese giant HNA Group and member of the Ayan-Holding Board. In 1992 he was appointed Officier de la Légion d'Honneur de la République Francaise, with this motivation: "A man who can see across borders to understand the world” and in 2002 he received the title of "Honorable" of the Académie des Sciences de l'Institut de France

Continue Reading
Comments

Middle East

Syrian Kurds between Washington, Turkey and Damascus

Published

on

The recent turmoil over Idlib has pushed the developments in Syrian Kurdistan out of political and mass media spotlight. However, it’s Idlib that will most likely host the final act of the drama, which has become known as the “civil war in Syria”.

The self-proclaimed Democratic Federation of Northern Syria (DFNS), or Rojava, was formed in 2016, although de facto it has existed since 2012. Added later was the hydrocarbon-rich left bank of the Euphrates, which had been cleared of militants of ISIL (an organization banned in the Russian Federation), and now the jurisdiction of the unrecognized DFNS extends to almost a third of the country’s territory.

From the very start the main threat to the existence of this predominantly Kurdish quasi-state came for obvious reasons from Turkey, where Turkish Kurds were set on securing autonomy. In addition, the most influential political force in Rojava, the Democratic Union Party, is affiliated with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, and the latter has officially been declared a terrorist organization and unofficially – a number one enemy – in Turkey.

In January-March 2018, the Turkish army, backed by the Arab and Turkomanen allies, occupied part of the territory of Rojava (canton Afrin). And it looks like Ankara plans to settle on these territories: recently, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan reiterated that Afrin will be transferred to its residents “when the time comes” and that “this time will be set by us”. In the meantime, according to local media reports, the demographic situation in the canton is changing rapidly. Taking advantage of the fact that many Kurds left their homes at the approach of the Turkish army, the local (in fact, Turkish) administration is bringing in Arabs here, who, in many cases, are not Syrian Arabs.

Kurdish politicians, fully aware of the fact that amid Turkey, Iran and Syria maintaining statehood without outside assistance is hardly possible, opted for the patronage of Washington. And, as it seems, they lost.

In Syria, the Americans decided to replay the “Kosovo scenario”, by turning part of a sovereign state into a political structure, which is allied to them. Washington, which only recently excluded the People’s Protection Units (the armed wing of the Democratic Forces), from the list of terrorist organizations, argues, like Ankara, that its military personnel will remain in the region “for an indefinite period” to protect Kurdish territories from “aggression” on the part of Damascus. And from Ankara’s ambitions as well. But this is read between the lines.

All this enabled Turkey to accuse the United States of supporting terrorism and relations between the two countries quickly deteriorated into a crisis. As mutual accusations, occasionally supported by political and economic demarches, persist, the parties, however, are beginning to look for common ground. Talks on June 4, 2018 in Washington between Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu and US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo resulted in a “road map” for the withdrawal of Kurdish forces from predominantly Arab Manbij, which Kurds regained control of from ISIL (an organization banned in Russia) two years ago. The next day, the Turkish minister announced that the Kurdish troops “… would retreat east of the Euphrates. However, this does not mean that we will agree that they stay there. ” On September 24, 2018, upon arriving at the UN General Assembly, Erdogan confirmed: Turkey will expand its sphere of influence in Syria, by including areas that are under control of the Kurdish armed units.

If Turkey does not change its rhetoric, then the assurances of the American authorities that the US troops will remain in Syria are intermingled with statements about the need for the withdrawal of its forces from this country. In any case, it is unlikely that the United States will choose to leave the region “to its own devices”. We can recall how Washington trumpeted the withdrawal of its troops from Afghanistan! But things haven’t budged an inch since then. The Afghanistan example demonstrates that the Americans will not move out of Syria that easily – they will not pull out in full, at least not of their own free will. US instructors and pilots will remain here “for an indefinite period.” But who will they care of and support? Here are the options:

Firstly, it could be a hypothetical “Arab NATO” with Saudi Arabia in the lead. But there are serious doubts as to the effectiveness of such a structure – even if we forget about the level of combat readiness of these kinds of coalitions (in Yemen, for example), Arab countries could unite only on an anti-Israeli platform. And that, as history shows, is unlikely to yield success. In addition to this, it is still unclear how Kurds, the majority of whom are not religious, will react to Wahhabi commanders.

Secondly, the United States could choose to strengthen the Arab sector of the “Syrian Democratic Forces” (Rojava militia) at the expense of the Kurds. In mid-September, a number of media outlets, citing sources in the Syrian opposition, reported that Saudi emissaries had already suggested this option while meeting with leaders of the Arab tribes living east of the Euphrates. However, this development is also fraught with the Kurdish-Arab confrontation.

Thirdly, Washington persists in its attempts to improve relations with Turkey,  distancing it from Russia and Iran, and instruct it to “maintain order” in the region: the Americans did not intervene in the Operation Olive Branch and made concessions on Manbij. Even though this might seem strange amid the hostile American-Turkish rhetoric, military and political contacts between Washington and Ankara have been on the rise in recent months. Moreover, President Erdogan has already stated that he believes in an early improvement of relations with the United States despite the “inconsistency” and “economic aggression” of Washington.

Meanwhile, we need to remember that the US control over Kurds is far from unlimited. The “people’s protection units” are ideologically close to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (or could even be seen as its “branch” in Syria), and the PKK itself, grown on the Marxist ideas, would normally support the Soviet Union and “by inertia” – Russia. For this reason, the Americans have to threaten the Kurdish allies with a cessation of military and financial support. Reports say the US and Turkish troops are already operating in the Manbij area, having dislodged the Kurdish YPG militia from the area.

These threats, along with the self-withdrawal of the United States during the capture of Afrin by Turkish troops, have made Kurds doubt the reliability of their patron. The result is a move towards rapprochement with Damascus. In late July, the Kurdish leadership announced an agreement with the Syrian authorities on the creation of a “road map” for the formation of a decentralized Syria.

The Americans are not sitting idle either, though it looks like they have no concrete plan of action. Such a conclusion comes from Donald Trump’s somewhat incoherent answers to questions from a correspondent of the Kurdish media group Rudaw (09/27/2018):

Question: What are you planning to do for (Syrian – AI) Kurds?

Answer: We will offer them a lot of help. As you know, we are good friends to them, we fought shoulder to shoulder with ISIL (an organization banned in the Russian Federation), we recently defeated ISIL (an organization banned in the Russian Federation). We accomplished this with the support of the Kurds. They are great warriors. You know, some nations are great warriors, and some are not. The Kurds are great warriors, they are a wonderful people. We are currently negotiating this.

Question: So what will you do to support them?

Answer: As I said, we will negotiate this, we have begun negotiations. The Kurds have helped us a lot to crush ISIS (an organization banned in the Russian Federation).

Most likely, the hot phase of the protracted inter-Syrian conflict is nearing its end, and the preferences of the Kurds will determine the outcome of future elections, a referendum, or another form of will expression of the Syrian people, when the political situation allows it. Moscow has always called for involving Kurds in the negotiation process and on ensuring their full participation in the life of post-war Syria. “Russia insists that Kurds should participate in the process to determine the post-conflict future of Syria on a parity basis with other ethnic and religious groups of this country,” Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in an interview with the Italian magazine Panorama.

Until recently, Damascus did not particularly pedal negotiations with Rojava, but being aware that the capture of Afrin by Turkish troops was not in its interests, it has adjusted its approach to the self-proclaimed territorial entity. It looks like Syrian leaders have opted for softening their stance, which was previously set on the revival of the country on the basis of unitarism. Otherwise, an agreement with the Kurds will be nowhere in sight.

First published in our partner International Affairs

Continue Reading

Middle East

Jamal Khashoggi rejiggers the Middle East at potentially horrible cost

Dr. James M. Dorsey

Published

on

The fate of missing Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, assuming that his disappearance was the work of Saudi security and military officials, threatens to upend the fundaments of fault lines in the Middle East.

At stake is not only the fate of a widely respected journalist and the future of Turkish-Saudi relations.

Mr. Khashoggi’s fate, whether he was kidnapped by Saudi agents during a visit to the kingdom’s consulate in Istanbul to obtain proof of his divorce or murdered on its premises, threatens to severely disrupt the US-Saudi alliance that underwrites much of the Middle East’s fault lines.

A US investigation into Mr. Khashoggi’s fate mandated by members of the US Congress and an expected meeting between President Donald J. Trump, and the journalist’s Turkish fiancée, Hatice Cengiz, could result in a US and European embargo on arms sales to Saudi Arabia and impact the kingdom’s brutal proxy war with Iran in Yemen.

It also would project Saudi Arabia as a rogue state and call into question US and Saudi allegations that Iran is the Middle East’s main state supporter of terrorism.

The allegations formed a key reason for the United States’ withdrawal with Saudi, United Arab Emirates and Israeli backing from the 2015 international agreement that curbed Iran’s nuclear program and the re-imposition of crippling economic sanctions.

They also would undermine Saudi and UAE justification of their 15-month old economic and diplomatic boycott of Qatar that the two Gulf states, alongside Egypt and Bahrain, accuse of supporting terrorism.

Condemnation and sanctioning of Saudi Arabia by the international community would complicate Chinese and Russian efforts to walk a fine line in their attempts to ensure that they are not sucked into the Saudi-Iranian rivalry.

Russia and China would be at a crossroads if Saudi Arabia were proven to be responsible for Mr. Khashoggi’s disappearance and the issue of sanctions would be brought to the United Nations Security Council.

Both Russia and China have so far been able to maintain close ties to Saudi Arabia despite their efforts to defeat US sanctions against Iran and Russia’s alliance with the Islamic republic in their support for Syrian president Bashar al-Assad.

A significantly weakened Saudi Arabia would furthermore undermine Arab cover provided by the kingdom for Mr. Trump’s efforts to impose a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that would favour Israel at the expense of the Palestinians.

Finally, a conclusive determination that Saudi Arabia was responsible for Mr. Khashoggi’s fate would likely spark renewed debate about the wisdom of the international community’s support for Arab autocracy that has proven to be unashamedly brutal in its violation of human rights and disregard for international law and conventions.

Meanwhile, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has suffered significant reputational damage irrespective of Mr. Khashoggi’s fate, raising the question of his viability if Saudi Arabia were condemned internationally and stability in the kingdom, a key tenant of US, Chinese and Russian Middle East policy, were to be at risk.

The reputational damage suffered by Prince Mohammed embarrasses UAE Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed, who together with his aides and representatives in world capitals, worked hard to project his Saudi counterpart as the kingdom’s future.

Saudi Arabia has so far done itself few favours by flatly rejecting any responsibility for Mr. Khashoggi’s disappearance with no evidence that the journalist left the consulate at his own volition; asserting that claims that it was involved were fabrications by Turkey, Qatar and the Muslim Brotherhood; seeking to defame Mr. Khashoggi’s fiancé and supporters; and refusing to fully cooperate with Turkish investigators.

Saudi reluctance to cooperate as well as the US investigation and Ms. Cengiz’s expected meeting with Mr. Trump complicate apparent Turkish efforts to find a resolution of the escalating crisis that would allow Saudi Arabia to save face and salvage Turkey’s economic relationship with the kingdom.

Turkey, despite deep policy differences with Saudi Arabia over Qatar, Iran, and the Muslim Brotherhood, has so far refrained from statements that go beyond demanding that Saudi Arabia prove its assertion that Mr. Khashoggi left the Istanbul consulate at his own volition and fully cooperate with the Turkish investigation.

Reports by anonymous Turkish officials detailing gruesome details of Mr. Khashoggi’s alleged murder by Saudi agents appear designed to pressure Saudi Arabia to comply with the Turkish demands and efforts to manage the crisis.

Widely acclaimed, Mr. Khashoggi’s fate, irrespective of whether he as yet emerges alive or is proven to have been brutally murdered, is reshaping the political map of the Middle East. The possibility, if not likelihood is that he paid a horrendous price for sparking the earthquake that is already rumbling across the region.

Continue Reading

Middle East

A letter to the leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran

Sajad Abedi

Published

on

The path to development and development of today and tomorrow is a model of putting the ideology of meritocracy on the basis of the use of professional youth, committed and teaching them better for tomorrow. The best way to rule is to interact between two generations, experienced and experienced managers with ages, and young, energetic and energetic managers. The sum of these two options will undoubtedly bring the crisis to a rapid pace for our beloved homeland, provided that these professionals do not turn into pesky wolves and deceiving foxes over time, and the rulers in the appointment and election offer God It is known to look at the people and the country, not on camaraderie and yesterday’s contests!

Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran

Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Hosseini Khamenei

I remember that during the third prayer of Ramadan on September 20, 2009, by explaining the political journey of the martyrs of Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib (PBUH), you considered the political behavior of Imam Khomeini in accordance with the conduct of the Emir of Amman, and emphasized: one of the features of the politics of Imam Ali al-Islam was to avoid deceit, while in secular systems and attitudes based on the separation of religion and politics, there is no problem using any method, including wickedness and deceit.

You added: In the political school of the Imam Ali, there is no resort to oppression and lies to succeed, and Ali Salam seriously urged people not to speak with him flatteringly. Tolerance with the opposition and even the enemies as much as possible was another characteristic of the political conduct of the Imam Ali that you paid for it.

You pointed out in this regard: the Prophet, in so far as possible, was treated with tolerance and good behavior with the opponents and opponents, but if they did not end up with them, they stood firmly against them.

You have included the expression of reasoning and reasoning against enemies and opponents as another characteristic of the political conduct of Amir al-Momenin, Ali (peace be upon him), adding: His behavior was not the same with all individuals and opposing movements, and among those who, despite the purpose of the right, From ignorance and guiltiness, they went astray and mistakenly, differed from those who were in the wrong way from the beginning, while the Prophet Mohammad stood firmly against diversion and appealing to religious appearances.

You considered politics of ethics and spirituality to be the cause of the people and the society, and added: otherwise, politics will be a means of gaining power, wealth, and the advancement of worldly affairs, and will become a perversion for society and even politicians.

At the beginning of the second sermon of prayer in the words of the main audience of political movements and personalities, “the former and present officials of the country”, they examined the splits that have been created in the last 30 years in the genuine process of people and revolution.

You saw the reason for some of these splits as “the fundamentals and beliefs”, and added that some of the splits and differences were actually in the interests of others, but some were disagreements over how the principles were implemented, which should be treated differently with each other. .

By pointing out the encounters of Imam Khomeini with the splits and differences, you pointed out that the Imam used to treat them differently in the light of the political conduct of the Amir al-Mu’minin, “in proportion to the nature and essence of the political and the branching movements.” With the reference to the revolutionary and religious backgrounds of the branching process, you pointed out: the nature of some of these differences was a different view of the principles of the implementation of the principles, but some with fundamental differences or conflicts over the interests brought about the conflict with Imam and the Revolution And tried to penetrate the wrong principles as deadly in the soul and body of the system, when Imam, when he felt this danger, withdrew tolerance and resolved with them.

You, in contrast to the differences in the foundations, have a stake in the interests of society and added that the existence of individuals and streams of critics and possessing different perspectives is in the best interest of the country, provided that this difference of sentiment in the framework of the principles of “Islam, the constitution And the Imam’s will and wisdom, “not the issues that make the name of it, but in fact, are alien to the principles and principles of the revolution.

You pointed out that, unlike some propaganda, if one or the other has dissenting opinions and dissent, the system does not work with him, but if a stream of conflicts and knocking on the sword is carried out, as it is tolerated anywhere in the world In Iran, the system will be resolved in self-defense.

You declared the maximum attraction and the minimum elimination of the policy of the system towards the various currents of the country, adding that the system does not cope with the current as far as it does not have to; therefore, if no one moves to pursue violence, it does not try to undermine the security and comfort of the community, with The foundations of the system do not conflict and do not seek to lie and rumor, they are free to act and express their beliefs, and nobody will work with him.

You called for negligence against small landslides and deviations, which led to great deviations and ultimate fall, and pointed out the Qur’an verses: slippers gradually degrade people from inside, and this corruption, deviation in practice, and sometimes deviation in consequently, everyone should be careful about each other, including our family members, while respecting piety.

In this context, you advised the people to preach and advise the authorities, and added: people advise the authorities on various means and methods so that they will not slip, because the slippage of the authorities is more dangerous for the regime, the country and the people.

You called the Islamic system, like a person, as being at risk of slipping and corruption, and added: If you are not careful, the name and appearance of the Islamic Republic may persist, but the attitude and behavior, and the system’s agenda, will be non-Islamic. You move the society and the country towards justice, religious behavior and ethics, intellectual and scientific development in the free space, and a strong stand against “enemies and the front of international oppression”, including signs of the health and the system of corruption and You know the disease.

You added: people are awake and they know that if the path to society and the system is different, and issues such as the massive gap of the class, the use of freedom for corruption and prostitution, and the feeling of weakness and retreat from global bullying, is created, this sign of the disease of the system Is Islamic.

My Leader, 9 years of your talk in Friday prayers in September 2009, and the youth of this border are looking to change their situation according to your demands. I talk to a father who has always been a youth advocate and asked young people to stay and build Iran.

Dear Leader, Find out that by observing recent appointments and sentences for senior executives, it seems that the use of tools by young people and the use of slogans from their ability to attract accompaniment and synchronization on special occasions has become the current trend in the country. , A process that represents a disaster management in the Islamic Republic. By observing such an average age of the country’s directors and officials of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the hypothesis is that, after about 40 years of the Islamic Revolution, this system has failed or did not want to educate managers who deserve to have large managerial positions. And so they should continue to use the early young revolutionary leaders who were trained during the pre-revolutionary period. Is such a hypothesis close to reality?

It has been repeatedly experienced when the term “election” or “director” is subject to the election or appointment or the time of speech and presentation. The term “youth” and “youth capacity” is heard from the mouths of people repeatedly and is supposed to It is used so much from the capacity of young people in the country and large administrations that they may raise some concerns about the experience of experienced managers with a background and worry about neglecting the experience of experienced managers, but when the time runs out and everyone waits for young people to enter the management arena And society is hoping for a new atmosphere that will be full of vitality Occasionally, they are the same age-old administrators, who have no new initiative to advance their affairs in their programs, and they are once again called on to promise that they will be used on the mouths of critics and critics, saying they will use middle-class youth Will be, and some will not turn into reality in reality.

Everywhere in the world, especially advanced economies and advanced countries, young people work and give advice to old people, but in Iran it is a reverse! Old men want to work until the 90th minute, and even despite their retirement and salary, they still have jobs and jobs in the third and fourth and even more!

Dear my leader, my question is: Should not these Iranian oppressed youths be crying?

Training future strategists and jihad! Young advisers! Young Parliament! One of the cultural jokes of Iranian management is the use of such titles and phrases that are everything for the young, except water and bread! I emphasize everything is but bread and water! What does this look to the young people who are today in Iran? Yes! Young people are working and they are ashamed of their families, that is: Let’s sit back and do nothing about management, economic and social activity.

At the time of the imposed war, which you yourself were at the front, how did you trust the youth there, but today is not trusted? Because there was no payment and no money, the youth of the god was unwanted worthless? The country does not go the right way. One of the main reasons is the lack of youthfulness in the real sense of the body of management and implementation.

The actual body does not mean meeting and association in the name of “sympathy”, “idea”, “participation”, and so on, but it means the creation of expert and thought-provoking youth at all levels. The country’s management system is faced with a false crisis, the false crisis means that in spite of our abilities and potential, we have problems and some insist on continuing these problems. One of the great potentials of Iran, which has become a weak point and is in its place a source of unfortunate controversy, is our young force and our management and economic elites, some of which are neither in the media nor in the office or position.

My dear leader, my question is that apart from the good ages and genes of the country, how many young people do we have to have responsibility in the country? Unless in this imposed war, young people stood in front of the whole world in combatants and commander-in-chief? So why not trust these young people now? Should young people in Islamic and Iranian management have a special place and of course a particular gene so that they can present themselves? For this, officials and decision-makers should have a proper priority, and if they are not able to prioritize it, they will give the status to specialized people. What we have to do with the young, we need a detailed discussion, but do not rely more and more on the wrong approach.

Sir, I know that you know that young people should be educated for the present and future of the community, who work as leaders and thinkers in the community and politics, rather than those born from one generation to the next, and nothing more than a shame for the system The Islamic Republic of Iran does not have and will not. It should be noted that educated young people pursue the goals and ideals of the Iranian democratic system and beliefs with regard to all the nuances and considerations of Iranian-Islamic society culture on the one hand and the change of generations, the global perspective of threats and international threats, internal harm and so on, on the other hand, To advance. In the contemporary world more than any other time, the survival and survival of organizations and departments depends on the system of meritocracy and the transfer of work to the apprentice. The lack of qualified, expert and elite individuals is an opportunity and the use of seigneur is inadequate to burn the country. It should be noted that the failure to use the elite will lead to the disappearance of political and managerial systems. Competency-based management is a coherent and coherent approach to managing long-term human capital, based on a common set of competencies that are relevant to the macro strategies of the country. It was precisely in this regard that the establishment of a system of merit as one of the major and strategic policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran vision document in the country has been emphasized. In a meritorious system, there should be no appointments based on the financial strength of a person or a social position (the good gene) that has come across the country. In affluent societies, the attitudes of kinship, tribalism, party, and secularism are abandoned. It should be noted that meritocracy, not a government, but an ideology.

My leader, the current state of the country after 1396, the meritocracy has been lost. But what is the purpose of the system of meritocracy? Is not there a better goal than ensuring the future of the country? The best way to ensure the future of the country is to use the right youth in various responsibilities. There is no doubt about the merits of many officials and appointments in government. But the presence of these people in this age group may be favorable for the country, but what will happen next?

The path to development and development of today and tomorrow is a model of putting the ideology of meritocracy on the basis of the use of professional youth, committed and teaching them better for tomorrow. The best way to rule is to interact between two generations, experienced and experienced managers with ages, and young, energetic and energetic managers. The sum of these two options will undoubtedly bring the crisis to a rapid pace for our beloved homeland, provided that these professionals do not turn into pesky wolves and deceiving foxes over time, and the rulers in the appointment and election offer God It is known to look at the people and the country, not on camaraderie and yesterday’s contests!

Thank you very much

SAJAD ABEDI

October 8, 2018

Continue Reading

Latest

Trending

Copyright © 2018 Modern Diplomacy