Connect with us

Middle East

Iran’s Influence Stems from US Policy and War Would Be a Monumental Disaster

Dr. Arshad M. Khan

Published

on

When Corinth and Megara, both allies of Sparta went to war, Athens sensed opportunity and soon formed an alliance with Megara.  It precipitated the First Peloponnesian War (c 459 – 445 BC) and Athens soon turned the alliance into control of Megara.  When peace returned, so did Megara into the Spartan fold.  In 1941, Nazi Germany broke its non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union and launched the massive Operation Barbarossa against it.  In both instances, the violators paid dearly.  By the end of the Peloponnesian wars, a long saga, Athens had been reduced from its preeminence as the most powerful Greek state to a defeated vassal of Sparta.  We know what happened to Germany.  In one case it took over fifty years, in the other just four.

History may not repeat itself but here we are in the 21st century and another agreement is about to be broken.  Visiting leaders from France and Germany, UK’s Theresa May on the phone …. all have advised against such a course and all to no avail.  Donald Trump insists on pulling out of the Iran deal.  Every 120 days he is supposed to sign a waiver to lift sanctions related to the nuclear deal.  Signing in mid-January, he warned it would be the last time unless the agreement was changed.  The major European leaders have failed to dissuade him, and have now gone so far as for one to call his decision insane.  They are right for the consequences could be disastrous, particularly as Iran continues to fulfill its obligations under the deal which keeps a check on any development of nuclear weapons.

First for some background:  Starting with the US invasion of Iraq, the political order in the Middle East arranged by Britain and France post World War I quickly disintegrated.  National borders became porous, and state institutions severely stressed due to civil war or through non-state actors like ISIS — although the latter has been greatly weakened the ideology remains — and Syria has faced a multi-pronged insurgency.  Out of chaos rather than design, Iran has emerged a key player.

By offering help to Syria and Iraq and through aid to Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iran’s influence now extends over a wide swathe of the Middle East, from the Gulf to the Mediterranean.  Moreover, in Yemen, it has pinned down the Saudis in an expensive civil war against a popular (Houthi) rebellion to which it has provided a measure of support.

If this implies Iran is highly militaristic with a huge military budget, one could not be more wrong.  In 2016, the latest year for which figures are available, Iran spent $12.7 billion on defense whereas Saudi Arabia laid out $63.7 billion, about five times more.  So how has Iran succeeded in magnifying its influence?

Not surprisingly, it has been a blundering US, staggering around like a drunken giant trampling any semblance of order.  In the Iraq war, it overthrew a government and nation that was a countervailing force against Iran, and put in place an elected one which, given Iraq’s Shia majority, was Shia.  Some of the Shia leaders had sought refuge in Shia Iran from Saddam’s efforts to keep this majority at heel.  In this they had common bond with the Kurds up in northern Iraq, who fighting for an independent Kurdistan, had been gassed by Saddam.

The Shia government in Iraq now looks to Iran.  For example, last year the Kurds held a vote on independence from Iraq to form a separate Kurdistan.  The Kurds voted for independence laying open the real possibility of civil war.  It was Iran with its muscle in the region who dissuaded the Kurds, even forcing them to surrender Kirkuk, a city with a mixed Kurd and Arab population, to the central government.

Then Saudi Arabia’s rejection and organized boycott of Qatar left it little choice but to seek closer ties with Iran, with which it has common natural gas interests.  For Iran, it is a first foothold across the Gulf, right next door to Saudi Arabia’s oil,  which happens to be in a Shia-majority province.

In Lebanon, Iran has long supported its Shiite brethren, whose awakening dates to the 1980s Israeli invasion and its refusal to leave the South.  First forming Amal to protect their rights, this downtrodden minority is now the most powerful force in Lebanon, now well-known as Hezbollah.  It has been successful against Israeli arms twice.  First, in forcing them to eventually leave southern Lebanon in 2000 — Israel’s interest was the water from the Litani river — and a second time when Israel attacked Lebanon in 2006 and Hezbollah forced it to pay a high enough price that withdrawal became the sensible option.

Iran’s stock in Syria has soared both through the help given to Assad’s forces by Hezbollah but also through a substantial contribution by its revolutionary guards.  This battle hardened force in concert with the tough Hezbollah and the Syrian army form the ground forces to compliment Russian air power.  Together they have given President Assad victory and made Russia the arbiter in the region.  The alliance has also been helped by a disaffected Turkey, wary of US help for Kurds, and the antagonistic, fundamentalist, and now also threatening, Saudi Arabia, which has become close to Israel.

A harbinger of things to come was the Sochi meeting between Vladimir Putin, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani on the future of Syria.  The US was notable only in its absence.  Russia is now actively wooing Turkey, and any belligerence by the Trump administration towards Iran will only draw it too closer to Russia, perhaps even signing a defense pact, although Iran would prefer neutrality.

Aside from religious kinship and its use of proxies to protect itself from the Saudi bloc, Iran has also chosen to develop sophisticated missiles, a comparatively cheaper alternative to huge military expenditures.  These ensure an attacker will pay a heavy price, and is one good reason why Benjamin Netanyahu would rather the US do the dirty work while he continues to make inflammatory and deceptive speeches about Iran.  Unfortunately at present, the US is also exposed.  Worse, its vulnerability is in a region where Iran holds a better hand.  Moreover, a seriously destructive attack on Iran will bring back chaos to the whole region and sow the seeds for another ISIS and/or similar group(s) with the potential for exporting their philosophy to Europe and North America.

What this analysis shows is exactly what the Europeans have been telling Mr. Trump.  It makes sense to talk while maintaining the current deal.  “Jaw, jaw is better than war war,”  said a statesman (Churchill) whose bust occupies a prominent position in Trump’s office.

Dr. Arshad M. Khan is a former Professor based in the US. Educated at King's College London, OSU and The University of Chicago, he has a multidisciplinary background that has frequently informed his research. Thus he headed the analysis of an innovation survey of Norway, and his work on SMEs published in major journals has been widely cited. He has for several decades also written for the press: These articles and occasional comments have appeared in print media such as The Dallas Morning News, Dawn (Pakistan), The Fort Worth Star Telegram, The Monitor, The Wall Street Journal and others. On the internet, he has written for Antiwar.com, Asia Times, Common Dreams, Counterpunch, Countercurrents, Dissident Voice, Eurasia Review and Modern Diplomacy among many. His work has been quoted in the U.S. Congress and published in its Congressional Record.

Continue Reading
Comments

Middle East

Israeli contrasts: Likud’s favoured soccer teams veers left as Bibi turns further right

Dr. James M. Dorsey

Published

on

The contrast could not be starker. As Israel plays a dangerous game of US politics by restricting or banning visits by controversial Democratic members of Congress to seemingly please President Donald J. Trump’s prejudiced electoral instincts, the owner of a notorious Jerusalem soccer club draws a line in the sand in confronting his racist fan base.

The contrast takes on added significance as prime minister Benyamin Netanyahu woes Israel’s far-right in advance of elections on September 17 given that storied club Beitar Jerusalem has long been seen as a stronghold for his Likud party.

Mr. Netanyahu’s barring of Congresswomen Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar was as much a response to Mr. Trump’s tweeted suggestion that they should not be allowed to visit Israel as it was catering to his right-wing base that includes Beitar’s fans.

Beitar is the only Israeli squad to have never hired a Palestinian player. Its fans, famous for their racist slogans and bullying tactics, have made life impossible for the few Muslim players that the club contracted in its history.

Messrs. Netanyahu and Moshe Hogeg, the Beitar owner and tech entrepreneur who founded social mobile photo and video sharing website Mobli and crypto transactions platform Sirin Labs, are both treading on slippery ground.

Mr. Netanyahu, who initially raised out of respect for the US Congress no objection to the planned visit by Ms. Tlaib and Ms. Omar, has ensured that Israel for the first time in decades can no longer be sure of bi-partisan support in the Congress and beyond and is likely to become a partisan issue in the run-up to next year’s US presidential election.

His pandering to Mr. Trump sparked rare criticism from the American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC), Israel’s most powerful and influential lobby in the United States even though AIPAC agrees that Ms. Tlaib and Ms. Ilham support the Boycott, Diversification and Sanctions (BDS) movement that targets Israel.

“We disagree with Reps. Omar and Tlaib’s support for the anti-Israel and anti-peace BDS movement, along with Rep. Tlaib’s calls for a one-state solution. We also believe every member of Congress should be able to visit and experience our democratic ally Israel first hand,” AIPAC tweeted.

A breakdown of bi-partisan support for Israel may not be what Mr. Netanyahu wants, but it may be, in a twist of irony, what Israel needs. It would spark a debate in the United States with a potential fallout in Israel about whether Mr. Netanyahu’s annexationist policy and hard-line approach towards Palestinian aspirations serves Israel’s longer-term best interests.

Israel’s toughening stand was evident on Tuesday when police broke up an annual soccer tournament among Palestinian families in East Jerusalem on assertions that it was sponsored by the Palestinian Authority, which is barred from organizing events in the city. The tournament’s organizer denied any association with the Authority.

In a dismissive statement, Israeli public security minister Gilad Erdan’s office scoffed: “We’re talking about scofflaws who lie and blame the agency that enforces the law when they know full well that the Palestinian Authority is involved in the event that Minister Erdan ordered halted.”

The incident was emblematic of an environment that prompted columnist and scholar Peter Beinart, writing in The Forward, a more than 100-year old, left-wing Jewish weekly, to argue that “the United States has a national interest in ensuring that Israel does not make permanent its brutal occupation of the West Bank and blockade of the Gaza Strip.

By taking on La Familia, a militant Beitar Jerusalem fan group that has driven the club’s discriminatory policy, Mr. Hogeg is going not only against Mr. Netanyahu’s policies that emphasize Israeli Jewish nationalism at the expense of the rights of Palestinians with Israeli citizenship as well as those subject to occupation.

He is also challenging a global trend spearheaded by civilizational leaders like Indian prime minister Narendra Modi who, two weeks after depriving Kashmiri Muslims of their autonomy, is planning to build detention camps for millions of predominantly Muslim Indians suspected of being foreign migrants, Victor Orban who envisions a Muslim-free Hungary, and Xi Jinping who has launched in China’s troubled, north-western province of Xinjiang the most frontal assault on Islam in recent history

The degree of polarization and alienation that civilizational policies like those of Messrs Netanyahu, Modi, Xi and Orban is highlighted by the fact that Mr. Hogeg’s battle with his fans is over a name.

Ali Mohammed is Beitar Jerusalem’s latest acquisition. The only Muslim thing about him is his name. Mr. Mohammed is a Nigerian Christian.

That wasn’t good enough for the fans who demand that he change his name. During Mr. Mohammed’s first training session fans chanted “Mohamed is dead” and “Ali is dead.”

Unlike his predecessors, Mr. Hogeg seems unwilling to back down. He has threatened to sue the fans for tarnishing Beitar’s already battered reputation and demand up to US$500,000 in damages. Lawyers for Mr. Hogeg have written to fans demanding an apology.

“They are very good fans; they are very loyal. They love the club and what it represents … but they’re racist and that’s a big problem,” Mr. Hogeg said.

Convinced that the militants are a minority that imposes its will on the majority of Beitar fans, Mr. Hogeg takes the high road at a time that the likes of him threaten to become an endangered species.

“I was surprised to find that Mohamed is not Muslim, but I don’t care. Why should it matter? He’s a very good player. As long as the player that comes respects the city, respects what he represents, respects Israel, can help the team and wants to play then the door will be open. If those radical fans will fight against it, they will lose. They will simply lose,” Mr. Hogeg said.

Continue Reading

Middle East

“Today Saudi Arabia finally lost the war on Yemen.”

Eric Zuesse

Published

on

On August 17th, an anonymous German intelligence analyst who has perhaps the world’s best track-record of publicly identifying and announcing historical turning-points, and who is therefore also a great investigative journalist regarding international relations (especially military matters, which are his specialty) headlined at his “Moon of Alabama” blog, “Long Range Attack On Saudi Oil Field Ends War On Yemen”, and he opened:

Today Saudi Arabia finally lost the war on Yemen. It has no defenses against new weapons the Houthis in Yemen acquired. These weapons threaten the Saudis economic lifelines. This today was the decisive attack:

Drones launched by Yemen’s Houthi rebels attacked a massive oil and gas field deep inside Saudi Arabia’s sprawling desert on Saturday, causing what the kingdom described as a “limited fire” in the second such recent attack on its crucial energy industry.  …

The Saudi acknowledgement of the attack came hours after Yahia Sarie, a military spokesman for the Houthis, issued a video statement claiming the rebels launched 10 bomb-laden drones targeting the field in their “biggest-ever” operation. He threatened more attacks would be coming. 

New drones and missiles displayed in July 2019 by Yemen’s Houthi-allied armed forces

Today’s attack is a check-mate move against the Saudis. Shaybah is some 1,200 kilometers (750 miles) from Houthi-controlled territory. There are many more important economic targets within that range.  …

The attack conclusively demonstrates that the most important assets of the Saudis are now under threat. This economic threat comes on top of a seven percent budget deficit the IMF predicts for Saudi Arabia. Further Saudi bombing against the Houthi will now have very significant additional cost that might even endanger the viability of the Saudi state. The Houthi have clown prince Mohammad bin Salman by the balls and can squeeze those at will.

He went on to say that the drones aren’t from Iran but are copies from Iran’s, “assembled in Yemen with the help of Hizbullah experts from Lebanon.”

He has been predicting for a long time that this war couldn’t be won by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman al-Saud (MbS). In the present report, he says:

The war on Yemen that MbS started in March 2015 long proved to be unwinnable. Now it is definitely lost. Neither the U.S. nor the Europeans will come to the Saudis help. There are no technological means to reasonably protect against such attacks. Poor Yemen defeated rich Saudi Arabia.

The Saudi side will have to agree to political peace negotiations. The Yemeni demand for reparation payments will be eye watering. But the Saudis will have no alternative but to cough up whatever the Houthi demand.

The UAE was smart to pull out of Yemen during the last months.

If he is correct (and I have never yet found a prediction from him turn out to have been wrong), then this will be an enormous blow to the foreign markets for U.S.-made weapons, since the Sauds are the world’s largest foreign purchasers of those, and have spent profusely on them — and also on U.S. personnel to train their soldiers how to use them. So (and this is my prediction, not his), August 19th might be a good time to sell short U.S. armament-makers such as Lockheed Martin.

However: his prediction that “the Saudis will have no alternative but to cough up whatever the Houthi demand” seems to me to be the first one from him that could turn out to have been wrong. If the Sauds have perpetrated, say, $200 billion of physical damage to Yemen, but refuse to pay more than $100 billion in reparations, and the Housis then hit and take out a major Saudi oil well, isn’t it possible that the Sauds would stand firm? But if they do, then mightn’t it be wrong to say, at the present time, that: “Today Saudi Arabia finally lost the war on Yemen.”? He has gone out on limbs before, and I can’t yet think of any that broke under him. Maybe this one will be the first? I wouldn’t bet on that. But this one seems to me to be a particularly long limb. We’ll see!

Continue Reading

Middle East

The message behind the release of Iranian oil tanker

Mohammad Ghaderi

Published

on

The Gibraltar court ordered the Iranian oil tanker Grace 1 to be released. The tanker was seized by the British Royal Marines about a month ago. 

This verdict was the ending of an elaborate game designed by John Bolton National Security Advisor of the United States and Mike Pompeo, carried out by the Britain government. 

With seizing the tanker, Bolton was trying to put psychological and political pressures on Iran and force other countries to form a consensus against Iran, but he couldn’t fulfill any of these goals. 

Iran’s firm, logical and wise answer to the seizure of Grace 1 (like making solid legal arguments) and the seriousness of our country’s armed forces in giving a proper response to Britain’s contemptuous act, made the White House lose the lead on reaching its ends. 

Washington imagined that the seizure of Grace 1 will become Trump’s winning card against Iran, but the release of the tanker (despite disagreement of the U.S.) became another failure for the White House in dealing with Iran.  

Obviously, London was also a total loser in this game. It is worth noting that U.S. was so persistent about keeping the oil tanker in custody that John Bolton traveled to London and insisted on British officials to continue the seizure of the ship. Their failure, however, clearly shows that the White House and its traditional ally, Britain, have lost a big part of their power in their relations with Iran. 

Clearly, the illegal seizure of the Iranian oil tanker by Britain proceeded by the seizure of a British tanker by Iran and the following interactions between the two countries is not the whole story and there is more to it that will be revealed in coming days. 

What we know for sure is that London has to pay for its recent anti-Iran plot in order to satisfy Washington; the smallest of these consequences was that Britain lost some of its legal credibility in international arena as it illegally captured an Iranian oil tanker. 

The order of the Gibraltarian court revealed that London had no legal right to seize the Iranian oil tanker and nobody can defend this unlawful action. Surely, Iran will take all necessary legal actions to further pursue the matter.  

In this situation, the Islamic Republic of Iran is firm on its position that it doesn’t have to follow the sanctions imposed by the European Union on other countries (including Syria). 

No entity can undermine this argument as it is based on legal terms; therefore, Iran will keep supporting Syrian nation and government to fight terrorism. This is the strategic policy of the Islamic Republic and will not be changed under the pressure or influence of any other third country. 

Finally, it should be noted that the release of Grace 1 oil tanker was not only a legal and political failure for Washington and London and their allies but it was also a strategic failure. Undoubtedly, the vast consequences of this failure will be revealed in near future. 

From our partner Tehran Times

Continue Reading

Latest

Trending

Copyright © 2019 Modern Diplomacy