Connect with us

Middle East

Technocratic management pottery with glazed jihadi management

Sajad Abedi

Published

on

An overview of the evolution of nearly four decades of Islamic revolution shows that what was the main component of the advancement and advancement of this divine movement is relying on monotheistic faith and indigenous beliefs based on Islamic teachings. As the effects are of these teachings on the various elements of the Islamic revolutionary software can be seen.

One of the effects of this software development is the particular style of management that emerged from the jihadist culture and thought of the Islamic Revolution, which emerged and emerged after the victory of the Islamic Revolution, and can be seen in its efficacy.

The glorious history of the holy defense is a symbol of the effectiveness of the jihadist management, and now, in the Islamic Revolution in the fourth decade, relying on the power of the people and the interior to advance Islamic Iran, the image of the efforts of all the caricons of the revolution, is again the jihadist management that rescues this sensitive arena And strategic.

However, jihadist and jihadist leaders managed to pass the country away from the unpopular imposed war in the first Islamic Revolution in the first decade, but in the second decade of the revolution we saw the reign of the so-called technocrats. Managers who, although claiming to pay expertise, in fact defined expertise against a commitment and were left unidentified by a Islamic regime director under the charge of the revolutionary authorities.

The managers, who, in the wake of the construction of the government and its chairman, rehearsed Western planning for national development, they rewrote the transcripts of the Western prescriptions and prescriptions for so-called modern Iran. Accordingly, technocrats have turned away indigenous, religious, and revolutionary values on the development path. For example, out of a total of 625 people who participated in setting up and approving the “final draft of the second development plan”, only one person was a seminary, the post is “Deputy of Endowment Organization”; he has participated in one of the planning committees. The review of the status of the organization of the former Bundestag and the former administrative and employment organization confirms this view.

The technocrats’ management flow did not survive only in the economic arena and entered the political phase, with the build-up party of the builders-builders rising. Years later, in the 2014 elections, a stream that coincided with the same technocratic leadership once again managed to reach the realm of power in the executive branch, and again the management of technocrats with liberal doctrines again became the powerhouse.

This managerial trend believes that developmental patterns must be pursued in accordance with what is defined in the West, and the prescribed management pattern is also “instrumental management”, that is, a disconnected management of revelatory teachings and reliance on humanity. This management seeks to accept globalization and globalization as a norm and surrenders to it. However, this spectrum of inaccurate executives reads “illiterate” and “inexperienced” and tries to pull out the spectrum from the field.

Technocratic leaders in the eleventh government have gained reliable seats, especially in economic areas, as key ministries and sensitive posts are available to them. Bijan Zanganeh, Minister of Construction and Reforms, has taken over the Ministry of Oil. Massoud Neely is a liberal technocrat economist who is an industrial development strategy and a third development plan for his team. He is the economic advisor to the president and responsible for the macroeconomic planning of the state. Managers such as Akbar Turkan and Mohammad Reza Nematzadeh also have a strong and effective government in the government.

But the technocrats’ management loop that affects the eleventh state has some features:

Wealthy and capitalist executives: some 11th-century government executives have a wealth of thousands of dollars on the basis of their own figures. In general, it can be said that a significant number of economic managers of the eleventh government have, in recent years, embarked on private sector activities, and now operate in parallel both in the government and in the private sector. For example, Mr. Mohammad Reza Nematzadeh, Minister of Industry, Mine and Trade, is a member of the board of directors in 12 private companies that date most of them since 2009.

One site recently released a news release that surprised experts and the community. “The Secretary-General’s sleep at the meeting of the commission” was the headline for sleeping by one of the ministers of the economy at the meeting of the commission. The story was that, apparently, at the meeting of the commission and at the height of the specialized discussions, the audience suddenly realized that Mr. Secretary was sleeping! Therefore, some members of the commission believed that the fatigue and the high level of the minister’s age were due to his sleeping in the meeting.

Managers who have been leading the executive branch of the eleventh government are mainly from the spectrum that had been at the management board in the years 1988 to 2004 and returned to their place after the eight-year termination, with the difference that many of them either retired and or at a retirement age.

This “closed loop of managers” actually leads to the “failure to turn the elite” on the one hand and “the lack of growth of youth” in managerial jobs. In the next few years, with the current range of senior managers leaving management positions, young managers have not had the minimum experience and readiness to accept responsibilities, and the country will be faced with serious damage in the realm of implementation.

Manage technocrats, look out and get Western help. This kind of management does not mean “we can”. A typical example of this is the reliance on the country’s crude oil and the formation of the oil-rich economy. The Supreme Leader of the Revolution said: “I say this once again, a few months ago, that the Americans expressed their joy and said that he acknowledged that sanctions had affected. Yes, the sanctions were ineffective; they wanted to be happy. The sanctions finally hit; this is a fundamental problem in us. Our economy is suffering from this oil-dependent form. We must separate our economies from oil; our governments include this in their core programs. I, seventeen eighteen years ago, was working on a government that was at that time and told officials that we would be able to shut down oil wells whenever we wanted to. The gentlemen, according to their own “technocrat” smile, denied that it would be?! Yes; it must be followed, must be taken, and must be planned. When an economic plan of a country is connected and dependent on a particular point, enemies focus on that particular point. Yes, the sanctions affected, but not the effect that the enemy wanted. “The reason for this should be the fascination of the conservative, Western-Western, and West fascination and, finally, the lack of national self-confidence in this spectrum of executives.

In contrast to technocratic management, the healing version provided by the Islamic Revolution is “Jihadist management”, which has provided its effective record in a sensitive and diverse period of the life of the system. As the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution also states: “If the jihadist management is the same work and effort that is dominated by divine intentions based on knowledge and tact, the problems of the country, in the current conditions of the unbridled pressures of the world powers and in other circumstances, can be resolved, and The country will continue to move forward. »

Accordingly, he sees the rule of Jihadist leadership as a way to overcome the basic challenges of the system: “Our inner challenges are: to entertain the differences in the interior; to divide and disparate the superficial, entertain us, and put them together, Controversy does not let us ignore the main issues and main lines; one of the examples is the main challenge. Losing solidarity is a challenge for our nation. Getting into laziness and disorientation, becoming obsessive, despairing, imagining that we cannot imagine that we have not succeeded; no, as Imam said, we can, we must resolve, national determination and jihadi management can Open all of these nodes. These are all the internal challenges that we must deal with. »

He says in the definition of jihad and jihad movements: “Jihad is an attempt made against an enemy; it is not an attempt to fight jihad. Jihad is an attempt to take on a hostile challenge from the other side; it is jihad. Then the meaning of jihad management here is to pay attention that the scientific movement of the country and the scientific movement of the country and the scientific progress of the country are faced with an adversarial challenge that needs to be resisted in the face of this hostile challenge that you, the student who you master, who you are a student, is. ; This is the jihadist movement and the management of the machine; whether the university’s management, the management of the ministry, or the management of any part of the various sectors of this vast arena, will be Jihadist administration. »

In contrast to this jihadi view, it is normal, sleepy and lacking sensitivity and sense of responsibility. As they emphasize, “it is not possible to do a lot of work with a normal and unassuming movement; it is necessary for a jihadist effort, jihadi mobilization and jihadi management are necessary for these [resistance economy policies]”. Therefore, it can be said that without Jihadist management, endogenous development is not possible, unless people will not be able to change economy and culture. Culture is the most important element of authoritarianism that the reform of consumption patterns is also one of the basic principles of resistance policies. Unless people reconsider their consumption culture, leadership measures will not be realized, and in another direction, the economy will need to flourish. It is a matter of humanity, and this requires the correct implementation of the policies of Article 44 and the proper handing over of government apparatus to the people.

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