Connect with us

Middle East

Iran opposes sanctions

Sajad Abedi

Published

on

During the meeting with Vladimir Putin, the Supreme Leader considered the US sanctions a very strong point of exchange for economic transactions outside the Dollar framework. He described the Iranian-Russian cooperation in Syria as an example of “American containment” and emphasized that “the same stand and success of the Islamic Republic is another successful example of American control, and Iran-Russia cooperation on global issues can restrain America.” By explaining and analyzing these words of leadership, we find that their positions take into account the realities of the region and the international scene and express their “strategic depth” to future issues of the world and the region.

Americans are in a difficult position, and they have to retreat from the implementation of the “policy toward zero export of Iranian oil” despite the high cost of diplomacy because they know they will succeed in implementing this policy, which will be able to report the closure of the Strait of Hormuz in the newspaper. In the morning, without worrying about rising fuel prices for their cars in the afternoon! “To the extent that Bob Woodward, the American author of the book,” Fears, “admits,” the defeat and anger are the characteristics of these days of the White House. “Because of this, the United States announced that it would take the necessary measures to exempt countries from penalties.

Iran’s successful experience in resisting and circumventing previous sanctions, opposition from different countries to new sanctions, US embargo on other countries … Finally, the emergence of “the determination to stand up to US sanctions policies in the world” The American Sanctions Weapon razor becomes slower than ever. American think tanks of the Atlantic Council, Heritage, and the Center for Strategic and International Studies have reported in separate reports that “complex economic and geopolitical considerations make it extremely difficult to predict the effectiveness of sanctions, and that Tramp’s tweets about the most severe sanctions against Iran are just a psychological warfare. » US Ambassador to Tel Aviv David Friedman also said in response to the Israeli news agency Hume: “I’m not a Prophet to predict the future of sanctions!” So the US’s excessive use of sanctions against more than twenty countries in the world has led them to think of forming a “new economic-political bloc” that can be the basis for the collapse of the domination system in international relations. As evidence of progress toward this apparent “International sanctions have warned that” US sanctions will create an “ecosystem of sanctioned actors” that can make sanctions “ineffective” on the basis of “independent policies” and “common interests”. Russia also writes “In the near future, the sanctions imposed on the first and quickest action by replacing the national currency the commercial amalgam will leave the dollar “.

The important thing is that in the new economic block, there is a Shiite country, such as Iran, to the Sunni countries, such as Turkey, and to other non-Muslim countries, such as China and Russia, and other media spaces do not allow the United States to make the Islamic Republic a Shiite crescent. Accuse and form NATO in Arabic! The issue that caused the US disappointment is that Pakistan has become an adversary in the premiership of Imran Khan, with Malaysia and Indonesia, with the Republic of Saudi Arabia outside the camp.

Although the Americans refer to the centennial of the dollar, the dollar seeks to induce dangerous denial of the dollar, but first, the current value of the dollar itself is exaggerated and does not come from known financial backing, such as gold or other precious metals. Secondly, with the openness of the global trade gate, the wider circle of the front of the “war against the dollar” is the main victim of the dollar itself. Thirdly, opposition to the sanctions policy inside America has become a major challenge for the dollar. On the one hand, the United States Federal Reserve warned in its report that “global companies have been pushing for investment in the United States because of international trade tensions caused by US sanctions” and, on the other hand, more than sixty US-US trade unions have formed a coalition to tackle politics US sanctions “. Earlier, Trump’s senior aides also announced the formation of a core of resistance to the policies of the US president. So the time for the change of other systems was spent through sanctions and dollars, so that after seven years of bloody military intervention in Syria and the cost of billions of dollars failed to succeed in the policy of overthrowing the Syrian regime, and now it is stretching beyond the borders, not only Syria.

The new economic-political bloc can, firstly, accelerate trade relations between member countries by completely eliminating the dollar and challenging the role of the dollar in the global economy. Secondly, the member states can coordinate all their assets from banks in the United States and the West and invest in their own countries, which in the first act of Russia is withdrawing their gold reserves from the United States. This action, in addition to the surprising effects that affect the economies of the countries It can prevent the US and Western economies from challenging them to impose sanctions and pressure on them by blocking the properties of other countries. Thirdly, in such a situation, Europeans may also be forced to trade at least with the euro, which will also help the collapse of the dollar’s dominance. Fourth, this new block can help bilateral trade and multilateral treaties eliminate the full dollar from trade between member states. Fifth the new economic-political bloc can be formed with the expansion of organizations like Shanghai, or it can help them stand up against the dollar.

The Islamic Republic, with the experience of creating a military-defense bloc in the region centered around the flow of resistance and failure of American terrorists, can play a central role in shaping the new economic-political bloc, provided that the government, by abandoning passive politics, In front of the United States, and with the disappointment of Europeans and the activation of all their diplomatic capabilities, “Interacting with the World” does not just mean a relationship with the United States and several European countries! Unfortunately, despite the fact that the elimination of the dollar as an intermediary currency was the subject of the sixth program and 60% of our trade with other countries could be made with a bilateral monetary agreement, Iran has not yet been bilaterally a treaty with any country !? While China and Russia now have bilateral monetary agreements with about 35 countries, they have announced that they will use national currency in deals with all Middle East, Africa, Asia and Latin America a day ago, with Xi Jinping and Putin in Moscow. Contrary to Mr. Zarif’s claim that “the world is not prepared to stand up to America’s policies,” it is a fact that the international scene “America against the world and the world against the dollar” has risen, and “consensus against the US and the dollar” can be a major deterrent to stability. The path to “consensus on the Islamic Republic”. Unfortunately, the government and the State Department are seeking to approve the FATF rather than pursuing this important issue, which will, unlike the spatial environment, cause, in addition to Europe, other countries will not be able to trade with Iran! As the Revolutionary Guard warned, “it’s not necessary to join the conventions we do not know about depth.”

As the American Supreme Power struggles with the victory of the Islamic Revolution collapsed in the world, we can now see the collapse of the “dollar domination.” It’s not an optimistic claim, but a fact, because hatred of America’s policies is heavily influenced not only in the West Asian region and Islamic countries, but also around the world, are intensifying and, before any change in another country occurs, the global rage against the dollar may lead to a change in its own system. Even many European politicians, despite their resistance to anti-American alliances, concluded that their countries’ interests were to resist US sanctions. Wolfgang Ischinger, a German veteran diplomat and US ambassador to the United States who heads the Munich Security Conference, emphasized in an interview with Reuters on the eve of the publication of his book “The Rise of the World,” in an interview with Reuters. “With American policies, the need to distance America is felt more and more. The growing strength of the anti-American alliances and the diversion of countries into the coalition of Iran, Russia and China have increased. “The interior minister and Italian Deputy Prime Minister also warned on sanctions losses on the Arte Network that sanctions are lacking in logic and will continue to work to change this policy. This is the same thing in Leadership in Nowshahr, which stated that “the political and intelligent analysts of the world are surprised at the fact that Iran has failed the world powers and admit it to this fact.” Therefore, it should be regarded as “the first US policy” failed and believed not only the world as well as the United States itself has unwittingly resurrected against the dollar, and the time of “curbing the US” has come up with the “fall of the dollar”!

Continue Reading
Comments

Middle East

Battling for the Future: Arab Protests 2.0

Dr. James M. Dorsey

Published

on

Credit: Institute of Security Studies

Momentous developments across Arab North and East Africa suggest the long-drawn-out process of political transition in the region as well as the greater Middle East is still in its infancy.

So does popular discontent in Syria despite eight years of devastating civil war and Egypt notwithstanding a 2013 military coup that rolled back the advances of protests in 2011 that toppled Hosni Mubarak and brought one of the country’s most repressive regimes to power.

What developments across northern Africa and the Middle East demonstrate is that the drivers of the 2011 popular revolts that swept the region and forced the leaders of Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Yemen to resign not only still exist but constitute black swans that can upset the apple cart at any moment.

The developments also suggest that the regional struggle between forces of change and ancien regimes and militaries backed by the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia is far from decided.

If anything, protesters in Algeria and Sudan have learnt at least one lesson from the failed 2011 results: don’t trust militaries even if they seemingly align themselves with demonstrators and don’t surrender the street until protesters’ demands have been fully met.

Distrust of the military has prompted an increasing number of Sudanese protesters to question whether chanting “the people and the army are one” is still appropriate. Slogans such as “freedom, freedom” and “revolution, revolution” alongside calls on the military to protect the protesters have become more frequent.

The protests in Algeria and Sudan have entered a critical phase in which protesters and militaries worried that they could be held accountable for decades of economic mismanagement, corruption and repression are tapping in the dark.

With protesters emboldened by their initial successes in forcing leaders to resign, both the demonstrators and the militaries, including officers with close ties to Saudi Arabia and the UAE, are internally divided about how to proceed.

Moreover, neither side has any real experience in managing the crossroads at which they find themselves while it is dawning on the militaries that their tired playbooks are not producing results.

In a telling sign, Sudan’s interim leader Abdel Fattah Abdelrahman Burhan praised his country’s “special relationship” with Saudi Arabia and the UAE as he met this week with a Saudi-Emirati delegation at the military compound in Khartoum, a focal point of the protests.

Saudi Arabia has expressed support for the protests in what many suspect is part of an effort to ensure that Sudan does not become a symbol of the power of popular sovereignty and its ability to defeat autocracy.

The ultimate outcome of the dramatic developments in Algeria and Sudan and how the parties manoeuvre is likely to have far-reaching consequences in a region pockmarked by powder kegs ready to explode.

Mounting anger as fuel shortages caused by Western sanctions against Syria and Iran bring life to a halt in major Syrian cities have sparked rare and widespread public criticism of president Bashar al-Assad’s government.

The anger is fuelled by reports that government officials cut in line at petrol stations to fill up their tanks and buy rationed cooking gas and take more than is allowed.

Syria is Here, an anonymous Facebook page that reports on economics in government-controlled areas took officials to task after state-run television showed oil minister Suleiman al-Abbas touring petrol stations that showed no signs of shortage.

Is it so difficult to be transparent and forward? Would that undermine anyone’s prestige? We are a country facing sanctions and boycotted. The public knows and is aware,” the Facebook page charged.

The manager of Hashtag Syria, another Facebook page, was arrested when the site demanded that the oil ministry respond to reports of anticipated price hikes with comments rather than threats. The site charged that the ministry was punishing the manager “instead of dealing with the real problem.”

Said Syrian journalist Danny Makki: “It (Syria) is a pressure cooker.”

Similarly, authorities in Egypt, despite blocking its website, have been unable to stop an online petition against proposed constitutional amendments that could extend the rule of President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi until 2034 from attracting more than 320,000 signatures as of this writing.

The petition, entitled Batel or Void, is, according to Netblocks, a group that maps web freedom, one of an estimated 34,000 websites blocked by Egyptian internet service providers in a bid to stymie opposition to the amendments.

Mr. El-Sisi is a reminder of how far Arab militaries and their Gulf backers are potentially willing to go in defense of their vested interests and willingness to oppose popular sovereignty.

Libyan renegade Field Marshall Khalifa Belqasim Haftar is another, Mr. Haftar’s Libyan National Army (LNA) is attacking the capital Tripoli, the seat of the United Nations recognized Libyan government that he and his Emirati, Saudi, and Egyptian backers accuse of being dominated by Islamist terrorists.

The three Arab states’ military and financial support of Mr. Haftar is but the tip of the iceberg. Mr. Haftar has modelled his control of much of Libya on Mr. El-Sisi’s example of a military that not only dominates politics but also the economy.

As a result, the LNA is engaged in businesses ranging from waste management, metal scrap and waste export, and agricultural mega projects to the registration of migrant labour workers and control of ports, airports and other infrastructure. The LNA is also eyeing a role in the reconstruction of Benghazi and other war-devastated or underdeveloped regions.

What for now makes 2019 different from 2011 is that both sides of the divide realize that success depends on commitment to be in it for the long haul. Protesters, moreover, understand that trust in military assertions of support for the people can be self-defeating. They further grasp that they are up against a regional counterrevolution that has no scruples.

All of that gives today’s protesters a leg up on their 2011 counterparts. The jury is out on whether that will prove sufficient to succeed where protesters eight years ago failed.

Continue Reading

Middle East

As Marsha Lazareva languishes in jail, foreign businesses will “think twice” before investing in Kuwait

Published

on

IF THERE IS one thing to glean from the case of Marsha Lazareva, it’s that foreign businesses must now think very carefully before investing in Kuwait.

For more than a year, Lazareva, who has a five-year-old son and is one of Russia’s most successful female investors in the Gulf, has been held in the Soulabaiya prison by Kuwaiti authorities. Those authorities claim she ‘stole’ half a billion dollars, a claim she strenuously denies.

Human rights groups and prominent officials, including the former FBI director, Louis Freeh, and Jim Nicholson, former Chairman of the Republican Party and former US Ambassador to the Vatican, have called for her release and expressed concerns about the apparent absence of due process in a country where Lazareva has worked for over 13 years. Both Freeh and Nicholson visited Kuwait in recent weeks with Neil Bush, son of the late President George H. W. Bush. Bush has said Lazareva’s incarceration ‘threatens to darken relations between the U.S. and Kuwait, two countries that have enjoyed a long and prosperous relationship.

Russian officials have been equally concerned. Vladimir Platonov, the President of the Moscow Chamber of Commerce and Industry, confirmed that a single witness gave testimony in Kuwaiti court, and only for the prosecution. ‘I myself worked in prosecution for more than eight years, and I cannot imagine any judge signing off on an indictment like this,’ he said. ‘One fact of particular note is that Maria was given 1,800 pages of untranslated documents in Arabic.’

Serious questions surrounding the safety and future viability of investing in Kuwait are now being raised. Through The Port Fund, a private investment company managed by KGL Investment, Lazareva has contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to local infrastructure and economic development projects during her time in the country. Until 2017, when a Dubai bank froze $496 million without cause, she had worked largely unobstructed.

But as things stand, more foreign investment is unlikely to be forthcoming. Jim Nicholson has said that the ‘imprisonment and harassment’ of Lazareva ‘threatens’ U.S. support. adding that the ‘willingness of the U.S. to do business with Kuwait’ is based on ‘its record as a nation that respects human rights and the rule of law’. Mark Williams, the investment director of The Port Fund and a colleague of Lazareva’s, has called on international investors to ‘think twice before doing business in this country’. 

These comments will surely concern the Kuwaiti government, who said last year that FDI was ‘very crucial’ to the success of its Kuwait Vision 2035 road map. In September 2018, the FTreported that the government planned to reverse its traditional position as an investor in order to diversify its economy, carrying out a series of reforms designed to facilitate foreign investment and assist investors.

But despite these changes, which have propelled Kuwait to 96th—higher than the Middle East average—in the World Bank’s ‘Ease of Doing Business’ report, investors may be unwilling to take the risk so long as Lazareva remains in jail. Lazareva’s lawyers have accused Kuwait of violating international law by breaching a long-standing bilateral investment treaty with Russia. Lord Carlile of Berriew, QC has brought the case to the attention of the British public and the EU, writing in The Times that ‘there is no evidential basis to justify any claim of dishonesty, corruption or any other criminal wrong’. He added: ’Anyone thinking of doing business in Kuwait should read on with mounting concern.’

What’s worth remembering is that Kuwait is an important, long-standing ally of the UK, and a country generally seen as stable and fair. It is equally a major non-NATO ally of the United States, where there are more than 5,000 international students of Kuwaiti origin in higher education. But these relationships, and the investment to which they have historically led, have been cast into doubt. And it now seems certain that relations will continue to sour so long as Marsha Lazareva languishes in Soulabaiya.

Continue Reading

Middle East

Economic reform in the Gulf: Who benefits, really?

Dr. James M. Dorsey

Published

on

For Gulf leaders, long-overdue economic reforms were never going to be easy.

Leaders like the crown princes of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, Mohammed bin Salman and Mohammed bin Zayed, quickly discovered that copying China’s model of economic growth while tightening political control was easier said than done. They realised that rewriting social contracts funded by oil wealth was more difficult because Gulf Arabs had far more to lose than the average Chinese. The Gulf states’ social contracts had worked in ways China’s welfare programmes had not. The Gulf’s rentier state’s bargain—surrender of political and social rights for cradle-to-grave welfare—had produced a win-win situation for the longest time.

Moreover, Gulf leaders, struggling with mounting criticism of the Saudi-UAE-led war in Yemen and the fall-out of the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, also lacked the political and economic clout that allowed China to largely silence or marginalise critics of its crackdown on Turkic Muslims in the troubled northwestern province of Xinjiang.

The absence of a welfare-based social contract in China allowed the government to power economic growth, lift millions out of poverty, and provide public goods without forcing ordinary citizens to suffer pain. As a result, China was able to push through with economic reforms without having to worry that reduced welfare benefits would spark a public backlash and potentially threaten the regime.

Three years into Mohammed bin Salman’s Vision 2030 blueprint for diversification of the economy, Saudi businesses and consumers complain that they are feeling the pinch of utility price hikes and a recently introduced five per cent value-added tax with little confidence that the government will stay the course to ensure promised long-term benefit.

The government’s commitment to cutting costs has been further called into question by annual handouts worth billions of dollars since the announcement of the reforms and rewriting of the social contract to cushion the impact of rising costs and quash criticism.

In contrast to China, investment in the Gulf, whether it is domestic or foreign, comes from financial, technology and other services sector, the arms industry or governments. It is focused on services, infrastructure or enhancing the state’s capacities rather than on manufacturing, industrial development and the nurturing of private sector.

With the exception of national oil companies, some state-run airlines and petrochemical companies, the bulk of Gulf investment is portfolios managed by sovereign wealth funds, trophies or investment designed to enhance a country’s prestige and soft power.

By contrast, Asian economies such as China and India have used investment fight poverty, foster a substantial middle class, and create an industrial base. To be sure, with small populations, Gulf states are more likely to ensure sustainability in services and oil and gas derivatives rather than in manufacturing and industry.

China’s $1 trillion Belt and Road initiative may be the Asian exception that would come closest to some of the Gulf’s soft-power investments. Yet, the BRI, designed to alleviate domestic overcapacity by state-owned firms that are not beholden to shareholders’ short-term demands and/or geo-political gain, contributes to China’s domestic growth.

Asian nations have been able to manage investors’ expectations in an environment of relative political stability. By contrast, Saudi Arabia damaged confidence in its ability to diversify its oil-based economy when after repeated delays it suspended plans to list five per cent of its national oil company, Saudi Arabian Oil Company, or Aramco, in what would have been the world’s largest initial public offering.

To be sure, China is no less autocratic than the Gulf states, while Hindu nationalism in India fits a global trend towards civilisationalism, populism and illiberal democracy. What differentiates much of Asia from the Gulf and accounts for its economic success are policies that ensure a relatively stable environment. These policies are focused on social and economic enhancement rather than primarily on regime survival. That may be Asia’s lesson for Gulf rulers.

Author’s note: first published in Firstpost

Continue Reading

Latest

East Asia58 mins ago

Washington- Pyongyang: A third attempt?

During a recent meeting with his South Korean counterpart Moon Jae-in at the White House, US President Donald Trump said...

Newsdesk3 hours ago

Creating Opportunities for People through Inclusive and Sustainable Growth in North Macedonia

Supporting faster, inclusive, and sustainable growth in the Republic of North Macedonia is the objective of the new four-year Country...

Energy News5 hours ago

Greening industry through a transition to hydrogen societies

Hydrogen offers great potential to help green the energy sector and diversify the economy; however the technology’s development needs to...

Europe7 hours ago

Italy escapes the ‘western propaganda trap’

Authors: Carter Chapwanya and Arun Upadhyaya* The Trump administration – unlike other US administrations – has clearly taken the ‘with...

Russia9 hours ago

Is Israel Taking Advantage of a Longtime Strategic Partner for Russia?

In February, Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu met with his Russian counterpart, President Vladimir Putin. In what can only be...

EU Politics11 hours ago

What is InvestEU?

The InvestEU Programme will bring together under one roof the multitude of EU financial instruments currently available to support investment...

Reports13 hours ago

New safety and health issues emerge as work changes

Changes in working practices, demographics, technology and the environment are creating new occupational safety and health (OSH) concerns, according to...

Trending

Copyright © 2019 Modern Diplomacy