Iran is in a deep social and economic crisis. Despite its foreign policy successes in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen, the Iranian regime has failed its citizens at home. Since December, 2017, the people in Iran took to the streets to protest the economic situation, corruption, nepotism, mismanagement and democratic deficit in the country. From that time on, the protests have been taking place on a weekly, if not daily, basis with protesters chanting slogans like “Death to Khamenei”, “Let go off the country” etc. Amid nation-wide protests in Iran, the Trump administration on 8 May withdrew the US from JCPOA, a deal which allegedly prevented Iran from developing nuclear weapons in return for easing sanctions regime on the country. By withdrawing from the deal, the US brought back the sanctions and started what it called “maximum pressure” campaign on Iran. While the current economic crisis is largely Iran’s own making, the re-imposition of US sanctions by the Trump administration has hugely worsened the situation. Since then, Iranian currency, the rial, has lost more than 70% of its value, inflation skyrocketed over a night, and purchasing power of Iranians has been continuously diminishing. All this increased internal pressure on the Ayatollahs. It is justifiably believed that the regime is now much more vulnerable to an internal pressure than ever before, which may ultimately dethrone the theocratic government.
Amid rising tensions between Washington and Tehran, the Trump administration held a conference in Warsaw, Polish capital. The conference is said to be aimed at “changing Iran’s behavior” in the Middle East, as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo put it mildly. Despite American denials, the US is currently pursuing a “regime change” in Iran, and Warsaw Conference was a part of this policy to build an anti-Iran Coalition that consolidates the impression that the world is lining up behind Trump’s hardline approach to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Although the Trump administration was correct to withdraw from the Iran deal, which did never address the threat Iran’s growing ballistic missile arsenal poses on the regional and global security, and start its “maximum pressure” campaign on the Islamic Republic, which is obviously aggressive and malign actor in the Middle East, the regime change policy would not be a wise policy to employ in order to successfully contain and confront Iran. There are certain reasons for the US to not pursue a dangerous regime change in Iran.
Firstly, the peace is too fragile in Iran. If the regime falls, it is highly likely that Iran without a strong central government will potentially end up in a protracted civil war. This will further destabilize not only Iran, but also the whole of the Middle East, which is definitely not in the very interest of either the US or its allies. Historical records show that when the central government weakens in Iran, the periphery of the country tries to gain more autonomy and even independence. In its turn, this causes more bloodshed and destabilization in the country. Among others, the Kurds are the most likely minority that will take up arms in the event of a massive disobedience in Iran. The Kurds, led by the founder of Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran – Qazi Muhammad, established the Mahabad Republic in 1946 with the help of Soviet Union. So, there is no reason for them to not try doing the same again when the circumstances allow them. The Beluchis, the Iranian Turks and others will follow the suit, which will make Iran falling into a pure Hobbesian state of anarchy. From both ethical and strategic perspectives, watching Iran sliding into a devastating civil war is definitely not in the interests of the West.
Second reason is that if Iran gets destabilized and slides into a civil war, the massive amount of Iranians will possibly try to flee the country. Since European Union is the most likely destination for them, the new wave of millions of refugees will knock the doors of the EU via Turkey, who are already burdened by the inflow of millions of Syrian refugees. Considering the rise of far-right and mostly pro-Russian parties throughout Europe, the influx of millions of refugees would certainly face a backlash from the populace and empower illiberal parties in Europe. Furthermore, Turkey, which is a strategically important NATO ally, would be destabilized, too. Turkey currently hosts about 4 millions of Syrian refugees. However, the public has been increasingly hostile towards the refugees, resulting in clashes between the locals and Syrians from time to time. Moreover, Iran prevents Afghan refugees from reaching Europe as well. Therefore, if it falls, not only Iranians, but also Afghans will easily reach Europe. Considering the fact that the civil war in Syria with its 26 million population shook the EU, a new civil war in Iran with its 80 million population would completely change political landscape of Europe. In this sense, the destabilization of Iran benefits neither the US nor its vital allies in Europe.
Thirdly, Iran may turn to be a launching pad for radicalized Shias, who will blame the West and Sunni Gulf Monarchies for the fall of Islamic Republic. For this matter, they will want to take revenge. Considering the fact that Iran has the largest arsenal of ballistic and cruise missiles in the Middle East, these missiles could easily fall into the hands of highly radicalized Shia militias and terrorists, who would be eager to take a revenge from the West. This would immediately put the US, Europe and American allies in the Middle East at a serious risk. Historical records show that this has a high possibility to happen. For example, after the ouster of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, the country turned to be safe haven for Al-Qaida and other Salafi terrorists. In fact, it was the American invasion of Iraq in 2003 that led to the establishment of Islamic State of Iraq in 2006. Therefore, the US should be careful not to make the same mistake in Iran, which may lead to the establishment of Shia version of so-called “ISIS” in Iran.
In sum, to make things clear, Iran is a malign actor in the Middle East, and damaging Western interests any place, where it is possible. Therefore, it should be confronted and contained in order to make sure the Islamic Republic does not threaten American allies in the region and outside of it. Iran must also be prevented from gaining nuclear technology. Furthermore, the US has a moral and strategic obligation to make sure that Iran, one of the main backers of murderous Assad regime, does not turn the Levant region into a Shia front to wage a full-fledged war on Israel and threaten its Jewish population with total annihilation. However, this should be done in a way that does not threaten America’s other allies in both Europe and the Middle East. Therefore, the US should fear a “regime change” in Iran rather than cheering it.
The fallacy of soccer’s magical bridge-building qualities
Imagining himself as a peacemaker in a conflict-ridden part of the world, FIFA President Gianni Infantino sees a 2022 World Cup shared by Qatar with its Gulf detractors, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, as the magic wand that would turn bitter foes into brothers.
It may be a nice idea, but it is grounded in the fiction that soccer can play an independent role in bringing nations together or developing national identity.
The fiction is that soccer has the potential to be a driver of events, that it can spark or shape developments. It is also the fiction that sports in general and soccer in particular has the power to build bridges.
Mr. Infantino’s assertion that if foes play soccer, bridges are built is but the latest iteration of a long-standing myth.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Soccer is an aggressive sport. It is about conquering the other half of a pitch. It evokes passions and allegiances that are tribal in nature and that more often than not divide rather than unite.
In conflict situations, soccer tends to provide an additional battlefield. Examples abound.
The 2022 World Cup; this year’s Qatari Asian Cup victory against the backdrop of the Gulf state’s rift with the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Egypt; the imprint the Palestinian-Israeli conflict puts on the two nations’ soccer; or the rise of racist, discriminatory attitudes among fans in Europe.
The Bad Blue Boys, hardcore fans of Dinamo Zagreb’s hardcore fans, light candles each May and lay wreaths at a monument to their comrades who were killed in the Yugoslav wars in the 1990s. They mark the anniversary of a riot during the 1990 match against Serbia’s Red Star Belgrade, their club’s most controversial match, as the first clash in the wars that erupted a year later and sparked the collapse of former Yugoslavia.
Fact of the matter is that sports like ping pong in Richard Nixon’s 1972 rapprochement with China or the improvement of ties between North and South Korea in the most recent Summer Olympics served as a useful tool, not a driver of events.
Sports is a useful tool in an environment in which key political players seek to build bridges and narrow differences.
The impact of soccer in the absence of a conducive environment created by political not sports players, is at best temporary relief, a blip on an otherwise bleak landscape.
The proof is in the pudding. Legend has it that British and German soldiers played soccer in no-man’s lands on Christmas Day in 2014, only to return to fighting World War One for another four years. Millions died in the war.
Similarly, Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites poured into the streets of Iraqi cities hugging each other in celebration of Iraq’s winning in 2007 of the Asia Cup at the height of the country’s sectarian violence only to return to killing each other a day later.
Soccer’s ability to shape or cement national identity is no different. In other words. football can be a rallying point for national identity but only if there is an environment that is conducive.
The problem is that soccer and the formation of national identity have one complicating trait in common: both often involve opposition to the other.
That is nowhere truer than in the Middle East and North Africa where soccer has played and plays an important role in identity formation since it was first introduced to the region in the late 19th and early 20th century.
Qatar has been in some ways the exception that proves the rule by plotting its sports strategy not only as a soft power tool or a pillar of public health policy but also as a component of national identity. That element has been strengthened by the rift in the Gulf and bolstered by this year’s Asian Cup victory.
Qatar’s efforts to strengthen its national identity benefits from the fact that the Gulf state no longer operates on the notion that Gulf states have to hang together. Today its hanging on its own in a conflict with three of its neighbours.
Soccer’s role in identity formation in the Middle East and North Africa was often because it was a battlefield, a battlefield for identity that was part of larger political struggles.
Clubs were often formed for that very reason. Attitudes towards the country’s monarchy in the early 20th century loomed large in the founding of Egypt’s Al Ahli SC and Al Zamalek SC, two of the Middle East and North Africa’s most storied clubs.
Clubs in Algeria were established as part of the anti-colonial struggle against the French. Ottoman and Iranian rulers used sports and soccer to foster national identity and take a first step towards incorporating youth in the development of a modern defense force.
Zionists saw sports and soccer as an important way of developing the New Jew, the muscular Jew. To Palestinians, it was a tool in their opposition to Zionist immigration. And finally, soccer was important in the shaping of ethnic or sub-national identities among Berbers, Kurds, East Bank Jordanians and Jordanian Palestinians.
In other words, soccer was inclusive in the sense of contributing to the formation of a collective identity. But it was also divisive because that identity was at the same time exclusionary and opposed to an other.
The long and short of this is that soccer is malleable. Its impact and fallout depend on forces beyond its control. Soccer is dependent on the environment shaped by political and social forces. It is a tool that is agnostic to purpose, not a driver or an independent actor.
Edited remarks at Brookings seminar in Doha: Lessons from the 2019 Asian Cup: Sports, Globalization, and Politics in the Arab World
Syrian Coup de Grâce
The Middle Eastern land has a diverse blend of history with conflicts and developments in knowledge. Where on one hand Baghdad was considered as the realm of knowledge on the other hand Constantinople was a symbol of power and domination. But now it seems that all has been shattered completely with conflicts.
The Middle Eastern landscape is facing its worst time ever: a phase of instability and misery. The oil ridden land is now becoming conflict ridden, from Euphrates to Persian Gulf; every inch seems to be blood stained nowadays. The region became more like a chess board where kings are not kings but pawns and with each move someone is getting close to checkmate.
Starting from the spring which brought autumn in the Middle Eastern environment, now the curse is on Assyrian land where blood is being spilled, screams have took over the skies. The multi facet conflict has caused more than 400,000 deaths and 5 million seeking refuge abroad whereas 6 million displaced internally.
What began with a mere peaceful civil uprising, has now become a world stage with multiplayers on it. Tehran and Moscow are playing their own mantra by showing romance with Assad while Washington has its own way of gambling with kings in their hand. Involvement of catchy caliphate from 2014 is worsening the complexities of the Syrian saga. The deck is getting hot and becoming more and more mess, chemical strikes, tomahawk show, carpet bombing, stealth jets and many more, Syrian lands is now a market to sell the products exhibiting fine examples of military industrial complex. While to some, Syrian stage seems to be a mere regional proxy war, in reality it seems like a black hole taking whole region into its curse. One by one every inch of the country is turned into altar as the consequence of war. A country is now ripped into different territories with different claimants, but the question still remains as “Syria belongs to whom?”
The saga of Syrian dusk has its long roots in past and with each passing moment it is becoming a spiral of destruction. What is being witnessed in current scenario is just a glimpse of that spiral. It has already winded the region into it and if not resolve properly and maturely it can spread like a contagious disease that can take whole Middle East into its chakra.
With recent development in Iran nuclear deal which left whole world into shock; and house of Sauds forming strong bond with western power brokers and Israel, to counter Tehran (because kings of holy desert have so much engraved hatred towards shiaits, that they prefer to shake hands with Jews and establish an unholy alliance) is making matters worse. This all has the potential to push the region into further more sectarian rifts. With Syrian stage already set. The delicacy of the situation is not secluded from the palette of the world.
Despite the condemnations from across the globe, humanitarian watch remains blind and failed to address the issues in Syria leaving Syrians in long lasting agony and despair The symphony of pain and suffering continues in the Middle Eastern region while world watches like a vicious sadist, the region becomes a playground for major powers as ‘Uncle Sam” has their own interests in engaging, Kremlin have their own concerns same goes for every single actor who is party to the conflict.
The panacea to the Arabian pain is simple “a sincere determined approach” to the disease. Even if every party with draws from the conflict the situation can get worse due to the generated power vacuum and can make Syria a replica of Iraq. The Syrian grieve needs to be addressed through proper management skills, if not the curse is upon whole region.
The battle for leadership of the Muslim world: Turkey plants its flag in Christchurch
When Turkish vice-president Fuat Oktay and foreign minister Mevlut Cavusoglu became this weekend the first high-level foreign government delegation to travel to Christchurch they were doing more than expressing solidarity with New Zealand’s grieving Muslim community.
Messrs. Oktay and Cavusoglu were planting Turkey’s flag far and wide in a global effort to expand beyond the Turkic and former Ottoman world support for President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s style of religiously-packaged authoritarian rule, a marriage of Islam and Turkish nationalism.
Showing footage of the rampage in Christchurch at a rally in advance of March 31 local elections, Mr. Erdogan declared that “there is a benefit in watching this on the screen. Remnants of the Crusaders cannot prevent Turkey’s rise.”
Mr. Erdogan went on to say that “we have been here for 1,000 years and God willing we will be until doomsday. You will not be able to make Istanbul Constantinople. Your ancestors came and saw that we were here. Some of them returned on foot and some returned in coffins. If you come with the same intent, we will be waiting for you too.”
Mr. Erdogan was responding to an assertion by Brenton Tarrant, the white supremacist perpetrator of the Christchurch attacks in which 49 people were killed in two mosques, that Turks were “ethnic soldiers currently occupying Europe.”
Messrs. Oktay and Cavusoglu’s visit, two days after the attacks, is one more facet of a Turkish campaign that employs religious as well as traditional diplomatic tools.
The campaign aims to establish Turkey as a leader of the Muslim world in competition with Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and to a lesser degree Morocco.
As part of the campaign, Turkey has positioned itself as a cheerleader for Muslim causes such as Jerusalem and the Rohingya at a moment that Saudi Arabia, the UAE and other Muslim nations are taking a step back.
Although cautious not to rupture relations with Beijing, Turkey has also breached the wall of silence maintained by the vast majority of Muslim countries by speaking out against China’s brutal crackdown on Turkic Muslims in the troubled north-western province of Xinjiang.
Mr. Erdogan’s religious and traditional diplomatic effort has seen Turkey build grand mosques and/or cultural centres across the globe in the United States, the Caribbean, Europe, Africa and Asia, finance religious education and restore Ottoman heritage sites.
It has pressured governments in Africa and Asia to hand over schools operated by the Hizmet movement led by exiled preacher Fethullah Gulen. Mr. Erdogan holds Mr. Gulen responsible for the failed military coup in Turkey in 2016.
On the diplomatic front, Turkey has in recent years opened at least 26 embassies in Africa, expanded the Turkish Airlines network to 55 destinations in Africa, established military bases in Somalia and Qatar, and negotiated a long-term lease for Sudan’s Suakin Island in the Red Sea.
The Turkish religious campaign takes a leaf out of Saudi Arabia’s four decade long, USD 100 billion effort to globally propagate ultra-conservative Sunni Islam.
Like the Saudis, Turkey’s Directorate of Religious Affairs (Diyanet) provides services to Muslim communities, organizes pilgrimages to Mecca, trains religious personnel, publishes religious literature, translates the Qur’an into local languages and funds students from across the world to study Islam at Turkish institutions.
Turkish Muslim NGOs provide humanitarian assistance in former parts of the Ottoman empire, the Middle East and Africa much like the Saudi-led World Muslim League and other Saudi governmental -non-governmental organizations, many of which have been shut down since the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington.
Saudi Arabia, since the rise of crown prince Mohammed bin Salman in 2015, has significantly reduced global funding for ultra-conservatism.
Nonetheless, Turkey is at loggerheads with Saudi Arabia as well as the UAE over the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi; Turkish support for Qatar in its dispute with the Saudis and Emiratis; differences over Libya, Syria and the Kurds; and Ankara’s activist foreign policy. Turkey is seeking to position itself as an Islamic alternative.
Decades of Saudi funding has left the kingdom’s imprint on the global Muslim community. Yet, Turkey’s current struggles with Saudi Arabia are more geopolitical than ideological.
While Turkey competes geopolitically with the UAE in the Horn of Africa, Libya and Syria, ideologically the two countries’ rivalry is between the UAE’s effort to establish itself as a centre of a quietist, apolitical Islam as opposed to Turkey’s activist approach and its support for the Muslim Brotherhood.
In contrast to Saudi Arabia that adheres to Wahhabism, an austere ultra-conservative interpretation of the faith, the UAE projects itself and its religiosity as far more modern, tolerant and forward looking.
The UAE’s projection goes beyond Prince Mohammed’s attempt to shave off the raw edges of Wahhabism in an attempt to present himself as a proponent of what he has termed moderate Islam.
The UAE scored a significant success with the first ever papal visit in February by Pope Francis I during which he signed a Document on Human Fraternity with Sheikh Ahmad al-Tayeb, the grand imam of Egypt’s Al-Azhar, the revered 1,000-year-old seat of Sunni Muslim learning.
The signing was the result of UAE-funded efforts of Egyptian general-turned-president Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi to depoliticize Islam and gain control of Al Azhar that Sheikh Al-Tayeb resisted despite supporting Mr. Al-Sisi’s 2013 military coup.
To enhance its influence within Al Azhar and counter that of Saudi Araba, the UAE has funded Egyptian universities and hospitals and has encouraged Al Azhar to open a branch in the UAE.
The UAE effort paid off when the pope, in a public address, thanked Egyptian judge Mohamed Abdel Salam, an advisor to Sheikh Al-Tayeb who is believed to be close to both the Emiratis and Mr. Al-Sisi, for drafting the declaration.
“Abdel Salam enabled Al-Sisi to outmanoeuvre Al Azhar in the struggle for reform,” said an influential activist.
The Turkey-UAE rivalry has spilt from the geopolitical and ideological into competing versions of Islamic history.
Turkey last year renamed the street on which the UAE embassy in Ankara is located after an Ottoman general that was at the centre of a Twitter spat between Mr. Erdogan and UAE foreign minister Abdullah bin Zayed al-Nahyan..
Mr. Erdogan responded angrily to the tweet that accused Fahreddin Pasha, who defended the holy city of Medina against the British in the early 20th century, of abusing the local Arab population and stealing their property as well as sacred relics from the Prophet Muhammad’s tomb,. The tweet described the general as one of Mr. Erdogan’s ancestors.
“When my ancestors were defending Medina, you impudent (man), where were yours? Some impertinent man sinks low and goes as far as accusing our ancestors of thievery. What spoiled this man? He was spoiled by oil, by the money he has,” Mr. Erdogan retorted, referring to Mr. Al-Nahyan.
The World’s Largest Residence Inn By Marriott Opens In Calgary Downtown
Marriott International, Inc. has announced the highly anticipated opening of Residence Inn Calgary Downtown/Beltline District, the largest property in the...
Women in Half the World Still Denied Land, Property Rights Despite Laws
Women in half of the countries in the world are unable to assert equal land and property rights despite legal...
India’s Belligerence in Kashmir
Love begets love, tyranny gives birth to tyranny Kashmir, a valley, where humanity is bleeding, the valley itself is burning...
World’s Energy Transition in Doubt as Progress on Affordability, Sustainability Stalls
The world’s energy systems have become less affordable and are no more environmentally sustainable than they were five years ago....
The Most Intriguing Historic Figures of the Czech Republic
Discover the unique personalities and inventions that originated in Prague and the Czech Republic. How many of the following do...
Partnering for Africa’s future: Exhibition on UNIDO-Japan cooperation
An exhibition highlighting cooperation between Japan and the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) for African industrial development has opened...
“The Rights of the Nations, National and Ethnic Minorities for Self- Determination”
The new article of the Charter of the UN “The rights of the nations, national and ethnic minorities for self-determination”,...
International Law1 day ago
Trump’s Golan Heights Declaration: The Message to Azerbaijan
Energy2 days ago
“Gas wars” in Europe
Defense2 days ago
Russia and the Indian Ocean Security and Governance
Energy News2 days ago
ADB Supports 275 MW Power Plant to Boost Energy Access in Sumatra, Indonesia
Diplomacy2 days ago
Civilizationism vs the Nation State
Travel & Leisure2 days ago
Pakistan: Next Destination for Nature-Lovers
Reports3 days ago
Investments in Gender Equality in Croatia Will Increase Opportunities for All
Style3 days ago
The Breitling Cockpit B50 Orbiter Limited Edition