United States and Iran entered uncharted Territory

The latest round started with 

Trump's violation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), 

otherwise known as the Iran nuclear deal.

As revolutions go, two things the Iranian Revolution of 1979 has in common with its French counterpart two hundred years before, is its reign of terror.  The second is the attempt to spread their ideologies to neighbouring states. The years 1792 in response to revolutionary fervour, Paris experienced absolute mayhem, which saw thousands executed and imprisoned. Tehran fared no better executed Royalists and those suspected of collaborating with the old regime. The French declared war on almost all of Europe in an attempt to spread their ideas of Liberte, Egalite and Fraternite across its borders. Similarly, the Iranian Mullas are in proxy wars to impose Pan-Islamism and geopolitical instability in the region. 

The Revolution in Iran also sparked a religious Shia awakening that saw Ruhollah Khomeini come to power imposing on the nation Velayat-e faqih for a road map.  A deep-thinking philosopher and a cleric, who aspired to lay claim to Shiaism very soul.  In the process, he made Islamic fundamentalism a political force, which was to change Muslim Politics around the world. The Revolution also declared itself on the side of justice and equality harbouring some faint shades of Marxism.  Its message to reform the social structure, help the deprived and to reduce the widened economic divide under the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, that the Revolution toppled.  

The Iranian Ayatollahs rule did not correspond to Plato's idealist vision of Philosopher Kings: possessing a love of wisdom, to drive Republics towards utopia.  Instead, their teaching had religious fundamentalism in its veins. Without doubt, in the forty years since the Revolution Iran, had produced generations of scientists and technocrats capable of developing nuclear programs and sophisticated weapons systems and succeeded in a continuous increase in regional influence. This has come at a cost to its people and the region as a whole. Almost unlimited drive for internal suppression accompanying the support of aggressive fundamentalism, which embodied the regime's concept of Pan-Islamism. 

The regime inclination to use violence to spread their ideology hardly differentiates Iran from that of a rogue state.  From the Revolution early days, it encouraged students to storm the American Embassy in Tehran, held its US citizens hostage.  There was the London embassy siege, the Fatwa to murder Salman Rushdie.  Iran was also suspected in the bombing of French, and American Embassy compounds in Beirut in 1982 and 1983 respectively, which saw scores of American, French and Lebanese nationals killed.  So far, forty years on, the Revolution, Iranian people still struggle to find their identity, freedom and economic wellbeing.  A tortuous root in a jungle of violence, strict and monolithic emblems of a theocratic regime none more so contrived than the wearing of the Hijab.  The elaborate revolutionary visions not endorsed by intelligence and accountability but fuelled by continuous effort to destabilise the region.  

Then came a light of reason and hope.  One after effect the embassy sieges had, was the American administration had imposed economic sanctions against the Iranian administration.  For a time it crippled the economy.  Resilience to suffering learnt from the Iraq/Iran war had its limits, it eventually came to negotiate.  Nevertheless, during this lull, Iran had managed to embark on a nuclear programme that worked in its favour; a bargaining chip to ease the sanctions, the US Government's go-to foreign policy tool.  Eventually, in 2015 Iran and six world powers signed a nuclear deal named the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).  A deal that placed strict limits on Iran's nuclear programme in return for sanctions relief and the release of $100 Billion of Iranian money held with American Banks.  The deal did not include any mention of Iran's subversive activities carried on regardless.  And the deal did not produce prosperity, as Mr Rouhani had promised Iranians, and Iran continued to test missiles and meddle abroad. 

The Trump administration, in its early days, cooked up a deal with Saudi Arabia, President Trump went on to describe the JCPOA "was the worst deal ever negotiated".  The US administration contempt for alliances, in true fashion, announced it was withdrawing from it.  New added sanctions were imposed only this time more stringent.  The sanctions, this time, were illegitimately imposed after breaking an international agreement when Iran was still complying with the deal.  The European signatories laboured with it trying to keep it on life support.  But, in keeping with Iran customary aggressive approach, President Ruhani issued an ultimatum to the European powers, almost chocked the agreement to death.  His country would no longer comply with parts of the deal and later threatened to walk away from it.  Well, so much for Hope, Light and Reason, since then US and Iran relations took a nosedive.

The United States is protecting American interest against Iran using Israel as a tool.  

Round table discussions were replaced by sabre-rattling, bluff and counter bluff, persistent threats met with counter threats.  All of this fell into the lap of Israel, already on the warpath, and had scorned at the Obama administration to go ahead with the JCPOA deal.  Israel and the US were now on the same platform hand in glove setting the agenda for the entire Middle East. Sunni, Saudi Arabia joined in this heated verbal fray in an outward show of solidarity against Shia Iran, but ominous signs were on the horizon building up for a confrontation.  On the one hand Saudi v Iran on matters of theological orthodoxies, America v Iran for greater influence on the region and Israel willing to attack Iran, drawing on their old and tired existential arguments.  Taken together, creates an epicentre for conflict, and an ideal scenario to fuel an arms race.  Iran now looks poised to resume its slow but steady march towards the bomb and relentless drive en route to empire building.  That is if the sanctions don't push it over the edge beforehand.

Renewed sanctions on Iran and the threat to punish anyone who trades with it have wrecked what is left of the JCPOA agreement, has effectively cut off Iran from the global economy.  The idea was "to bring Iran to its knees" but unfortunately the American administration use of blunt tools such as sanctions to cripple the economy is hurting Iran's population.  The Mullas chauffeured in BMW's, making millions on contracts and creating monopolies on goods by withdrawing subsidies on others. The unabashed corruption of the elite continuous unabated. 

The young no longer have the revolutionary zeal, which welcomed Khomeini on arrival to Iran from exile in 1979.  Instead, after forty years, they are suppressed and coerced into complying to imposed arbitrary social laws. Old dogmatic clerics set antiquated ideas on diverse, well educated young people using the revolutionary guards as their main tool to keep order.  In true Khomeini fashion, the Shia Mullas preach martyrdom and sacrifice for the cause.  In keeping with an earlier time, when during the Iran/Iraq war Khomeini sent thousands of children to the front line as waves of human shields.  While the sanctions continue to miss their targets, inflation is on the rise underscored by a depreciating Iranian Rial, which guarantees a downhill slide in the standard of living. The effects were demonstrated in the economic crisis of November 2019; triggered the greatest existential crisis in the regime's 40-year history.  Protesters took to the streets in Tehran and other major cities calling for regime change.  The government resorted to brute force, killed at least 1500 protesters and arrested thousands of others.

Setting the Agenda for Iran as well as for the entire region.
A pretence of guaranteeing regional stability.

Turning to current issues of state, a cold war is heating up, it all depends on foresing what the end game is.  It is, however, doubtful whether both the US and Israel have an end game built in its strategic security architecture for the region.  The increased tension in the Gulf bound to escalate into a major conflict. Exemplified in part by the US withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal and its maximum pressure policy. The arms build-up thus far, by politically impotent, Saudi Arabia, increased activities by US naval forces in the Gulf waters, the downing of US drones and blowing up tankers by the Iranians and the killing of Qasem Soleimani, commander of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps,  have added to the likely hood of military confrontation.  A situation is not too dissimilar to the arms race pre-1914, which eventually unleashed a war with devastating consequences. None of the actors wanted war, but all stumbled into one.  The allied two countries; Germany and Austria misinterpreted words on a diplomatic document.  So could US and Israel.  Faced with conflicting messages emanating from Trump's administration that is not too difficult; for chauvinist, President Trump, war could be only a tweet away. To borrow from philosopher Georg Hegel, "We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

New ideas coming through from the Trump administration, setting up the Middle East Strategic Alliance (MESA), along the lines of NATO wouldn't do it.  An alliance, that excludes Shia Iran, but made up of Sunni Muslim countries, to add Israel would antagonise Iran further, can only prolong the simmering regional conflict. Rather than serving as a bulwark against Iranian aggression, it can aggravate it further. 

Iran, the United States, including Israel, is faced with two options.  To avoid a showdown, let Iran simmer under the pressure of sanctions although that would leave its population to suffer continued deprivations. Weighing up the odds in favour for the population either to rise up en masse to demand regime change.  Or, faced with such possible implosion, and on the edge of losing control, the regime would go all out with their nuclear programme crossing the strategic red line.  In the process it threatens the simmering status quo, putting Israel existential reality on alert. A risky situation; to build reactors can be quicker than sanctions begins to bite.  With such an imminent threat, the US and Israel would then react, a possible overreaction,  throwing away any chance at diplomacy.  Even though both the US and Israel have developed precision weapons, the possible loss of life and carnage, in war is inevitable. 

The other option is an attempt at dialogue.  Tragically, this logic is no longer fashionable in this part of the world.  However, time to draw a new Middle Eastern security architecture to ameliorate the conflicting concerns.  To devise a system that can set the agenda and take into account the genuine interests of the countries of the entire region.  For the United States to drop its demand for regime change, ease the sanctions to formulate a peace accord matrix.   For Iran to relinquish its seemingly inexorable quest for nuclear armament join the world order of international relations and rejuvenate its moribund economy. An agreement for the cessation of terror activities, to terminate religious rivalries.  Adoption of an all-encompassing Arab peace initiative to include the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A challenging and ambitious proposal indeed, but if the geopolitical countries genuinely want peace, it can work. 

The unparalleled power of American might 

President Trump made it 
subservient to the financial clout of its Middle Eastern allies.

T

Iran, The Power in The Making.

Abu Yusuf Ya‘qub ibn Ishaq Al-Kindi (ca. 800–870 CE) a well-known ancient Iraqi philosopher; a member of the Arab tribe of Kinda, in his address to members of the caliphate family, argued for the first cause of ‘oneness’.  He asserted that “bringing something to be” means imposing unity of a particular kind.  Here we are over 1200 years later the Arab world possibly still searching for this elusive “oneness”.  Cyrus the Great in 550 BC of old Persia, Islam and much-admired wisdom of the Ottomans failed to bring about such a union amongst the Arabs. Considering its economic seismic waves, the Iranian accord with the US could stretch as far as Turkey to include Iraq possibly and finally provide the elusive platform.  As well as of immense benefit to the smaller emerging states such as Dubai and Kuwait if wise enough to adopt a secularist approach, if abstaining from religious sectarianism, the presented opportunities would be no illusions.

So what gives now?  What holds for the future of the region?  This article attempts at an analysis of such crossroads and is embroidered with hope, to sustain reason over force and logic over irrationality.  Above all, hand over the privilege to tolerance to be the main agent.

  

While we wait for Iranian ‘democracy’ to determine whether to approve the historical accord reached while US Congress digests what is after all, to Iran, this deal would be a milestone achievement.  Although Iranian negotiators invested twelve years in this venture, as with all Arab and most Asiatic countries faced with potential rejection, ‘saving face’ is an essential provision to entail such a contingency.  The avoiding embarrassment of failure has obliged it to wait for US Congress to ratify the treaty and take the lead so to speak before the Iranian Parliament voices its endorsement.  Apparently, Congress has 60 days to review the nuclear agreement with Iran, struck in Vienna on July 14, and it will be at least 90 days before the United Nations resolution officially takes effect.  In the meantime, Iran will freeze all activities in the creation of nuclear fuels but acknowledges the continuation of research and development.  For now the agreement, that lifts the sanctions on Iran, is centring on the fundamental issue; Iran not to produce weapons-grade plutonium.  Although working within the confines of mistrust on both sides, all parties still found common ground to grant extensive concessions finally. To help it pass through severe congress restrictions on the amount of nuclear fuel production were placed on Iran for the next 15 years but left with enough capabilities to produce an Atom bomb within a year as “breakout time”, should it withdraw from the agreement.

Iran quest for superpower technology means the construction of nuclear energy with nuclear power capability, becoming only second to Pakistan in the Islamic world and first in the Islamic Middle East.  Ever since the Iranian Revolution of 1979 and the toppling of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi with a radical theocratic regime under the leadership of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Iran harboured an ambition to rekindle the once Great (Persian) Nation status.   The making of nuclear fuel, centrifuges, reactors, the Iraq war and its radical revolutionary council are all driven to achieve that aim.  Lifting of sanctions and the release of up to, (depending on which reports to believe), $100 billion will help in that endeavour. It will undoubtedly stand to favour the ironing out regional dislocating and polarising policies principally with Saudi Arabia, currently, while it also actively stretches its power of influence.

Iran has oil reserves of 150 billion barrels making it the fourth largest in the world, a spike in 1974 at 6 million barrels per day and gas reserves second in the world of about 1,046 trillion cubic feet (29.6 trillion cubic metres) or about 15.8% of world's total reserves.  As of 2011, some 66 Iranian industrial companies are carrying out projects in 27 countries. Iran has exported over $20 billion worth of technical and engineering services over 2001-2011. Its industrial portfolio extends from retail parks to air conditions, cement and construction, motor vehicles to electronics and computers.  While Saudi Arabia has oil based economy, on the primarily uses large foreign labour force.  With its anachronistic feudal fealty system, it is hard pressed to meet the challenge of modern technology and to lessen its dependence on oil.

Saudi Arabia’ collaboration with America in 2003 to destroy Sunni and authoritarian regime Saddam’s Iraq, had effectively, intentionally or otherwise, helped to eliminate, at the time, it's only political ally, together could have shared same identical sect religious bridges.  Backed with technological know-how and intellectual and relatively advanced economic presence Iraq, presupposing an ideal situation, would have presented a suitable partner coming packaged entirely in ingredients for regional hegemony.   Unfortunately, though, for now at least, Iraq's original position is decades into the future.

A substitute is a dictatorial regime Sisi’s Egypt: in my opinion a poor choice.  An economy highly dependent on foreign aid accompanied with monthly deficits amounts to US$4 billion a quarter; will be a hefty joining fee to be paid in more ways than one. The country’s dependence on aid from America in the shape of cash and military hardware, from Qatar in the form of fuel donations and Saudi government subsidies, and politically remains highly unstable. It also means a possible tacit responsibility of mostly undeveloped and underdeveloped country with a mass population of 90 million mouths to feed and a GDP per capita US$1576 contrasts boldly with Iraq’s US$2439 even in the aftermath of two decades of social turmoil, wars and sanctions. Coming a close second to Egypt is the current rapprochement with Muslim Brotherhood; not long ago the Saudis declared it a terrorist organisation and discussions with Hamas, a rudderless group without any clear vision.

That said, Saudi Arabia need not feel susceptible to Political, religious or economic pressure.  The Regional assumed hegemonic position it now perceives need not superseded by the likely rise in Iran’s status.  It is understandable the wealthy and powerful Saudi family find it difficult to accept their country is moving out of political sunshine into the shadows of a new power.   Conversely, a schismatic religious outlook of one religion should not be enough cause for a bifurcated ideological theology nor should it be enough reason for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, to lead a regional isolationist political policy.  Instead, its modus operandi, bearing in mind its very high income (Aramco, estimated worth $5 trillion), relative to its small population, is disproportionate which by this measure still qualifies as a mini-state; a new attempt at reform is long overdue. Barely a century old with minimum creative or innovative wealth, it is still minuscule. Its cooperation with Iran, an investment in its future, could bring about substantial benefits. An example is Turkey in 1920’s, holders of the Caliphate at the time, under Kemalist directions, secularised its state policies and joined the ‘modern’ world.  From a historical perspective, both Iran and Saudi Arabia can cut through the current religious rivalries and take heart from an ideological intake of WWII when the dichotomy of Capitalism and Communism enjoined to defeat Fascism.  It is old hat to steadfastly hold and obstinately cling towards two types of worship of one faith.  For the time being, Saudi Arabia has more in common with Israel than with Iran, a Muslin State.

Israel’s Netanyahu is obviously not happy with the deal.   Iran’s new promotion most likely provides the much-needed balance of power for the region which for decades enjoyed particular prominence by the military might of Israel- an unwelcome hegemonic Jewish state in the area.  Now with most of Arab Middle East in disarray, Israel’s power has never been greater. The fear of undermining its security is one reason it is reluctant to give up this strategic paramountcy over the area but has, before the agreement and after, employed bluff and counter- bluff.  This containment policy is akin to Cold War belligerence that kept communist ideals and the western powers at bay; preoccupied in scepticism and doubt throughout the post-war period to finally ending in 1989 with the disintegration of USSR.  Anticipating an American approval to the nuclear treaty and barring any Saudi aggressive posturing to the deal, no better time for Israel’s to enjoy its political isolation.

All the more reason for small neighbouring countries such as Dubai, Abu Dhabi and even further afield Lebanon to seek closer economic integration with Iran.  A solidifying cohesion may yet replicate The 'Golden Age'.  Iran has a population of 80 million and the others a fraction of that; it is evident who will benefit the most. On the whole, this deal can, with some measure of political arguments, prove highly beneficial to the entire Middle East including Turkey. Besides population, Iran has the resources and credentials of culture, history and realistic technological ambition that can immeasurably be of benefit to the region.  Moreover, with reason instead of force, they can efficiently and politically encircle Israel to bring pressure to bear on the plight of the Palestinians and their question.

Above all Islamic culture rather than their religion should be the formative threads that go into texturizing the matrix of regional unity. Either grab the opportunity now or to let an available utopian revolutionary aspiration become a symbol of a sinking foundation that will once again, lie where others before it: buried in the local baron deserts, or ‘run into the sands’ of Arabia.

Can Iraq shape its own destiny?

There are thousands of brand new rifles and machine guns for sale never been used, still under guarantee, and they have only 'dropped' once. It sounds like an ad for E-bay, but such is the state of the Iraqi army its reputation has taken a beating.  The Army will somehow need to live this down to stand any chance in regaining its self-respect if only among its people.  Such was the exodus of a supposedly highly trained fully equipped army that fell apart in farcical disarray in the face of a religiously impassioned but well organised Sunni fundamentalist ISIS forces.  That said, the latest news is Iraqi forces have been unable to launch any strategic counter-offensives against ISIS insurgency.  Moreover, sympathies for ISIS controlled Sunni Iraq most probably growing out of frustration has further complicated the political landscape.

Emboldened by the recent popular vote Prime Minister Maliki, rejected the idea for the government of reconciliation or as ex-Prime Minister Ayad Allawi calls a Government of “national salvation” in response to such rising tide of Sunni-supported jihadist’s forces.  Enjoying the limelight of democracy, according to Maliki, allowing such concessions would be tantamount to a coup in the constitution, which would greatly demean the seat of his government. That democratic mechanism of one man one vote that brought him to power has proved a blunt instrument: ironically working against its intended national audience.  By and large, it allowed the Shia majority to cultivate fertile grounds sanctioning Maliki’s sectarian rule. It also consolidated his influence among Iraqi Shia to centre stage with little regard for what happens to the Sunni and Kurdish parts of the country.  Such will be the unavoidable divide despite appeals for concessions to accommodate minority rights towards an equal society a product that produced the Sunni political underclass.  While Iraq burns Maliki twiddles his fingers mistakenly believing his ideas of democracy does not engender fractious policies.  He has clearly abandoned tolerance and wisdom that normally fledgling Democracies desperately needs. Such divisive approach created two vital and pivoting obstructions. One it encouraged a fertile ground for the Sunni Jihadist still in Iraq, a legacy of American confrontations, for increased radicalism and hostilities to the regime. Two it encouraged a coalescing among these separate jihadists weakening the overall desire of rapprochement as well as further distancing the parties; a result of such government polarising policies.

As in Syria ISIS will prove, aside from its military might and disinterest in overreach, it has power to consolidate and sustain itself for the long term. It is now self-financing with a staying power that is   hope  that without clearly defined border intentions, ISIS remains aimless, eventually exhausting its expanding power if not its fire power. Conversely, it is recognised, that for now at least, ISIS will be engaged in strengthening its central command considering that today it controls bigger territories and sphere of influence than many countries.  ISIS has enough to build a new Islamic state or Emirate that would mainly subscribe to Wahhabi Sunni Muslims advocating radical interpretation of Islam poised at the gates of Shia heartland.  Judging from recent events it stands ready to destroy Najaf and Karbala as easily as the Taliban’s destruction of Bamiyan statues.
generally accepted, in new won territories. With continued alleged help from the Sunni Saudi cash cow, a source economically and financially immensely more powerful than Shia Iran, it can afford a long drawn out aggressive spread of ideologically inspired control of the region. Controversially, America’s non-interference in the meantime might be seen to let such a scenario burn itself out in the  the

So, what now Maliki or better still what options remain for a stable Iraq? Since nothing was left even for contingency, the stark reality is that there a very few to choose from an almost barren landscape and they are all bad and complicated. In the event one can only pick the least bad from the truly awful.  Any choice would be obfuscated with contradictions which may yet include options that ISIS, led by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, may want to exercise resting on valid ideas that success breeds legitimacy. In amongst all that we need to look at the Syrian options as well as the Iranian options and of courses how all that relates to what people for now increasingly consider the Kurdish trump card.  It is Time to consult the Oracle!

Option one: Maliki must go but then who is there to replace him? Especially when this proposed transition is considered at this late stage as efforts to unify the country.  As far as I can see there are three main candidates: Adel Abdul Mahdi is one of the favourite but a Franco-file for over 30 years, although a secularist by reputation is one who supports Maoist economics is I find hard to favour. There is of course Hussein Al-Shahristani, a man who spent 10 years in solitary confinement under Saddam Hussein's government must know a thing or two about suffering.  We cannot rule him out of contention although he has repeatedly voiced his opposition to Prime Ministerial office.  Lastly and in my opinion favourite is Ayad Allawi, the previous Prime Minister who must be the favourite by the Americans. He can tick most of the squares authentically attesting to all ‘western’ credentials.  Whether he can be enticed to return to the job and leave his beloved Kingston on Thames in England is another matter. On the other hand he is the one individual who is secularist enough and has the diplomatic skills to work with both Washington and Tehran, despite the lingering tensions between the United States and Iran.

Option two: is for Kurdish realignment embodying into a one new Iraq Nation. Having recently grabbed oil rich Kirkuk, would the Kurds respond to American efforts for their aggrandisement and join in a new United Iraq? Wishful thinking at best as there are far too many self-interest centrifugal forces pulling to disband such ideas.  John Kerry, United States Secretary of State, recently visited the Kurdish leadership trying to entice them towards a united new Iraq unfortunately found lukewarm response. The Kurds would drive a hard bargain to win further concession from the Iraqi authorities as well as positive concessions in exercising their polar moment from Iran as well as on behalf of the Kurdish Turks who have for centuries been under the yolk of Turkish domination. For now at least apparently the head of the Kurdish regional government was decidedly non- committal describing the situation in Iraq, it is "facing a new reality and a new Iraq".

Option three: is the disintegration of Iraq into three separate Kurdish, Sunni and Shia regions. Faced with internal and external threats added to internal upheaval and in efforts of avoiding a civil war I increasingly advocate dismembering as a solution.  Historical precedents justifying such ideas are there in abundance.  Austro-Hungarian Empire at the end of WWI and more recently some would recall the former Yugoslavia after years of internal struggle ‘collapsed’ into several Balkan states. The resulting smaller states proved the ideal solution for peace among different nationalist and religious allegiances.  As for population displacement we can also look into historical chapters that concern India and Pakistan partitions in 1947 at the time of India’s independence or post Ottoman Turkey and Greece in 1923.  Kurdish, Shia and Sunnis may have ethnic as well as religious differences but I believe eventually they will be able to put aside those differences for the sake of trade and other economic common interests ultimately establishing full cooperation. It is high time to restore New Iraq into an Organic state to firmly establish it along agreed and real borders that can sustain validity in the notions of tolerance to disengage from entrenched self-defeatist ideas and to live in peace with one’s neighbours. 

These points and more are very complex and any political leader who does not respect their complexity is asking for trouble.  It will, however, be difficult for any impartially minded secular leader to unite those who believe in faith over reason.  As a rule, such beliefs have habits of incessantly encapsulating the spiritual nuclei that often enough dismisses or at best marginalises the rational thought. Casting such ideas aside, the answer must be yes, Iraq can shape its own destiny.