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

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.

The Beginning of the End of Iraq?

This article of the same title is in response to both the new situation we find in the aftermath of ISIS taking over large swathes of territories in Northern Iraq including Mosul and in response to the article here referenced by Michael J. Totten.

http://worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/michael-j-totten/beginning-end-iraq?utm_source=World+Affairs+Newsletter&utm_campaign=f0bd018217-June_13_2014_Blogs_Totten_Motyl_Chang&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_f83b38c5c7-f0bd018217-294621961#comment-1435084405

The best article yet for assessing what is happening in Iraq and how it got into the mess it finds itself.  "Arab governments complain when we intervene, and they complain when we don't intervene. They complain no matter what".  How true! That is typical for blaming the other for the mess they create.  If it is not left to “inshallah” but for America to solve.  When America tries and fails, it is blamed for doing the wrong on purpose.  This negativity is what predominantly ails the backbone of Arabism today.  

Below is a bottom-up perspective of a failed country dating back from its inception.  A state that is inorganically drawn up by Sykes/Picot with mainly straight lines and some say shoving of elbows for the squiggly bits to give the drawing some authenticity.  As President Obama says “this is a wake-up call” so it may also be break-up call for “Inshallah” a better future may lie ahead.  As in the Balkans breakup is not so hard to do!

In my opinion, the title of Totten's article is spot on and quite frankly exactly what my family predicted following the July 1958 revolution which also marked out our final exit from the country we love.  This indictment on a country that never looked after its own so much so that an Iraqi citizenship was discredited by almost its entire population equally so by most of the world.  Iraqi Nationality became a heavy burden engrossed in oppression, coercion, and subversion.  Causes for the diaspora of the people of this once immensely wealthy country rarely attributed to economic hardship or religious dissension but its population left in droves to escape the cruel nature of its rulers.  No wonder the Iraqi population abandoned this once beautiful country where culture abounded but now finds itself intellectually bankrupted and ravished by all manner of atrocities.  Indeed, in tune with the colour of new flags, it is a Black period for all the freedom loving and peaceful people of Iraq of whatever religious persuasion.  It is a hefty price for a once proud nation to dishevel among its ruined societies and where the value of life is lost in political quagmire becoming the standard debris of religious sectarianism.

The position today is that ISIS proliferation in Iraq is the making of the Iraq regime by Maliki’s own religiously aggressive and increasingly divisive government.  Their insistence against inviting the Sunni representative into the government weighed heavily on Sunni Leadership.  Besides, Maliki also imprisoned a number of Sunni front liners and tried some in absentia on trumped up charges accusing them of subversive activities rather than inviting them to join his government as coalition partners.    Despite all the bombings in Baghdad and elsewhere for the last ten years or so he failed to get the message.  Winning a democracy fair and square, as he has done, is not enough when considering the deep religious fissures that exist among an already severely stratified society. Viewed from a historical point of view it is evidently right to bathe in euphoria and seize the Shia moment after centuries of Sunni domination. However, it is not the time to indulge in browbeating the opposition or abnegating rational judicial Prime Ministerial duties.  Instead, it is time for political compromises that will undoubtedly carry mileage towards the road of Nation building.  It is imperative to reconcile religious belief of all sections of Iraqi society with the secular government for effective parliamentary, sourced from bicameral balancing, for an active State to take hold.

Helped by the porous borders between Iraq and Syria it did not take much effort, together   To hold the advance of ISIS in Syria means America inevitable siding with the Shia and by implication with Assad’s regime and Iran.  We could yet see American airstrikes helped by Iranian and Iraqi forces sharing the same cause.  For now, there is no other option it seems.  Over to the other side, of course, with such infiltration into Iraq by possible Saudi-backed insurgencies is increasingly proving to be an effective force for hitting and hurting Iran’s military and economic underbelly.  At the same time if it finds success in detaching the infidel Farsi Nation it would succeed in actually reducing if not erasing any Iranian significance over the Arabs; virtually fraying its sphere of influence. With Iran’s current International political isolation over its highly covert Uranium enrichment programme, gaining support from the West will be in short supply for certain.  On the other hand, it becomes inconceivable for a religiously motivated Saudi Arabia to become the hegemonic power in the region.  Its impartiality and totalitarian regime, although for now blanketed, it nevertheless when news does come out, albeit in trinkets, speaks volumes.  Isolation at this point is not an option for Iran. Effectively it will need to sleep with the devil to reassert its authority and decouple the moderate Iraqi Sunni factions from their loose ties with Saudi Wahabism.  In the meantime whatever America decides will eventually be wrong so the devil if you do and the devil if you don’t. With arguably Wahhabi Saudi finance, for ISIS to spill over from the swathes of territories they hold in Syria. The International options that can stem this flow, however, are limited.

What is next for Egypt?

An edited version of this article was first published by me on my Facebook page on the 15^th of August, 2013 it has now been updated.  As with all items dealing with current affairs, with a rapid turn of events, they become outdated very quickly.  Anyway, here it is for the record.  It is in response to an article “Is Obama An Enabler of Tyranny in Egypt?” by Jacob Heilbrunn

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/jacob-heilbrunn/obamas-coldblooded-egypt-policy-8889

So far Jacob Heilbrunn, in my view, as this article shows, comes closest to understanding the situation in the Middle East. American foreign policy fronted by President Obama promised to be the arbiter between rival interests to ensure that Democratic policies take hold in that part of the world. This idea looks more in the distant now than it has ever been; a fictional notion and at best rhetorical one.  In Egypt as in Iraq America encouraged the institution of democracy and as in Iraq relinquished it the moment they came against difficulties.  We find instead only violence and sectarianism taking hold with increasing speed inflicted throughout the region with, very probably, more to come.  In the meantime America on the sidelines murmuring a return to the conference table rather than its standard carrot and stick foreign policy which is in desperate need now more than ever.  President Obama's strongest condemnation today “force was not the way to resolve political differences”.  Wow, you don’t say! This day was after 14^th of August 2013, a day of violence when some claim about 2000 people killed.

We see evidence of the old shell of the Egyptian state which has, for many years, provided a framework for working political despotism.  A working framework that continued but changed its colours into a democratically elected government that was to be an example of policy reforms for much of the Middle East but has since become abused. Egypt, the sick man of the Near East, is witnessing its power as well as its culture assaulted by religious zealots its voting public denied their democratic rights.  The country is disintegrating into anarchy while the landmark squares of Cairo are burning; lighting up the differences and intolerances that seem so irredeemable for so many.  In the face of, and in common with, an endemic lack of compromise in the Middle East particularly when religion has much to influence; we see in Egypt exposing, without mercy, visible religious vindictiveness on all those who do not wish to share in all of its doctrines.  For now Islam's consideration of tolerance and obedience within its ideology must be the traction that can or should bring compromises from all sides to consider the duality of peace and reason.

America and the west and their allies need to refrain from the Machiavellian game that is inherent in occidental diplomacy.  They must not abandon Egypt at this hour of need but try to break this lock jam by inviting both Saudi Arabia and Iran to a conference table.  As leaders of the Sunni and Shia sects respectively, in a tripartite discussion encouraging both to engage in compromising dialogue to show the human side of the Islamic religion to bring peace to the region.  By spearheading an Arab conference and taking a grip on the situation, America has a chance to show its leadership qualities.  America must be the nexus between the two sides, if on nothing else but, on humanitarian grounds to end this bloodshed and political turmoil.  By using its irreligious impartial statehood, it must bring together the protagonists or their Arch-rival superiors to the negotiating table, to quell this spiral of escalating violence.  With a status of a superpower, with its eye on the local ideological rivalry, it is incumbent upon America as well as to its interest to try its utmost to bring peace to the region and its suffering people. 

The present tragedy in Egypt will not last as it is but indeed, it will get worse.  With such weaknesses exposed by the State, it has become fertile ground for the Al-Qaeda to infiltrate with all its fire power.  Al –Qaeda will undermine any effort for democracy or reconciliation and indeed the Muslim Brotherhood provides soft ground for their cause.  Egypt will be of strategic importance for Al-Qaida's  geopolitical interest.  If it cannot claim it by democratic means through a proxy party, it is quite likely to claim it through subversion and violence.  The ease of which it has proved it can penetrate a confused or a politically disorientated Arab country thus far, Egypt does not hold for it any impossible barriers.  America you must act now before it is too late.