Tuesday, September 30, 2014

Iran Is Desperately Trying to Remove Those Sanctions Imposed By the UN. Why?

According to a article published by AL MONITOR today, Iran is recently insisting that those sanctions imposed by the United Nations Security Council should be lifted in order to reach any agreement amid its nuclear activity. This issue has unexpectedly become a serious barrier in this matter as some western diplomats claim.

I had exactly predicted this point couple of months ago and wrote some short notes about it. In short, if Iran would be able to remove these types of sanctions, the Western countries would not be able to once again impose any sanction on Iran within the Security Council, due to the rising conflicts between Russia and the West amid Ukraine, and recently Syria foe example. Should this happen, Iran would freely maneuver wherever it wants in the Middle East and North Africa following 2015 and onward.

M. Sirani                               30.09.2014  

AL MONITOR (2014). Iran's UN demand emerges as hitch in nuclear talks.
URL:<http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/09/iran-un-nuclear-deal-negotiations.html#>. Accessed on: 30.09.2014.

Here below is one of my short notes in this matter, which i wrote it on 20.05.2014.

Iran's First and Important Plan With Regard to Its Nuclear Activity.

Briefly: It seems the Iranian Regime is trying to get rid of those types of sanctions imposed by the Security Council in the first instance. Part of the reason that some smiley faced politicians such as Rouhani and Zarif took the power should be understood in this respect. If Iran would manage to do this, Iran would escape from most of the sanctions imposed by the US from 2015 onward. From 2015 onward, we would observe different faces of the Iranian Regime, due to the fact that lots of doors would be open for Iran in the international arena.

M. Sirani                                20.05.2014

Monday, September 29, 2014

Deploying Ground Force to Iraq and Syria at This Stage Will End Up to a Huge Fiasco.

Deploying ground force to Iraq and Syria at this stage would be equivalent to the wrong operation that some of the Western countries lately performed in Ukraine. Based on some delusional idea, miscalculation and wrong analysis some Western countries interfered in the domestic affairs of Ukraine in a hope that they would kick out Russia from there in a short period of time; but after a while they didn't know how to clean up their own mess in that country.

Deploying ground force to Iraq and Syria at this stage is a wrong policy and will undoubtedly end up to a huge fiasco, based on many reasons. Unless the coalition would firstly fix many issues on the ground in these countries. Secondly, the coalition should perform a fundamental reform in their own departments, which are responsible for this operation. In short, those people how were/are responsible for collecting the data, analyzing the data, designing the plan in different tactical and strategical terms in this operation did/do not perform their job in an appropriate and professional manner. These two points should be implemented seriously and comprehensively before any new move; otherwise, the coalition will plunge into a devastating black hole in the Middle East for many years to come.    

M. Sirani                                    29.09.2014   

Sunday, September 28, 2014

Some Simple Questions For Lady Catherine Ashton and The Telegraph (Hijab and Lunch Nuclear Doctrine).

The Telegraph (24 NOV 2013):

"Iran nuclear deal takes Catherine Ashton from 'zero' to hero"(Telegraph, 2013).

Questions for Lady Ashton:

1- What was the result of nuclear negotiation with the Iranian Regime after all those diplomatic marathons?

2-  Did you achieve any positive result with regard to Iran's nuclear activity, in addition to all those friendly breakfast, lunch, and dinner with Javad Zarif?

Question for David Blair the writer of article published in the Telegraph:

Dear David Blair:
1- Would you please explain for us the difference between "Zero" and "Hero" words in an easy and understandable manner?

Note: To be continued because the result of "Hijab and Lunch Nuclear Doctrine" is still unknown.lol.

M. Sirani                                               28.09.2014

The Telegraph(2013). Iran nuclear deal takes Catherine Ashton from 'zero' to hero.
URL:<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10471355/Iran-nuclear-deal-takes-Catherine-Ashton-from-zero-to-hero.html>. Accessed on: 28.09.2014.

Friday, September 26, 2014

Obama's Plan Should be Adjusted, Before it's too late.

In addition to destroying ISIS, the U.S. is trying to simultaneously achieve several other goals in the Middle East. The U.S. would degrade and dismantle ISIS, but achieving other goals simultaneously is something nearly impossible based on many reasons. The theoretical assessment behind Obama's plan is not compatible with the real situation on the ground in both Iraq and Syria. The plan should be fundamentally adjusted, before it's too late. Otherwise, it would end up to a huge fiasco.

M. Sirani                                          26.09.2014

Thursday, September 25, 2014

Obama's Plan against ISIS: A Fundamental Solution or A New Pandora's Box in the Middle East.

Obama’s Plan against ISIS:
A Fundamental Solution
A New Pandora’s Box
In the Middle East!

Written by: M. Sirani                 25.09.2014

- Introduction:
Finally, in a short televised speech to the nation, President Obama unveiled the US strategic plan against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). As Mr. Obama outlined, the U.S. would lead a broad coalition in order to degrade and finally destroy ISIS in a comprehensive and sustained manner in the next coming years. The plan, which consists of four important points, can be summarized as follows: 1- Conducting systematic air strikes on ISIS facility and structure, wherever they are, i.e. in Iraq as well as in Syria. 2- Increasing support in the forms of equipment, training, and intelligence assistance to the Iraqi military forces, Kurdish Pishmerga and the moderate Syrian opposition, who are fighting ISIS on the ground. 3- Cutting off ISIS funding from overseas donors, preventing foreign fighters joining ISIS and improving intelligence capability in these matters. 4- Providing humanitarian assistance to the innocent Iraqi and Syrian people (Whitehouse, 2014).
There is no doubt that ISIS is one of the most dangerous, savage and brutal terrorist groups in our lifetime. The atrocity of this group in terms of terrorizing, mass killing, beheading, and raping the innocent people is beyond the imagination of every human being. These barbaric and uncivilized characteristics indicate the fact that a terrorist group such as ISIS and alike should be degraded and destroyed in every parts of the world in an appropriate, comprehensive and fundamental manner. The issue raises an important question. Would Obama’s plan be able to achieve such an objective? At the first glance, Obama’s plan might seem as an effective, legitimate and appropriate solution in this matter. But a deeper analysis reveals something else, which indicates that this plan not only might not achieve its main objective in a successful and comprehensive manner, instead it might open a new Pandora’s Box probably beyond the borders of Iraq and Syria. In this respect, some important considerations are in order. 

1- Effectiveness:
The first important point is a serious doubt about the effectiveness of Obama’s plan. A brief overview shows that there is nothing new and special about this plan. In fact, there are massive similarities between Obama’s plan and the old policy of the U.S. and its allies in the Middle East and North Africa, since many years ago particularly from 1990s onwards. Since then and through all those years up until this moment in various occasions: A- the U.S. and its allies (whether some members of the EU or the Arab League or a type of combination of both groups) have been conducting broad military operation including air strikes, whether by military airplanes or drones, or surface-to-surface missile strikes against different Islamic radical groups such as Taliban, Al- Qaeda, Al-Shebab, Boko Haram and their affiliates in various parts of the Middle East and North Africa; B- the U.S. and its allies have been supporting different political systems or groups in various forms in their struggle against the Islamic radical groups. The only difference between Obama’s plan and the previous U.S. policy is the notion that in Obama’s plan the American ground forces will not participate in any combat mission neither in Iraq nor in Syria. At this point, we should ask ourselves some simple questions. What was the outcome of all those types of policies? Did implementation of those policies manage to completely defeat and destroy the wave of Islamic extremism across the Middle East and North Africa? The answer to these questions is clearly negative. Those policies, in fact, not only did not eliminate the wave of Islamic radicalism, instead, it has spread it in different parts of Asia, the Middle East and North Africa in a broader scale and much more aggressive manners. So, when the previous policies did not achieve any effective and fundamental result in this matter, will the current Obama’s plan succeed?
In this respect an important point should be all over again mentioned. Islamic radicalism and Islamic terrorist groups will not be fundamentally defeated and destroyed by military operation alone; due to the fact that such a battle is an ideological war. In an ideological war, military tool is just one tool among many other necessary tools. As it appears, this important and vital point is not included in Obama’s plan.      

2- Legality:
Performing a plan like this by any state should have a legal foundation based on the current international law and convention. The existence of a legal foundation would give legitimacy and justifiability to a plan in the domestic as well as international arena. So is the case of President Obama’s plan. Although, the President and his administration prefer to use the term “Systematic Counter Terrorism Strategy” instead of war, in reality the President is waging a new war in the Middle East; this time under the name of “War against ISIS”. Regarding the conducting military operation in Iraq according to this plan, we might close our eyes and simply argue that the Iraqi government itself has requested U.S. military assistance in its fight against ISIS; although, there are many ambiguities in this matter as well. However, the plan would become controversial, when we hear that the other part of this military operation will be conducted against ISIS structure within the Syrian territory, as the President himself stated. Regarding the legality and legitimacy of this war based on the international law and convention, the Obama administration faces a serious question as follows. Is this a preemptive war or a preventive war? According to the international law and convention:
“Preemptive war is a “war of necessity” based on credible evidence of imminent attack against which is justified under international law as enshrined in the self-defense clause (Article 51) of the UN Charter.,,,,, Preventive wars are essentially “wars of choice” that derive mostly from a calculus of power, rather than the precedent of international law, convention and practices. In choosing preventive wars, policymakers project that waging a war, even if unprovoked against a rising adversary sooner is preferable to an inevitable war later when the balance of power no longer rests in their favor” (cfr, 2004).   

Based on the definitions noted above, the Obama administration has two options with regard to this question. The administration might claim that this is a preemptive war. In this case, the U.S. government should reveal some reliable, credible and verifiable evidence, which proves that either ISIS or the Syrian Regime have planned an imminent attack within the American soil and territory. Moreover, the U.S. authority needs an approval by the UN, due to the fact that according to the international law, preemptive war is not permitted, unless it is authorized by the UN Security Council. Regarding this issue, some American policy makers claim that ISIS is planning to enter the U.S. via Mexico in order to conduct a terrorist attack; but there is no credible and reliable evidence, which confirms this allegation. As such, the door of using this option in an internationally legal manner is closed to the Obama administration (cfr, 2004).  

The other option for the administration is a claim that this is a preventive war, based on some credible reason and evidence that the U.S. would reveal. I leave aside these reasons and evidences in terms of credibility, reliability and verifiability, although this issue plays an important role in this matter as well. Instead, I focus on one of the important requirements of waging a “preventive war” based on the international law and convention. Under the framework of the modern international law, a preventive war should be approved and authorized by the United Nations; otherwise, it is illegal and illegitimate. This means, simply, that the Obama administration would need the UN approval and authorization, in order to conduct this military operation in a legal and legitimate manner. Given the fact that part of this military operation will be conducted within the Syrian territory along with the repeatedly claims of the U.S. authority and its allies that they will not pursue any coordination and cooperation with Assad’s regime in this matter, the U.S. will face another deadlock within the United Nation Security Council. In this respect, Russia and probably China will likely veto any resolution to approve this operation within the Syrian territory. As briefly explored above, the Obama administration would face a dead-end alley in the both scenarios based on the current international law and convention (cfr, 2004).    
Such a barrier and limitation has put the Obama administration in a difficult position. As such, the President has decided to ignore the international law in this matter and follow the path of his predecessor president George W. Bush by using “the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force” (AUMF). This resolution was developed and enacted during the presidency of George W. Bush in response to the 9/11, Al-Qaeda attacks on the U.S. soil. By enacting the 2001 AUMF, the U.S. Congress granted a full authority to then- President George W. Bush to:

use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons” (Vox, 20014).    

As it appears, the U.S. administration has decided to use the 2001 AUMF resolution as a legal and legitimate foundation for Obama’s plan by arguing that there are strong evidences that ISIS has affiliated with Al-Qaeda in Iraq in 2004 and later the group has been supported by some members and factions within Al-Qaeda-aligned circles. This argument might satisfy the Obama administration, some part of the public opinion and the politicians, whether within the USA or abroad, but in reality is neither internationally legal, nor legitimate. Due to the fact, that many individual members, factions within Al-Qaeda and some other Islamic terrorist groups affiliated with Al-Qaeda have spread around the world following the two invasions of the U.S. in Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003). Some of these individuals, factions and groups have moved to other countries particularly in the Middle East and North Africa. In this case and based on the 2001 AUMF, does the U.S. government have an unlimited and endless authorization to strike, whenever/wherever it wants in all these countries? Is this a reasonable, logical, legal and justifiable argument for performing such a plan? (Vox, 2014).  
From this, we can deduce that Obama’s plan is a clear violation of the international law and convention. By performing this plan, in fact, President Obama is unfortunately adding his name alongside the names of some previous politicians such as President George W. Bush and Mr. Tony Blair in the murky list of our history.  It is or i might say it was an option, which could save President Obama from these dilemmas. The president could, firstly, cancel the military operation, at least temporarily, within the Syrian territory; although, I’m fully aware that the head of this snake i.e. ISIS lies in Syria and its tail is in Iraq or vice versa. He could, secondly, refer this case to the United Nations Security Council and use R2P program (Responsibility to Protect) for performing his plan against ISIS in an internationally legal and legitimate manner.   It’s unfortunately too late for such an approach. In addition, an announcement about the cancelation of military operation in Syria would be equivalent to a political suicide not only for President Obama but also for the United State of America in the both domestic as well as international arena at this stage. In case of such an announcement, the reaction of President Obama would be similar to the event of latest chemical attack in Syria, which took place on 21.08.2013; when in the beginning, the President decided to attack Syria, but later he canceled it. Should this happen, the President would enormously lose his credibility among its allies abroad particularly among those Arab states that so far have joined this coalition, in a hope to defeat and remove Bashar Assad from the power in the final stage of this operation. Such a move would, in addition, give an opportunity to the Republican Party to damage the reputation of President Obama and the Democratic Party in the domestic arena. To put it simply, President Obama has unfortunately reached the point of no return in this matter.
3- Complications and Possible Side Effects of Obama’s Plan:
Based on what has been revealed by the U.S. officials (e.g. Mr. John Kerry and General Martin Dempsey) so far, Obama’s plan is pursuing particular short and long term objectives in both Iraq and Syria. In order to achieve these objectives, a coalition of different countries led by the U.S. has been built. Among these countries France, Australia and ten Arab States could be mentioned. When it comes to Iraq, the plan is supposed to achieve some goals including: 1- The formation of a “Unity”, inclusive, independent and sustainable political system in Iraq, which would be able to meet the demands and will of three Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish groups within the country in a fair, equal and sustained manner in the short and long term, 2- Reorganizing, training and equipping the Iraqi military and security forces in the long term in a sense that these entities would be able to defend the country against any internal and external threats, and 3- Attacking ISIS facility and structure in Iraq in order to fundamentally defeat and destroy this terrorist group in the country (C-Span, 2014).
When it comes to Syria, the plan consists of two short and long term efforts as well. In the short term, the forces of some members of the coalition led by the U.S. would launch air strikes against ISIS facility within the Syrian territory in order to defeat and destroy this terrorist group. In the long term, the coalition would organize, train, arm, and equip the so-called Moderate Syrian Opposition in order to gradually change the face of civil war in Syria in the benefit of the Moderate Opposition. It may not be obvious at this stage, but Obama’s plan would probably face a series of obstacles and complications in both countries somewhere in the future. The combination of these difficulties would inevitably undermine the level of success and effectiveness of Obama’s plan to a large degree. Here below, some of these obstacles and their consequences will be discussed (JCS, 2014).

3-1- The first important issue to mention is the range of many heterogeneous state and non-state actors that would be inevitably involved in this operation. This involvement might be in the form of either intentionally or unintentionally or directly or indirectly. At the present time, these heterogeneous actors can be divided into two main camps in both countries of Iraq and Syria. The first camp belongs to the U.S., its coalition, some Sunni groups within Iraq and the Moderate Syrian opposition. The second camp belongs to Iran (IRGC, Quds forces), its Shiite affiliates in Iraq (such as the Mahdi Army), Assad’s Regime, Hezbollah and Russia to some degree. In addition to these two groups, there is Iraqi Kurdish group that swings between these two main camps in a pendulum way in order to save its territory and possibly achieve its own final objective i.e. the Formation of an Independent Kurdish State in an appropriate time somewhere in the future. Whether the members of these two heterogeneous camps are formally, informally, directly and indirectly cooperating or coordinating with each other or not, all of them are pursuing a common goal at the present time and that is: degrading, defeating and destroying ISIS in Iraq as well as in Syria in the short term. In other words, there is some type of unwritten and informal coexistence between these two heterogeneous camps at this stage.

This unwritten and informal coexistence might continue for a while, but it would not last in the long term. The problem would probably arise, when these two heterogeneous camps would try to achieve its own long term objectives in Iraq as well as in Syria. For example, the coalition would try to build and form an inclusive, neutral, independent and sustainable political system in Iraq. On the contrary, Iran would try to impose and preserve its own hegemony in Iraq. Ditto for Syria. The coalition would try to overthrow Assad’s Regime in the long term by supporting the moderate Syrian opposition in different terms. On the contrary, Iran, Hezbollah and Russia would try to preserve Assad’s Regime. To put it simply, the long term interests of two heterogeneous camps would inevitably crisscross at some multiple levels in both Iraq and Syria somewhere in the future. This issue would cause a serious additional conflict for the coalition. This conflict, in addition, would intensify the level of tension between Sunni and Shiite groups beyond the territorial borders of Iraq and Syria in various parts of the Middle East.      

3-2- The second issue to mention is with regard to the formation of a unity, inclusive and more importantly an independent and sustainable political system in Iraq, as clearly mentioned above. This is a perfect idea; but is this goal achievable in current Iraq? The answer to this question is almost negative, due to the fact that the current Iraqi society suffers from a deep and broad chronic anomaly in terms of “identity”. Although the despotic behavior of Saddam’s Regime in this matter could not be ignored, but the root cause of this problem goes mainly back to the First Gulf War in 1991; when the coalition led by the USA informally divided Iraq into three Kurdish, Sunni, and Shiite areas by creating two No-Fly zones in the North and South of the country.

This event weakened the overall power of Saddam’s Regime in the country on the one hand and on the other hand, it facilitated a good opportunity for different external actors to be involved in the domestic affairs of Iraq by supporting various religious and ethnic groups in order to overthrow then-the Iraqi Regime as soon as possible. This mission was, finally, accomplished following the 2003 U.S. invasion In Iraq. Among those external actors that were directly or indirectly involved in Iraq, the Iranian Regime became the final winner following the total withdrawal of U.S. troops from this country in 2011. Such historical disorders have cultivated and nurtured the seed of religious and ethnic fragmentation within the Iraqi society. Over time (more than two decades), this fragmentation has become much deeper and broader and accordingly has changed the mentality of majority of people in Iraq.

As a result, the majority of the Iraqi people including the politicians do not identify themselves as a unified Iraqi nation; instead, they are defining themselves in a religious and ethnic category of Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish groups. In other words, religious and ethnic origins have become the main and important identity for most of the Iraqi people. After nearly two and half decades, this attitude has been internalized and institutionalized in various parts of the Iraqi society from top to the bottom. To put it simply, we are witnessing a type of severe religious and ethnic nepotism in current Iraq. There are different examples, which confirm this statement. Among these examples, the conflict between Shiite Prime Minister Al-Maleki and the Sunni Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, the dispute between Shiite Al-Maleki and Masoud Barzani the President of Iraqi Kurdistan region, the continuously increasing numbers of sectarian violence between Shiite and Sunni groups across the country in the last couple of years and the point that the Kurdish Pishmerga forces are fighting ISIS only in the Kurdish region of Iraq, could be mentioned. The combination of all these examples and alike clearly show how dangerously and deeply the Iraqi society has been fragmented. Performing Capacity Building in a country like Iraq with such a historical anomaly at this chaotic stage especially by the help or force of the external actors is a very difficult task. This anomaly might not cause a serious problem at this stage, due to the fact that all of the Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish groups are pursuing a common goal and that is defeating and destroying their first and important enemy ISIS. Or we might say, they have no other choice at the present time.

This unintentionally cooperative condition would continue between these three groups for a while; but it would not last in the long term. The bloody struggle of power between theses religious and ethnic groups would begin, as soon as the main enemy i.e. ISIS would be destroyed. In such a chaotic environment in Iraq, the Iranian Regime has the upper hand in comparison with other regional external actors based on many reasons as follows.
3-2-1- The Kurdish and Shiite groups are two strong and well-organized factions in Iraq, which both of them are completely functioning under the control and supervision of the Iranian Regime.
3-2-2- The common border with Iraq would give a good opportunity to the Islamic Regime to easily transfer its force and resources into Iraq at any moment, if it is needed. 
3-2-3- The existence of some Shiite holy cities such as Karbala, Samarra, and Kadhimiya in Iraq would offer Iran a good opportunity to agitate many Shiite People around the world and mobilize them into Iraq, if it is necessary.
3-2-4- The Iranian Regime has done many efforts and has spent billions of dollars throughout the past 35 years in order to have a free highway from its geographical territory to the border of Israel through Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. This important mission has been successfully accomplished despite many challenges. Therefore, it is hard to believe that Iran would easily lose such a strategic and important accomplishment.
As such, it would seem to be a far-fetched idea that a unity, inclusive and independent political system would govern Iraq somewhere in the near future. This is a bitter truth that since 2003 onward Iraq was, is and will be a failed state for many years to come; unless a reliable, democratic and secular political system would take the power in Iraq and change the mentality of the people in a professional, appropriate and sustainable manner. In short, an Iraq under the control and supervision of the Iranian Regime would disrupt Obama’s plan to some degree somewhere in the future.  

3-3- The third issue to mention is with regard to other part of Obama’s plan, which is supposed to be performed against ISIS structure within the Syrian territory. As noted above, the plan is apparently pursuing two short and long term goals in Syria. In the short term, the coalition would launch a series of air strikes against ISIS targets. In addition, the coalition would reorganize, train, arm and equip the moderate Syrian opposition in the long term. The first steps of this part of Obama’s plan have already started. On Monday, 22.09.2014, the position and structure of ISIS in Raqqa province were bombed and targeted by the coalition’s fighter jets and tomahawk missiles. The U.S., Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain and United Arabs Emirate forces were the only participants in this joint operation. Although, the U.S. administration had repeatedly announced that the coalition would not seek any coordination and cooperation with Assad’s Regime in this matter, some news published by The New York Times and Asriran (An Iranian news agency) website reveals something completely contradictory. According to this news, the Syrian ambassador to the United Nations and the Iranian Regime were informed about this operation in advance by the U.S. authority. The military operation in Syria drew mixed reactions from authorities in Tehran, Moscow and Damascus. Both President Rouhani and President Putin criticized the operation in Syria and claimed that the operation was illegal due to the fact that it did not have the approval of the Syrian government. Contrary to these claims, the Syrian authority welcomed the military operation in a tolerable and acceptable manner (JCS, 2014, Nytimes, 2014, Asriran, 2014).

Regarding the military operation in Syria, the Syrian Foreign Ministry stated:
The government “backs any international effort that contributes to the fight against terrorists,” whether it is the Islamic State, the Nusra Front “or anyone else” (Nytimes, 2014).

As this official statement defines, Assad’s Regime has apparently decided to follow the rally of anti-ISIS at this stage; even though, the military operation against this terrorist group would be conducted on its territory. Choosing this tactical move raises some important questions as follows. 1- What is/are the reason/s behind this tactical move of Assad’s Regime? 2- Would Assad’s Regime use this tactical move in the long term as well? With respect to the first question, some speculations could be mentioned. By choosing this tactical move at this stage, the Syrian Regime is probably pursuing two main propaganda and strategic goals. When it comes to the propaganda goal, by this move: A- Assad’s Regime would try to demonstrate that it is against any Islamic fundamentalist and terrorist groups. B- The Syrian Regime would try to increase its legitimacy and attract the public opinion in the domestic as well as in international arena. C- The Regime would try to ease the tension with some of its enemies. Should this happen, Assad’s Regime might be able to cause a fragmentation between the group of its enemies.   

When it comes to the strategic goal, the Syrian Regime is probably using “Buck Passing Strategy” by this move. In this case, Assad’s Regime would try to remain on the sideline, at least for a while, and let its enemies (i.e. the coalition forces and ISIS fighters) use their resources against each other. Using the Buck Passing Strategy in this particular case i.e. war against some terrorist groups such as ISIS or Al-Nusra Front and alike might have an additional and unexpected benefit for Assad’s Regime as well (I emphasize; it might have). One might wonder how? As we know some terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Al-Nusra Front, Al-Shebab, Boko Haram and alike do not have any respect at all for the domestic as well as international laws and conventions. These terrorist groups perform any inhuman and cruel activity in order to achieve their barbaric objectives no matter when or where or how. In the case of direct military confrontation between the coalition and ISIS, some members of another terrorist group based in some other countries (e.g. somewhere in North Africa or Asia), might decide to perform a retaliatory terrorist attack within the EU, or the USA or somewhere else in the world in solidarity with ISIS; something like the 9/11 attack. Such an incident would inevitably divert the mind and attention of the international community from Syria to somewhere else, as the event of 9/11 did. As a result, the case of removing Bashar Assad from the power would automatically fade, at least for a while. Although, the probability of such an incident is very low, but this is an important issue, which should neither be ignored nor underestimated. In short, this tactical move is beneficial for Assad’s Regime at the present time.

The second question was: would Assad’s Regime use this tactical move in the long term? The answer to this question is negative. Simply, because the long term will and interest of Assad’s Regime and the coalition would finally clash with each other at some point somewhere in the future. The coalition would try to destroy ISIS and simultaneously empower the moderate Syrian opposition in different terms. By this move, the coalition would try to pave the way for the moderate opposition to gradually weaken and finally overthrow Assad’s Regime from the power. This move is unpleasant and unacceptable not only for Assad’s Regime but also for its close allies Russia and Iran. In case of such an event, the military confrontation between the coalition forces and Assad’s Regime would inevitably begin.

Should this happen, Iran and Russia would undoubtedly be involved in this battle and fully support the Syrian Regime from different angles; simply because Syria plays a vital role for both of them. Russia has nearly $ 4.5 billion dollars economic trade with Syria annually. In addition to this economic reason, Syria plays an important role for Russia in terms of strategic and geopolitical matters. Ditto for Iran and its affiliate Hezbollah in Lebanon. In case of such a military confrontation, Russia might be smart and do not deploy its ground forces to Syria. But the country would, undoubtedly, arm Assad’s Regime with the most advance and high-tech weapons. This might not be the end of the story. In retaliation, Russia might use all its leverages including the ethnic Russian residents in the Baltic States and destabilize the Eastern part of the EU in different termWhen it comes to Iran, the coalition forces would highly likely clash with IRGC, Quds forces, Hezbollah fighters and other Shiite groups not only in Syria but also in Iraq as well. In case of continuation, this military confrontation would spread to other vulnerable parts of the Middle East as well. Among these vulnerable areas, Bahrain, Yemen, and Lebanon could be mentioned. Such a conflicutual environment would facilitate a fertile land in the entire Middle East for all radical Islamic groups. From this point the production and reproduction of new Islamic terrorist groups would begin in the region. This simply means: opening a new Pandora’s Box in the entire Middle East and possibly in North Africa (Sirani, 2013).    

This is not the end of story in Syria. Obama’s plan would face an additional obstacle in the long term with regard to the Syrian opposition. According to the plan, the coalition would try to empower the Moderate Syrian opposition in different terms. This part of the plan is questionable from different angles as follows. A- How are these moderate oppositions? B- Are these moderate groups are organized and united? C- Have these moderate groups enough power and leverage (in terms of quality and quantity) to dismantle other radical Islamist groups in Syria in the short and long term? D- What does the Obama administration mean by the term “Moderate”? (I pose this question because I have heard some of the U.S.  And EU officials call some presidents such as Mohammad Khatami, Hassan Rouhani and Mohamed Morsi the moderate people).

It would be wise that the U.S. administration would focus on these questions in an appropriate and serious manner; because, there are many rumors and complex issues with regard to the Syrian oppositions. In this respect, two important points could be mentioned. The first point to mention is a rumor, which indicates that some groups within the Syrian opposition have signed a non-violence pact with ISIS. The second point to mention is about the large numbers of the Syrian opposition groups. As ambassador R.S. Ford (former U.S. ambassador to Syria 2010-2014) states, there are nearly 1500 groups within the Syrian opposition. Some of these groups consist of three, four or five person and some others might have couple of thousands fighters. What does this statement mean? Doesn’t this statement show how fragmented the Syrian opposition groups are? Doesn’t this statement indicate that there is a serious struggle of power between the Syrian opposition groups? And finally: Does the Obama administration want to create a chaotic Syria in the long term; something like current situation in Libya? (C-span, 2014).      
This was a brief analysis about Obama’s plan and some of its consequences in the short and long term. As explored in this essay, the plan might be able to destroy ISIS in Iraq as well as in Syria; but the long term objectives of this plan would face a series of obstacles in different terms. These obstacles would intensify the level of conflict and spread the wave of tension in different parts of the Middle East beyond the territorial borders of Iraq and Syria. As I analyze this plan from different angles, I come to the conclusion that there is no light at the end of the tunnel of Obama’s strategy. In fact, the plan might open a new Pandora’s Box, which its negative side effects would drag different parts of the Middle East into a series of unnecessary, useless and endless conflict for many years to come. Such a conflicutual environment in Iraq and other parts of the Middle East might be likely beneficial only for one group of people in the region and that is the Kurdish people. Such a broad tension in the region would inevitably intensify the formation of an independent Kurdish State in North Iraq.  
In sum, my prediction is that the U.S. administration is pursuing another important long term goal in the Middle East, much more than defeating ISIS. The U.S. is trying to show its iron fist to Iran, Russia and Syria. By performing this plan, the U.S. would try to fundamentally demolish the expansionist presence of Iran and Russia and kick them out of Iraq and Syria. In case of such an event, the U.S. and its allies would achieve multilateral objectives.

1- The U.S. would once again impose its hegemony on the entire Middle East. 2- The U.S. and its allies (the Arab states) would be able to provide the necessary source of energy (oil and gas) for the EU. This event would be possible in two ways: a pipeline might pass through Iraq and Syria or might pas through Iraq and Turkey and goes to the EU. By such a move, the EU would be independent from Russia in terms of energy. As a result, the U.S. and EU would be able to put an extra pressure on Russia in different terms including with regard to the current tension in Ukraine. 3- Such a move would inevitably weaken the Islamic Regime of Iran in the Middle East as well. That’s why the Arab States have participated in this operation with full enthusiasm and eagerness. 4- In case of such an event, the U.S. and its European allies might be able to put an extra pressure on Iran with regard to its adventurous nuclear activity.  As an ordinary Iranian in exile, i’m totally against the Iranian Regime, but I hope my prediction would be wrong in this matter; because, the consequences of such a move would be devastating for all the people in the Middle East. In the final part of this essay two additional points should be mentioned. The first point is the reaction of some western politician and scholar, who suggest that the U.S. and Iran should coordinate and cooperate with each other in this battle. I'm wondering based on what reasonable and logical foundation these people bravely declare such a statement in the public. With regard to the second point, I remind the U.S. administration to a simple but meaningful and famous sentence, which says: Starting a war is a simple task for every statesman; it can be easily done by firing a single bullet from a simple pistol. But achieving the objective and ending a war as quickly as possible is an extremely important task that not every statesman can do.

M. Sirani                                                           25.09.2014  

Asriran (2014). The U.S. had informed Iran in advance.

COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS (2004). The Bush Administration's Doctrine of Preemption (and Prevention): When, How, Where?
Accessed on: 19.09.2014.

C-SPAN (2014). U.S. Strategy Against Terrorists.

JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF (2014). Dempsey Discusses Anti-ISIL Strategy at Senate Hearing.

Obama, B. (2014). Obama’s speech to the nation.

Sirani, M. (2013). An assessment about the current civil war in Syria.

The New York Times (2014). Obama, in Speech on ISIS, Promises Sustained Effort to Rout Militants.

The New York Times (2014). In Airstrikes, U.S. Targets Militant Cell Said to Plot an Attack Against the West.
 Vox (2014).  Experts: Obama’s legal justification for the war on ISIS is “a stretch”.



Friday, September 12, 2014

The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation is Likely Granting Membership to India, Pakistan and Iran in the Near Future.

As the media reveal and as i had predicted in some previous notes, it seems that the Shanghai Cooperation Organization is going to grant membership to India, and likely to Iran and Pakistan somewhere in the near future. This development along with some other ongoing events such as:the current tension in Ukraine, the rise of Isis in Iraq -Syria and the current strategy of the USA and its allies which indicates the the U.S. coalition would attack Isis structure within the territories of Iraq and Syria, clearly show that we have entered a New Cold War Era much more devastating from the previous one. As such, we should expect much more devastating tension in Ukraine (possibly in other Baltic countries), different parts of the Middle East beyond the borders of just Iraq and Syria and much more disagreement with regard to Iran's nuclear activity in the near future.

M. Sirani                            12.09.2014


Here below are some of my previous notes in this regard.

China Deepens and Develops Defense Cooperation With Iran.

Iran's Minister of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics Hossein Dehqan is in China for a four-day official visit. During a press conference, Chinese Defense Minister Chang Wanquan said that China would deepen and develop its military cooperation in different terms with the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Due to this event and statement, i re-upload one of my previous note related to this matter. Here below is the the previous note.

M. Sirani                                  05.05.2014

The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Might Probably Get New Memebrs in the Near Future. 

We are entering the new Cold War era; a new era with different characteristics in various terms. As such, we should expect some changes within different international cooperation organizations around the world. These changes would impact the Shanghai Cooperation Organization as well. In short, we should expect more surprises in the future. This is the direct and indirect result of hegemonic slogan of the West, which says: "Either with us, or against us". Double I (India and Iran) might join the Shanghai Group.  

The membership of Iran would be highly conterversial for the West. hahahaha.The wind blows perfectly in the favor of Iran from different aspects. Based on massive oil and gas resources and its special geopolitical position in the Middle East, the Shanghai group should be blind, if they don't offer Iran the full membership somehwhere in the future. I don't think the policy makers in the West pay attention to this point.

Note: It seems this is the time to say goodbye to Interdependence Liberalism Theory.lol 

M. Sirani                            26.03.2014

Wednesday, September 10, 2014

Scottish Independence Referendum (A short note).

On Thursday, 18 September 2014, Scottish people will vote in a referendum that will determine the future of Scotland. Through this referendum, Scottish people will decide to remain part of the United Kingdom or declare independence.

This is the fact that the majority of ordinary Scottish people are not satisfied with current situation due to mainly the economic, political and accordingly social inequality. Although, this referendum will take place during David Cameron's Premiership, but the root causes of these inequalities go farther back to Margaret Thatcher era; the era of full-scale privatization in the United Kingdom. The result of such a widespread Neo-liberal policy was fully beneficial for a minority and at the same time marginalized the majority of people across the United Kingdom.

The wave of such a gradual marginalization and deprivation damaged the economic, political and social structure of societies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland much more deeper than London. Since then, unfortunately, the other Prime Ministers of the UK have not addressed these inequalities in an appropriate and reasonable manner. The existence of such unsolved problems after four decades, has finally woken up the Scottish Nationalism. The victory of the Scottish National Party (SNP) in 2011, the coming referendum and possibly the yes vote of Scottish people in this referendum should be understood in this respect. As such,the today's emotional speech of Mr. David Cameron, which was shocking for me, and the last minute reform might reach nothing. Based on this short summary and what the media reveal, there is highly likely that the Scottish people vote Yes and Scotland would declare independence following this referendum.

Such an event would not be pleasant for the UK, Conservative Party and particularly for a politician such as Mr. David Cameron. His name would always be accompanied with the term  "separation of Scotland from the UK" for many years to come. This event might also entail an early retirement for Mr. Cameron in his political career. The separation of Scotland, however, might be accompanied with some other consequences in domestic as well as in the international arena. Here below, some of the possible consequences of this move would be briefly mentioned.

1- The separation of Scotland would damage the reputation and to some extent the power of the United Kingdom in the international arena in various forms among different countries.

2- This event would encourage the people in Quebec to once again push forward for another referendum in order to say good bye to Canada and the United Kingdom. Such a move would consequently spread across the UK among the people in Wales and Northern Ireland somewhere in the future, if the political system in the UK would not address the serious issues in these areas.

3- Such an event, in domestic arena, would damage the reputation of the Conservative Party and consequently would facilitate a good opportunity for the Opposition parties to take the power in the next United Kingdom General Election in 2015. In this respect, the Labour Party (Mr. Ed Miliband) would have more chance to take the power from the Conservative Party, although the Labour Party would lose some of its support following this separation.

4- Such an event, would be accompanied with the rise of Nationalism in the UK. This issue would be beneficial for all Nationalist parties e.g. BNP (the British National Party) in the country. The rise of Nationalism (accompanied with the proposal of Mr. David Cameron) might consequently influence the decision of the English people regarding the remaining within the European Union or not. This issue would depend on the type of policy and activity of the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties (as two powerful parties after the Conservative Party).

In sum: whether we like or not, we are in the transformation phase of rise and fall of empires. I hope the current policy makers, particularly in the West would perfectly understand this event and try to develop and adapt their policies based on reasonable and logical manner, which is suitable for the contemporary world, not based on some victorious nostalgia in the past. The current tension in Ukraine could be an important and great test for the Western policy makers in this matter.  

M. Sirani                          10.09.2014              

Friday, September 5, 2014

Iran's Foreign Ministry Denied the Recent News Published By BBC Persian.

As Tasnim News Agency reveals, Marzieh Afkham, Iran's Foreign Ministry spokeswoman denied the recent news published by BBC Persian, which claims that Ayatollah Khamenei has approved contacts with US military officials to fight IS in Iraq.

Afkham said: "Our position in this regard has already been announced and this news is not true". (Tasnim, 2014).   

M. Sirani                             05.09.2014

Tasnim News Agency (2014). 

Another Unreliable Report of BBC Persian.

As BBC Persian claims, Ayatollah Khamenei has authorized Iran's military top commander to co-operate military operations with the US in Iraq. The main source of this news, published by BBC Persian, was unknown. This ambiguity encouraged me to find the main source of this event. After many search, i couldn't find any article about this order among the Islamic Regime's news agencies.

The reliability of this news became more questionable, when i watched the latest video clip of Ayatollah Khamenei in a meeting with some members of the Assembly of Experts. In this meeting, which took place Yesterday (04.09.2014), Ayatollah Khamenei mentions some important issues, which all of them are in total contradiction with what BBC Persian tries to pretend by publishing this news.

In that meeting, Khamenei emphasized on some issues as follows:

- The Western power (particularly the USA) is declining in different terms; thus the notion that we (Iran) should accept the supremacy and obey the West is a false, wrong and dangerous premise.

- The USA has lost its reputation in the world due to some events including: more than fifty military coups since the end of the Second World War up until now, scandals in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo prisons, the CIA secret prisons across the EU, the use of nuclear bombs in Japan and the failures of the USA in Afghanistan, Iraq,  etc.

- The Western world order has failed and collapsed in different terms.

- As such, Iran should empower itself in different terms; should use all its capacities and leverages in domestic and abroad; be prepared and should play an important role in the creation (i emphasize on this point) of new world order.

In sum: This is the fact that the Iranian Regime enjoys the current policy of the USA and its allies in Iraq, due to the fact that this policy will end up to the previous status quo; when the whole Iraq was under the command and control of Iran. But publishing such a news without any reliable reference by BBC Persian at the moment that USA and UK are trying to build a core coalition without Iran and Syria against IS during the current NATO Summit; at the moment that Iran's nuclear negotiation has reached another deadlock after a couple of months discussions; at the moment that Ayatollah Khamenei clearly reveals his hostility against the West in his speech Yesterday, raises some serious questions as follows. What is the main goal of BBC Persian by publishing such a doubtful and more likely false report? Is BBC Persian worried that by the formation of the U.S. coalition without Iran and Syria, the Islamic Regime would lose its influence in Iraq and consequently in Syria? Or BBC Persian is worried about the false reputation that it has made for Rouhani?

Here below is the link of Khamenei's speech in that meeting.


M. Sirani                                05.09.2014