Thursday, January 30, 2014

A Brief Consideration With Regard to Geneva II Syrian Peace Conference.

As it appears after one week full discussion, Geneva II peace conference has not been able to reach a substantial result by any means with regard to the current conflict in Syria. The only positive outcome of this conference up until this moment is that the both sides have agreed to seat around one table and talk to each other directly and sometimes indirectly through the UN special envoy Mr. Lakhdar Brahimi. Or the both sides have agreed with one minute silence for all the victims of the Syrian civil war in the beginning of the meeting, which took place today. These simple events might be defined as the ice breaks in Syrian talks by some top officials. But considering the large-scale negative consequences of this conflict in different terms, these achievements are, honestly, nothing to be proud of.

Considering the death tool of 130,000 people, 6.5 million internally displaced people and 2.5 million Syrian refugees, as the horrific results of this conflict so far, the Geneva II peace conference continues without any tangible, achievable and substantial result, while: the Syrian forces are continuing to killing the innocent people across the country with full cruelty; a group of internationally renowned war crimes prosecutors has recently published a report, which indicates that thousands of detainees have been tortured and murdered in Syrian government custody; the recently published satellite images show that many neighborhoods in Damascus and Hama have been totally wiped off the map by the Syrian forces; the Syrian regime has intentionally or unintentionally shipped out only less than 5 percent of its total chemical weapons arsenal, so far; and finally, Syria has become the safest haven for all Jihadist and terrorist groups around the world.

All details mentioned above indicate the fact that we are facing one of the worst horrific humanitarian crises of our time. This means, simply, that we might not be able to solve this conflict once and fundamentally at this stage, due to the different reasons, which are out of the scope of this short note (Those, who are interested on this matter, can read my essay titled: An assessment about the current Syrian civil war). But, we might at least be able to prevent the further destruction and escalation of this conflict in different terms by performing an urgent plan until the moment that the international community would be able to find a diplomatic and sustainable solution for this conflict. The plan is the deployment of the UN Peacekeeping forces into Syria at this stage.    

This plan should not be identified or understood as a Humanitarian Intervention in the sense that we had observed in Libya under Gaddafi regime in 2011. The main tasks of the UN Peacekeeping forces in Syria would briefly be:
1- Performing, preserving and controlling the peace process between the Syrian regime and the oppositions.
2- Facilitating, controlling and observing the process of Syrian chemical weapons disarmament.
3- Defeating and combating different Jihadist and terrorist groups inside Syria.
4- Preventing and controlling the process of transferring of arms and weapons into Syria.

These tasks should be agreeable for almost all the internal and external actors involved in this conflict. Because all of them have been apparently, repeatedly and openly accusing the opposite side on these issues. For example, the Syrian, Iranian and Russian regimes claim that: there is a serious threat that the Jihadists would seize the power in Syria after Bashar Asad; other countries in the Middle East are giving money and weapons to the terrorists inside Syria; the Syrian regime cannot ship out its chemical weapons arsenal on time, due to the sabotages of the Syrian opposition; and these are the Syrian people, who should make a decision about Syria.  

On the other side, the Syrian oppositions and their supporters (The West and Arab countries) claim:
They don't support the Jihadist and terrorist groups by all means; they don't have any connection at all with the terrorist groups inside Syria; they don't sabotage the chemical weapons disarmament process in Syria; and the future of Syria is something, which should be made by the Syrian people themselves.    

As briefly illustrated above, the main goals of this plan should not have any incompatibility with the claims of almost all the external and internal actors of this conflict. This plan, however, might raise three important questions as follows. 1- Who would pay the cost of this massive operation? 2- Would Russia and China agree to adapt a resolution regarding this issue within the United Nation Security Council? And 3- What would be the possible reaction of the Syrian Regime (or ability of the Syrian Regime in both negative and positive ways in response to this plan) on this issue?

1- The Cost of this operation:   
Undoubtedly, the cost of this operation is high particularly at this moment that we are experiencing a global economic downturn. However, this does not mean that we should ignore what is happening to millions of Syrian people inside the country and those millions Syrian refugees, who have fled Syria. We should bear in mind that the UN has begun to collect 6 billion dollars in order to meet the current basic needs of the Syrian people, while the Syrian conflict is still continuing. In other words, the UN is collecting the money, while the process of destruction of the country along with the new waves of the Syrian refugees and internally displacing the people is continuing inside Syria. To put it simply, this amount of money (if the UN managed to collect) will not meet the needs of the Syrian people in the future based on the large-scale impacts of this conflict in different terms. Thus, it would be beneficial for the UN to use this amount of money or part of that for implementation of a temporary truce in Syria. By doing this, the UN would be able to achieve a type of Damage Control with regard to further destruction and escalation of this conflict in different terms. 

2- Would Russia and China agree with this plan?
Russia and China have repeatedly vetoed any resolution against the Syrian regime within the Security Council. However, as it appears, both Russia and China have been agreed with the details of Geneva I Peace Conference; the so-called Geneva Communique, which tries to establish a transitional government body with full executive powers consisted of both members of the present Syrian government and the opposition. In this respect, Russia and China should not be disagree with this plan, because this plan would not perform a Coup d'Etat  against Asad's regime, as its details have been briefly mentioned above.

3- Would the Syrian regime agree with this plan?
Personally, I believe neither the Syrian regime nor the Iranian regime would agree with this plan, based on many reasons such as the violation of sovereignty of Syria, the fear that the Syrian regime would collapse following the implementation of this plan, the fear of the Iranian regime that would lose its geopolitical territory following this plan, the overall presence of members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Hezbollah in Syria, etc. Do the Syrian and Iranian Regime have the power and ability to stop such a resolution within the Security Council? No.

In sum: I believe performing and implementing this plan might be plausible and achievable at this critical stage, due to the fact that both Russia and China have agreed with Geneva I Communique and the notion that this plan would not remove Bashar Asad from the power. However, by implementing and following this plan, we would at least be able to:
- establish a temporary peace in Syria
- provide the basic helps and assistances to those, who need 
- prevent the further destruction and escalation of this conflict
- combat the large numbers of Jihadists inside Syria
- create a better environment for the further peace talks between the Syrian regime and the opposition
- ease the overall tension in Syria and different parts of the Middle East.

M. Sirani                             30.01.2014  

Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Syria Has So Far Shipped Out Only Less than 5% of Its Chemical Weapons Arsenal.

As Reuter news agency claims, the Syrian authority has so far given up less than 5 percent of its chemical weapons arsenal.

Briefly: The international community should wisely and closely observe the process of chemical disarmament of Syria and the implementation of the recent Geneva interim nuclear deal with Iran, parallel to each other. There is some type of correlation between these two projects in terms of tempo and implementation. I hope I'm wrong in this matter, but it seems both the Syrian and Iranian Regime would like to finish these two separate projects parallel to each other in the same period of time.

We should not let ourselves be fooled by either the Syrian authority or the Iranian Regime.

M. Sirani                        29.01.2014


Reuters (2014). Exclusive: Syria ships out less than 5 percent of chemical arms.  URL Accessed on: 29.01.2014.

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

Iran Will Never Dismantle Anything in its nuclear Program, As Iran's Deputy FM Claims.

Speaking to reporters in Tehran today, Iran's top diplomat Seyed Abbas Araqchi asserted once again that: "Iran will never dismantle anything in its nuclear program".

Furthermore, Araqchi accused the US for its biased interpretation of the Geneva interim deal and stated:

"If you find a single, a single word, that even closely resembles dismantling or could be defined as dismantling in the entire text, then I would take back my comment".

This is not the first time that an Iranian top official expresses such a statement about the Geneva interim nuclear deal. Hassan Rouhani, the current president and Javad Zarif Iran's current Foreign Minister have also claimed the same statement in different occasions in the last couple of days at home and abroad.

Such similar statements expressed by Iranian top officials in the beginning of the implementation of Geneva interim deal should neither be ignored nor underestimated at this stage. This statement, however, indicates the fact that the Geneva interim deal has been built on an unstable and shaky foundation. This misunderstanding or as the Iranian officials call it "misinterpretation" would cause extra problems particularly in two economic and security arenas in the future. 

In economic arena, many multinational corporations and investors have begun to rush toward Iran in hope for new beneficial deals with the Iranian Regime following this unstable and shaky nuclear agreement. We should not forget that some of these economic deals need long term investments, for example, when it comes to oil and gas sectors. What would happen to these investors and consequently the international global economy, when the Geneva interim deal would face a deadlock in the future, based on the misinterpretation mentioned above? Would the contemporary weak global economy tolerate another shock following the reversal of economic sanctions on Iran in the next couple of months?

When it comes to the security issue, the shaky Geneva interim deal might cause two major problems at the regional and consequently at the global level. 1- It might force Saudi Arabia to acquire nuclear weapon (e.g. Via Pakistan) as soon as possible in order to be able to compete with Iran. 2- This unstable nuclear deal might also force Israel to unilaterally find a solution for Iran's ambitious nuclear activity. As it clears, both of these possibilities would threaten the security and stability of not only the Middle East but also the entire world from different angles. Thus, it would be wise to urgently deal with this issue in an appropriate and comprehensive manner and do not "sweep it under the carpet".

M. Sirani                                28.01.2014

Tasnim (2014). Deputy FM: Iran to Dismantle Nothing in Nuclear Program. URL Accessed on: 28.01.2014.

Monday, January 27, 2014

Israel Bombed North of Syria Today.

As ISNA, one of Iran's news agencies claims, the Israeli warplanes have bombed "Al sheikh- Al Zaher" area, somewhere in the north of Syria,  today.

M. Sirani                                27.01.2014

Alireza Zarrab Suspected of Transferring $1.5 Million for Assassination of Saudi Diplomat in the US.

The Turkish newspaper "TODAYS ZAMAN" has published an article about the Iranian businessman Alireza Zarrab, who has been arrested following the recent financial scandal in Turkey. The article explores different parts of a report, which has been made by the Turkish National Intelligence Organization (MIT) in this matter. According to this report, MIT claims that Alireza Zarrab is the one, who has transferred money to Manssor Arabsiar some three years ago for assassination of Saudi Diplomat in the US.

The article, furthermore, criticizes Receb Erdogan by posing some important questions as follows. Is Alireza Zarrab a membr of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or Iran's Quds Force? Has Receb Erdogan discussed this important issue with the US authority or not?

It would be interesting to know that Saudi Arabia has received any information on this matter or not?

M. Sirani                           27.01.2014


TODAYS ZAMAN (2014). Zarrab suspected of sending $1.5 million for assassination of Saudi envoy. URL Accessed on: 27.01.2014.

Sunday, January 26, 2014

Warning: The Possibility of A Bloodbath at Homs.

It seems, the Syrian delegation at peace talks in Geneva, has agreed to let women and children to immediately leave the city of Homs. This is a positive achievement, if only it will be followed by implementation of at least an immediate and temporary ceasefire at Homs. Because leaving the women and children from this area will give Asad's security forces unlimited free hand to do what ever they want to do with the Syrian opposition hidden at Homs. Thus, the UN envoys at Geneva II peace conference should immediately focus on this issue. Otherwise, we will witness a horrific bloodbath at Homs in the near future. Whatever it takes, we should prevent the possible occurrence of a such horrific event at Homs.

M. Sirani                           26.01.2014

Saturday, January 25, 2014

Should We be Happy About Geneva II Peace Conference?

After three years horrific and brutal civil war, which so far,

- has resulted in the deaths of more than 130,000 people
- has internally displaced more than 6.5 million people
- has created the world's worst humanitarian crisis with more than 2.5 million refugees
- has caused the total destruction of key infrastructure in Syria
- has turned Syria into the safest haven for all jihadist and terrorist groups around the world
- has caused enormous instability in different parts of the Middle East , etc.

Should we be happy now that the Syrian delegation and the opposition have seated around one table somewhere in Geneva and talk to each other directly or sometimes indirectly through Mr. L. Brahimi? Should we be happy and call it a successful event, because we have managed to gather these two opposite groups in a meeting after three disastrous years?

Or should we honestly admit that:
- The UN has absolutely failed to find a peaceful, diplomatic and fundamental solution for this conflict.

- The Security Council has totally failed to deal with this conflict in an appropriate and professional manner.

- There are fundamental weaknesses within the structure of the UN and its most important entities "The Security Council".

- The UN and all its entities need fundamental reforms.

In sum, we should accept the fact that the Cold War era is over and we have entered in another new era. Although, at the present we are apparently experiencing the same problems that we had observed during the Cold War period, but difference examples confirm the fact that most of these previously made international entities cannot deal with contemporary problems properly. In this respect, the nonchalant and reluctant reaction of the UN and the Security Council in response to the Syrian civil war is a crystal clear example. Therefore, we need to establish a set of new international institutions, which would be able to deal with contemporary problems in a new, effective, fundamental and sustainable way.  

M. Sirani                            25.01.2014

What Will be the Final Outcomes of Geneva Interim Nuclear Deal with Iran?

In recent interviews with CNN news agency, both Hassan Rouhani and Javad Zarif have emphasized on some important issues, which should neither be ignored nor underestimated. These issues are briefly as follows.

Hassan Rouhani: "Iran would never destroy any of its existing centrifuges under any circumstance".

Javad Zarif: "The White House version both underplays the concessions and overplays Iranian commitments".

Moreover, Zarif repeats Rouhani's statement and claims: "Iran will not be dismantling its centrifuges".

Hassan Rouhani: The important part is Rouhani's arguments about the Arak Heavy Water Nuclear Plant. Regarding this nuclear plant, Rouhani claims that: Iran needs the Heavy Water Reactor for medical purposes. Moreover, Rouhani describes the importance of the Arak Plant and states:

"We are standing on our own two feet. Iranian scientists have designed this. We have constructed it. It's nearly finished. So when it comes to medical concerns, we cannot accept limitations".

Based on brief information noted above, what will be the outcomes of Geneva interim deal with Iran?

M. Sirani                          25.01.2014


CNN (2014). Hassan Rouhani: Sanctions against Iran are illegal. URL< Accessed on: 25.01.2014.

Friday, January 24, 2014

The Muslim Brotherhood is Waking up From its Hibernation in Egypt.

The series of explosions, which hit Egypt today, portray the exact nature of the Muslim Brotherhood organization. These horrific acts confirm the fact once again that we cannot trust an Islamic organization just because of some fancy word and set of suit and tie that its members say and wear. Some might claim the aggressive behavior of the Egyptian Military Regime, has ultimately forced the Muslim Brotherhood to react violently, in order to recapture the power and their rights in the country.

I do not want to defend the aggressive behavior of the Egyptian army through this note. But I can say that this is a one-dimensional claim, if we put all the blames on the shoulders of the Egyptian Army. We should not forget that this was the Muslim Brotherhood that wanted to forcefully impose Sharia Law in Egypt, when they took the power in Egypt. Moreover, we cannot deny the fact that the implementation of the Sharia Law is equivalent to the severe violation of basic human rights.

Thus, at this critical moment, instead of blaming the Egyptian Military Regime for this mess, the international community should act and focus on three major issues in Egypt as follows. 1- It should fully support the current Egyptian Regime on its proportional war (legally binding) against the Islamic jihadist and terrorist in the country. 2- It should have a comprehensive and constructive dialogue with the Egyptian Regime in order to lead the Egyptian regime toward more democratization and sustainable political pluralism. 3- It should help the Egyptian Regime to implement and perform some long term economic, political, social and cultural development programs in the country. By following these three steps in an appropriate manner, we would be able to overcome the threat of Jihadist and more dangerously instability in Egypt. Otherwise, Egypt would undoubtedly plunge in the devastating civil war, somewhere in the near future.

we should not be genius to understand how devastating a civil war in Egypt would be, when we consider some issues such as: 1- Egypt has borders with Gaza Strip, Israel, Libya, and Sudan (All critical areas)  2- Egypt has one of the most important geopolitical positions with regards to Suez canal and Mediterranean Sea (Important for the EU and some other parts of the world in different terms) 3- Egypt is one of the largest countries in the Middle East and Africa with an area of 1,001,450 square kilometers and finally (Geographically, difficult to control and defeat the Jihadists, if some of them would manage to seize the power in egypt) 4- Egypt has nearly a population of more than 8o million people (Massive unemployed human capital, which easily can be recruited and mobilized by Jihadist and radical groups).

M. Sirani                        24.01.2014

Thursday, January 23, 2014

Warning: It seems the Syrian Electronic Army Has hacked one of the Facebook Accounts of CNN.

As it appears, one of CNN's Facebook accounts has been hacked by Syrian Electronic Army. following this event, I have disliked the CNN account at Facebook. However, It would be wise,  if CNN would quickly response to this event. In terms of security, the followers of this page should know, this Facebook account was a fake or a real one that has been hacked by so-called Syrian Electronic Army.

M. Sirani               24.01.2014

Wednesday, January 22, 2014

How Much 20 Percent Enriched Uranium Does Iran Really Have?

Since yesterday (21.01.2014), Iran has begun suspending some parts of its nuclear activity following the recent Geneva interim agreement with the world powers. The important part of this agreement defines the responsibility of Iran with regards to 20 percent enriched uranium production. According to this agreement, Iran should halt the further production of 20 percent enriched uranium. Moreover, Iran should partly oxidize and partly dilute the total amount of its 20 percent enriched uranium, which, has produced so far, in the next couple of months. As the international media propagate, everything has smoothly and perfectly begun according to Geneva interim deal and it seems finally the world powers have managed to control Iran in this important matter. There is, however, an important issue, that nobody pays appropriate attention to it. This important issue is the exact total amount of 20 percent enriched uranium that so far, Iran has produced.

As I follow the news, it seems the Iranian officials have revealed different announcements about the total amount of 20 percent enriched uranium that so far, Iran has produced. In order to illustrate these different announcements, It would be wise to pay more attention to the statements, which have been revealed by two Iranian's top officials "Mohammad Amiri "and "Ali Akbar Salehi".

According to a news published in Vietnamnet website, Mohammad Amiri, the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) official responsible for the recent interim nuclear agreement claims:

"Iran also started a dilution and oxidation process of its 196 km of 20 percent enriched uranium stockpile" (Vietnamnet, 2014).

Regarding the total amount of Iran's 20 percent enriched uranium, Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, gives another estimate, which is almost double the amount that Mohammad Amiri states.

Regarding this particular issue, QUDSONLINE, one of Iran's official websites, has published an interview with Ali Akbar Salehi. In this article, which has been published almost one month ago, Salehi claims that so far, Iran has produced more than 400 kg 20 percent enriched uranium.
This is not a simple journalistic or speech error, due to the high level of importance of the topic and the high ranking jobs that both Salehi and Amiri have within the structure of the Islamic Regime. As mentioned above, there is a huge difference about the total amount of 20 percent enriched uranium produced by Iran in the statements of these two important Iranian officials; something nearly 200 kg. This issue should raise a serious question for the international community. Has Iran honestly and fairly revealed the necessary information about its nuclear activity? Based on many examples observed throughout the last 35 years, however, it seems not yet. This event reminds me to an old Iranian proverb, which says: "Liar does not have a good memory".

M. Sirani                              21.01.2014

Mohammad Amiri (2014). URL< Accessed on: 21.01.2014.

 Ali Akbar Salehi (2014). URL< >. Accessed on: 21.01.2014. 

Tuesday, January 21, 2014

Geneva II Peace Conference Should/Can Implement a Temporary and Immediate Truce.

One of the main goals of Geneva II peace conference should/can be implementation of a temporary and immediate truce between Asad's forces and the Syrian opposition. This event is achievable, if the UN and the main actors involved in this conference would be able to discuss it in an appropriate and professional manner. Such a truce would be the first and important step towards a diplomatic solution for this conflict.

*There is a clear road map consisted of different steps, which might fundamentally put an end to the Syrian conflict.

M. Sirani                         21.01.2014

Explosion in Beirut (21.01.2014).

A car bomb exploded in Shitte-dominated neighborhood of Beirut today. As the Media reveals, so far, the explosion has resulted in the death of four people and more than twenty others have been injured.

M. Sirani                              21.01.2014

Monday, January 20, 2014

In Addition to Russia and China, There Are other Actors Within the Security Council and the EU, That will Gradually Move in the Favor of Iran.

The recent nuclear deal with Iran has created a false hope among some actors in the international arena. These actors, which some of them are permanent members of the Security Council and the EU will use these opportunity at the current global economic downturn and consequently will sign different beneficial deals with Iran in different arenas. Such beneficial agreements with Iran will undoubtedly influence the types of responses of these countries with regards to the current civil war in Syria. This issue, moreover, will influence the behavior of these countries with regards to Iran's nuclear negotiation somewhere in the future as well. This is one of Iran's useful tactics in defeating its opponent. By performing such a tactic, the Islamic Regime will cause more fragmentation among its opponents and pursue its own goals easily. In this respect, so far, some countries such as Austria, Italia, Germany and England are the best and favorite candidates for Iran.

M. Sirani                             21.01.2014

The UN Prematurely Invited Iran to Attend Geneva II Peace Conference.

As the media reveal, the U.N. Secretory General Ban Ki-Moon has officially invited Iran to attend the coming Geneva II peace conference. This shocking news has caused heated debate and outrage among many politicians around the world particularly among the Syrian opposition. Following this unexpected invitation, the Syrian main political opposition in exile-the National Coalition, which had agreed to participate in this conference just two days ago, has threatened that will boycott the Geneva II conference, if the UN will not withdraw Iran invitation. Regarding this issue, the United States has urged the UN to withdraw Iran invitation, unless Iran would publicly and officially endorse the fundamental mandate of the conference; a mandate, which has been outlined in Geneva I conference and pursue "the establishment of a transitional administration that would govern Syria by “mutual consent” of the government of President Bashar al-Assad and the Syrian opposition" (Nytimes, 2014).

The US reaction in this matter is not a new statement. Since Geneva I conference, the US and some countries such as France and Saudi Arabia have repeatedly stated that Iran can attend the Syrian peace talks, If Iran would only agree with the fundamental mandate outlined in the Geneva communiqué. This unexpected invitation, however, would become more strange, when we see there is huge contradiction between what the Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon claimed yesterday and what the Iranian official stated today.

In a press conference, which took place yesterday, the U.N. Secretary General said that Javad Zarif "Iran's current Foreign Minister" agreed with the mandate of Geneva I conference and he(Javad Zarif) has stated that Iran would play a positive and constructive role in Geneva II conference. Contrary to Mr. Ban's statement is the direct reaction of the Iranian official about this invitation. The Iranian news agency "ISNA" has published an interview with Iran's foreign ministry spokesman "Marzieh Afkham" about this invitation. In this interview, Marzieh Afkham states that:

"We have always rejected any precondition for attending the Geneva II meeting on Syria ... Based on the official invitation that we have received, Iran will attend the Geneva 2 without any preconditions" (Guardian, 2014).

This unexpected invitation raises some important questions as follows. Should we trust Mr. Ban Ki-Moon’s statement in this matter or the statement revealed by Marzieh Afkham, Iran’s foreign ministry spokesman? Moreover, given the fact that Syria plays an important role for Iran in different terms particularly in geopolitics arena and the notion that the members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps, Quds force and Hezbollah alongside Asad’s regime forces are fighting against the Syrian opposition within the country, how would Iran be able to play a positive and constructive role in this peace conference as Mr. Ban Ki-Moon claims? Considering the overall and fully supports that Iran has been offering the Syrian regime, what is the real purpose and intention of Mr. Ban Ki-Moon by this invitation? How would Mr. Ban Ki-Moon and his close advisors perceive and analyze the Syrian civil war that they have dared to officially invite Iran in this peace conference? And many other questions.

In sum & briefly: There might come a moment somewhere in the future that Iran would agree to remove Bashar Asad from Syria. This event is possible; because a person like Bashar Asad himself is not an important issue for the Iranian Regime and its goals in the Middle East. Some other issues more than Bashar Asad are important for the Islamic Regime. These issues are including: Syria itself and the political body, which would govern Syria. Because, Syria is close to Israel; because Iran is able to fully support Hezbollah in Lebanon though Syria; because Iran's Shitte regime does not want to hand over Syria to the Sunni groups supported by Saudi Arabia.  One last question for Mr. Ban Ki-Moon and his honorable advisors: 
Based on this brief information,would it be possible that Iran plays a positive and constructive role in the Syrian peace conference?

One simple suggestion to the Syrian opposition:
I don't want to use conspiracy theory in this note, but as it appears some international actors and figures would try to trade the outcome of the Syrian civil war in return to some economic deals with the Islamic regime and Iran's nuclear activity at the expense of poor Syrian people. In this respect, for example, the complete silence of the UK is questionable. Therefore, it would be wise for the entire Syrian opposition to boycott Geneva II conference, if the UN would not withdraw Iran invitation.   

M. Sirani                                         20.01.2014



Sunday, January 19, 2014

Two Achievable Points in the Coming Geneva II Peace Conference.


Almost all the internal and external actors, who are attending Geneva II peace conference (Except Russia and the Syrian authority) are agree to the point that Bashar Asad should give up the power in Syria. As a neutral observer, I agree with this point too. Simply, due to the fact that during the past three years nearly 130,000 innocent Syrian people have lost their lives in this conflict and Bashar Asad is one of those main responsible person in this inhuman matter. Thus, based on basic moral, ethical and justice principles, we can say that Bashar Asad should hand over the power to the Syrian people or at least to a neutral third party as soon as possible. This is a request that I wish. I'm pretty sure that most of the people around the world including most of those, who are attending Geneva II conference think the same as me in this issue.

At this juncture, we should ask ourselves some questions as follows. Do we (by we, I mean those who want Asad leaves the power) have extraordinary upper hand in the Syrian civil war at this stage? Do we have enough power (in different terms) to push Asad and his close affiliates from Syria? Do we achieve any positive outcome in this conference by some request such as "Asad should go"? Finally, Is this request achievable in the coming Geneva conference particularly at this stage?

As I follow the development in Syria, I believe the answer to all these questions is negative. However, one might say the point that Asad should give up the power is not a new demand. This is something that almost all the actors have agreed in Geneva first conference. In other words, this is an unchangeable demand.

I fully aware of this point and agree with it. However, we should bear in mind that sometimes there are huge distances between our wishes and our achievable goals. So is the case of current Geneva II conference. To put it simply, we should consider some important issues at this stage. These issues are including: the high level of importance and sensitivity of this conference in terms of gathering different internal and external actors to attend, ongoing damages in different terms inside Syria, overall negative consequences of this conflict either in and out of Syria, and importantly the presence of different Jihadist groups inside Syria. Moreover, we should accept the fact that the situation in Syria has become more complex than it was before due to the different reasons, which are out of the scope of this note. Furthermore, we should measure and analyze our influential power and ability (in different terms) in this conflict. Based on these considerations, then, we should design our demand and request in the coming Geneva II conference; some type of demand and request, which might easily be achievable and would be profitable for most of the actors involved in this conflict. Otherwise, we will lose this small opportunity at this critical stage.

Based on all noted above, I believe two important points are achievable and at the same time profitable for most of the internal and external actors involved in the Syrian conflict. These two points are including: 1- implementing a temporary truce, and 2- defeating and dismantling those Jihadist groups inside Syria. An agreement about these two points would ease the tension between both sides of this conflict. Such an event, consequently, would facilitate a cooperative environment between those actors, who are involved in this conflict. If we would be able to make such a deal in the coming Geneva II conference, we might be able to find a fundamental, sustainable and diplomatic solution for this conflict in the next following steps.

*International relations is like a chess game. Sometimes, we can checkmate our opponent with three or four sudden moves; sometimes, we cannot. In such a circumstance, we should play some additional moves smartly and smoothly. Some moves, which would facilitate the way for us towards our final goal indirectly; in the sense that finally, we would be able to checkmate our opponent.   

M. Sirani                            20.01.2014  

Bashar Asad's Latest Statement.

The United Nations and the Western countries are hoping that the coming Geneva II peace conference would pave the way towards a political transition in Syria. Different evidences, however, show that not all the internal and external actors involved in this conflict, have the same expectation and perception in this matter. Among these, Bashar Asad's recent statement could be mentioned. Last night, the Syrian State TV aired the latest Bashar Asad's statement with regards to Geneva II Peace Conference. In this TV program, Asad was quoted as telling that:

"if we wanted to give up, we would have done so at the very beginning. We are on guard for our country. This issue is not up for discussion"(Dailystar, 2014).

Another example is the Islamic Regime's statement in this matter. Iran has repeatedly claimed that it will not attend the peace conference with precondition, which defines that Asad should leave the power in Syria. From this, we can assume that Iran's puppet "Hezbollah" would reject this precondition and consequently the coming peace conference as well. Given the fact that the Syrian authority, Iran and Hezbollah are the key actors in this conflict and these actors are strongly rejecting the precondition imposed by the West, what would be the possible outcome of Geneva II peace conference?

This brief information shows that there is zero-sum game condition between the key actors involved in this conflict. As such, we cannot have high expectation from Geneva II conference. This, however, does not mean the end of the world. We can attend the peace conference and achieve some positive common goals, which would are beneficial to some degree for at least most of the actors that are involved in this conflict. One of these goals would be implementation of a temporarily truce as a first step (later sustainable) between Asad's Regime and the Syrian opposition in the country. If we manage to make a reliable deal in this matter, we would be able to reach the further positive goal in this conflict. This goal would be defeating and dismantling the Jihadist groups in the country by the common help and assistance of Asad's Regime and the Syrian opposition. Should this happen, we would be able to move further and progressively with regards to finding a fundamental solution for the Syrian conflict step by step. Because the situation in Syria has become more complicated. In such a complex environment at this stage, we cannot suddenly jump into the final goal in this conference as the Secretary of State John Kerry wishes. Once again, I repeat my statement: without implementing these two main and primary tasks, we reach nothing with regards to the Syrian conflict.

M. Sirani                                 19.01.2014


Saturday, January 18, 2014

Iran's Two Wininng Cards: 1- The Syrian Civil War, and 2- The Nuclear Activity.

Following the latest chemical attack in Syria, we could change the course of the Syrian civil war by showing a quick and appropriate response to Asad's Regime (Not militarily). If we could do that, we would have been able to paralyze both the Iranian and Syrian Regimes to some degree with regards to this civil war, as I proposed in my short note titled "A plan that might save the world from an additional disaster".  If we managed to do that, we would have been able to use this opportunity as a powerful tool and put extra pressure not only on Asad's Regime, but also on Iran with regards to its ambitious nuclear activity. Unfortunately, we didn't do that or I might say: Nobody did pay attention to my proposal in this matter. Contrary to all of us, Iran and Russia used that horrific chemical attack and proposed their own proposal. As such, Russia and Iran took the upper hand with regards to the Syrian civil war. This issue, in return, has contributed Iran extra opportunity with regards to its nuclear negotiation with the West and other conflictual issues in the Middle East. To put it simply, at the present, Iran has two powerful winning cards on its hands: 1- the Syrian civil war and 2- its nuclear activity. By using these two important issues, Iran has completely paralyzed the international community. When it comes to losing the sight in Syria, Iran uses its nuclear activity card and vice versa.

The recent Geneva interim nuclear agreement, however, has created a false hope among the Western politicians in the sense that they think they might also be able to solve the Syrian civil war cooperatively with help of the Iranian Regime somewhere in the future. The future events, however, will show that Iran would neither limit its nuclear weapon program nor would give up its powerful position within Syria. Iran's nuclear program has likely passed the redline, but we might be able to minimize or to some extent prevent the further escalation and negative consequences of the Syrian civil war.

In order to achieve this, we should implement three basic tasks.The first and important task that the international community can/should do, is the implementation of a temporarily (and later sustainable) truce between different actors within Syria (as I have proposed it in my previous notes too).The second task can/should be dismantling and defeating the Jihadists in the whole country.

While this process continues, the Syrian oppositions should focus on their organization structures as the third important task. This is a fact that the Syrian oppositions consisted of nearly 100 different groups would not be able to govern the country after Bashar Asad in an appropriate, democratic and stable manner. It should be mentioned that I'm totally agree with political pluralism. But we should bear in mind that we cannot copy the type of political pluralism, which we have in the West, and use it in Syria at this stage based on many reasons. If we think and act in this way, Syria after Bashar Asad would become a country like current Libya, Iraq or Afghanistan. In other words, we would change the political system in Syria from a modern dictatorship (Asadsim) to a more traditional dictatorship (tribalism). This means simply a disastrous backward shift in the Syrian political system. Therefore, my suggestion to those how are responsible for capacity-building or I might say: Nation-Building, is: reorganizing and reconstruction of the Syrian oppositions in a fundamental and appropriate manner. Otherwise, we will create another failure state or another fiasco in the Middle East. As I follow the news I see a positive sign. The positive sign is that West doesn't want to totally destruct the structure of power in different terms in Syria; something like that West has done in Iraq or Afghanistan. This is a good sign but is not enough. The Syrian oppositions need also a fundamental reconstruction and reorganization.

In sum, by implementing these three tasks alone, we cannot solve the Syrian conflict in a comprehensive and fundamental manner. But without performing these three basic tasks, we would not be able to take a single progressive step with regards to the Syrian civil war.  

M. Sirani                              19.01.2014

Friday, January 17, 2014

Special Welcome and Congratulation to the Iranian Regime.

1- Welcome Note:
Based on the lack of many important issues including: 1- stopping or controlling the Nuclear Scientific Research Center, 2- Preventing Development and implementation of high-performance Nuclear Centrifuges, 3- Permission to unexpected and unannounced visit of the nuclear facilities, and 4- Trustworthiness and integrity of the politicians of the Islamic Regime within recent Geneva Interim Nuclear Agreement, we should officially welcome Iran into the nuclear-armed countries club. The international community would understand what I'm talking about based on the occurrence of two major events including: 1- when the Iranian Regime would sign massive beneficial economic deals with different Western companies and 2- When the Chinese Yuan would enter in the global market as a powerful international currency.    

2- Congratulation Note:
The Islamic Regime and Syrian authority have used "the Terrorism Discourse" with regards to the Syrian civil war. As such, these Regimes have successfully changed the perception of most of the politicians particularly in the West about the nature and outcome of the Syrian civil war in the sense that some of the Western countries intelligence services are trying to have close contact with the Syrian regime in order to get some information about their citizens, who are fighting inside Syria. In this respect, we should congratulate the Iranian Regime for its Decisive Diplomacy in this matter.

This particular issue should raise some serious questions for the international community. How the hell is possible that the combination of Asad's army, Hezbollah and Iran's Quds forces are able to defeat the Syrian opposition army (backed by the most powerful and rich countries) consisted of tens of thousands of members in different parts of the country, but they cannot defeat 11,000 army of Jihadists in Syria? Wouldn't be possible that Iran and Syria intentionally and temporarily retreat from some area in the favor of the Jihadists in order to dramatize and stigmatize the threat of the Jihadists in this civil war more than what it really is?

M. Sirani                        17.01.2014

Friday, January 10, 2014

Iran's Marginal Role in Syria Peace Conference in Geneva = Rouhani's Attendance in Davos Conference.

As Mr. John Kerry the current United States Secretary of State proposed couple of days ago, Iran is playing a marginal role in the coming Syrian peace conference in Geneva. Hassan Rouhani is attending the Davos conference as the Iranian media reveal. We can assume that these two conferences will be held accidentally and simultaneously in the same days. Anyway, one might identify the event a happy honeymoon in the US and Iran relations. In response to this, I can say: sweet dream. Iran never gives up neither its ambitious nuclear activity nor its support for Bashar Asad's Regime. What we are observing in the nuclear negotiation right now, is a temporarily slow down and nothing more. The future events will confirm my statement in these matters.

M. Sirani                                10.01.2104

Jack Straw: The Wrong Steps of the West Will Undermine the Position of Rouhani's Government in Iran.

In an interview with BBC Persian, Mr. Jack Straw claims that the wrong steps of the West will undermine the power of Rouhani's government. This, in turn, will empower the conservative groups within the political system in Iran, as Mr. Straw states. Jack Straw's statement is questionable from different angles.

Iran's current president "Hassan Rouhani" has been and still is the special representative of the Supreme Leader Khamenei himself within two important and vital entities of  the Islamic regime i.e. The Expediency Discernment Council and The Supreme National Security Council since many years ago. This, simply, means that the Supreme Leader Khamenei has the highest level of trust and believe to Hassan Rouhani. From this, we can also deduce that Hassan Rouhani has clearly shown his loyalty, obedience and confidentiality to the Supreme Leader Khamenei to a large extent. Otherwise, the Supreme Leader Khamenei has not appointed Rouhani as his highly special representative in these two important entities within the Islamic Regime.

Another issue to mention is with regards to the presidential position of Hassan Rouhani within the Islamic Regime. Although, the Iranian people choose their president through a national referendum, president of Iran including the current one is a direct puppet of the Supreme Leader Khamenei based on many facts (Those, who doubt about this particular statement, can read my essay titled "The structure of power in the Islamic Republic of Iran" in this weblog).  

Based on this brief information, what can we deduce from Jack Straw's statement mentioned above? Should we obey the orders of Khamenei's special representative i.e. President Hassan Rouhani? Shouldn't we undermine the power of Khamenei's special representative Hassan Rouhani? From what we should all be scared, when all the power leverages within the Islamic Regime including the presidential position is under the fully surveillance and control of Khamenei and his close allies such as Hassan Rouhani himself? From what or who should we all be scared when Hassan Rouhani himself is the special representative of Khamenei? And Finally, Should we trust and support the special representative of Khamenei i.e. "Hassan Rouhani"?

In sum, I suggest Mr. Jack Straw and those, who think like him, would pay attention to the special structure of power within the Islamic Regime. Otherwise, there is high probability that he and those, who think like him would follow the path of  Neville Chamberlain and execute another Munich Agreement.

Scaring a baby intentionally from an artificial monster in order to achieve a certain goal; this is the tactic that the Islamic Regime has been successfully using against its domestic as well as foreign enemies. Regarding this issue, I should remind you to the presidency of Rafsanjani, Khatami, and currently Hassan Rouhani.

M. Sirani                                    10.01.2014

Thursday, January 9, 2014

Attack on the Syrian Chemical Sites Near Homs and Damascus.

The Syrian authority claims that the rebels has attacked on two chemical storage sites near the cities of Homs and Damascus. Whether this is a true accusation or a fabricated story, the international community should not ignore it. Because there might be some type of correlation between the recent victory of the Syrian opposition and this unexpected news released by the Syrian authority. However, regarding the removal of Syrian chemical stockpiles, I have noted some considerations in one of my previous short notes. Those, who are interested, can read the article titled: Delaying in the Syrian Chemical Weapons Removal; A True or False Argument?

M. Sirani                          09.01.2014

Wednesday, January 8, 2014

Instead of Blaming Dennis Rodman, Blame the Politicians, Leaders and Monarchs in Your own Countries.

Before I begin with this short note, two important issues should be mentioned. Firstly, i completely reject the current political system in North Korea based on many reasons, which is out of the scope of this short note. Secondly, as an individual, even if I get an opportunity, I will not accept any invitation from a high ranking politicians from some undemocratic country like North Korea, based on many reasons including my moral and ethical principles. This simply means, I don't defend the act of Dennis Rodman as an individual in this matter by this short note. My intention, however, in this short note is about the reaction of mainstream media, which are running massive propaganda against Dennis Rodman with regards to his trips to North Korea.

Regarding this issue two main reactions have been demonstrated by media personnel and individuals. The first reaction claims that Dennis Rodman is the US secret agent, who would try to perform a so-called "Basketball Diplomacy" with regards to North Korea and the US relations; a plan equivalent to "Ping-Pong Diplomacy" between the US and China in 1970s. If this claim is true, we cannot blame Dennis Rodman. Simply, because Rodman is an agent and he follows the exact order of the US authority, whether this order is playing a basketball game or singing the "happy birthday song" to the North Korean leader. In this respect, if we would like to blame anyone, we should blame the US authority, which has designed such a plan and not Dennis Rodman.

The second reaction blames Dennis Rodman for his close relationship with the leader of North Korea based on many reasons. Among these reasons, the severe violation of human rights, monolithic political system, developing nuclear weapon by North Korea and consequently causing a serious threat to some other countries in South East Asia could be mentioned. If this is the case, why media don't criticize almost all the leaders, politicians and monarchs in the Western countries because of their close relationships with all the dictators around the world? For example, Why the Media didn't criticize Prime Minister David Cameroon, when he visited China? Is the human rights situation in China better than North Korea? Doesn't China cause instability in South East Asia? Why the media didn't criticize the Queen Elisabeth of England, when she visited Saudi Arabia, where the state behead prisoners? Why media don't criticize Jack Straw for his current trip to Iran, where the Islamic Regime has executed more than 100,000 innocent people so far? Doesn't Iran cause instability in the whole Middle East?

These are just some examples, which can also be extended to almost all the leaders and monarchs in the Western countries. This type of behavior, however, is not a new pattern. If we review the history up until this moment, we see that almost all the leaders, politicians and monarchs in the Western countries have been supporting different dictators around the world to some degree. In this respect, the media and those individuals, who criticize Dennis Rodman should honestly answer to the following questions.
Should we expect more responsibility from our leaders, politicians, and monarchs or should we expect more responsibility from an individual basketball player like Dennis Rodman? Should we expect that our leaders and monarchs follow the basic moral and ethical principles or should we expect that someone like Dennis Rodman as an individual follows these humanitarian principles? Which one is the most important issue for us, the act of our leaders and monarchs or the behavior of an individual like Dennis Rodman?

In addition, we should consider some issues as follows. Firstly, Dennis Rodman is not a politician (as far as I know). Secondly, as far as I know, Dennis Rodman has never said that he wants to save the world, as most of the politicians, leaders and monarchs in all the Western countries always claim.  Thus, instead of blaming Dennis Rodman and wasting the precious time, it would be wise to blame and criticize those leaders, politicians and monarchs in our own countries, who because of economic and geopolitical interests are supporting every undemocratic political system around the world. Should this happen, we might be able to change the world for good.

M. Sirani                                                 09.01.2014

A Historic Opportunity For Turkish People.

The recent massive corruption scandal in Turkey can be used as a golden opportunity to change the Islamic course of the country towards a real democratic and secular Turkey. In this respect, all secular political parties, intelligentsia, labor and student unions should put aside their political and ideological differences at least temporarily and establish a national front in Turkey. The national front should try to seize the political power at this critical moment and leads the country towards real economic, political, social and cultural developments for all the Turkish people. Should this happen, the Turkish people will receive more help and support from the international community in different terms. This is one of those historical moments that Turkey can move away from the Islamization era imposed by its current political system.

M. Sirani                         08.01.2014

Monday, January 6, 2014

Delaying in the Syrian Chemical Weapons Removal; A True or False Argument?

All Syrian chemical weapons should have been shipped out of Syria up until December 31, 2013. This important event has not been done in the appointed deadline due to some reasons including: poor weather, logistical delay and the ongoing civil war in the country as the Syrian authorities claim. This unexpected event raises some important questions as follows.

1- Are these issues the main and true reasons behind the delay of chemical weapons removal from Syria?


2-  Would the Syrian Regime want to play a game in this matter in order to get a upper hand or advantage with regard to the next Geneva conference?

3- Would the Iranian and Syrian Regimes want to transfer some of these chemical weapons to Lebanon and Hezbollah?

4- Would the Iranian Regime try to use this event and get an advantage of it, in order to achieve a better position with regards to its nuclear negotiation with the West?

5- Is there any correlation between this delay and increasing numbers of sectarian violence in Lebanon and Iraq?

6- Does anyone, any authority or any organization have any control or surveillance in this important matter?

7- Finally, does anyone trust the Iranian and Syrian Regimes in this important matter?

M. Sirani                             06.01.2014

The Whole Middle East and Africa Need New Program.

What we are experiencing nowadays in the Middle East and North Africa are the results and backlashes of two failed plans of 1- Green Belt plan during the Cold War era and 2- The Broader Middle East and North Africa Initiative. The current chaos, tension and upheaval in different parts of the Middle East and North Africa clearly show that those plans have deteriorated the normal process of positive development in different arenas in these two highly strategic and rich areas. The negative consequences of chaotic environment in these areas would affect other parts of the world in different terms. We need a new plan before it's too late.
Regarding the failure of these two plans including the so-called Green Movement in Iran, I have written an essay in Persian language two years ago. This essay has been published in different Persian websites. Those, who are interested to read this essay can visit the following link.

Sirani, M. (Jan, 2012). What is to be done? URL<>. Accessed on: 06.01.2013

M. Sirani                                       06.01.2014

Sunday, January 5, 2014

Supporting the Islamic Fundamentalist Groups in the Middle East is Equivalent to Digging Your Grave With Your Own Hands.

Those politicians or policy-makers in the Middle East are in the totally wrong direction, if they think they would be able to diminish the influence and power of the Iranian Regime by supporting the Islamic fundamentalist groups. By this type of tactic, they would provide extra credit for the Iranian Regime in the international arena. Moreover, they would create some monstrous group, which would undoubtedly threaten their states somewhere in the future. Those politicians or policy-makers, who act in this way, should pay attention to this fact that in the mindset of all Islamic fundamentalist groups, almost all the leaders in the Middle East are the puppets of the Western states.  But they don't reveal this issue at the present, because they need money and overall support.

Those politicians in the Middle East should be smart and use their financial aid and support in a better and more appropriate way. There are better ways to defeat the Islamic Regime much more than supporting the fundamentalist groups. Don't dig your grave with your own hands.

M. Sirani                                   05.01.2104  

AMIA Bombing Report Accuses the Leaders of the Islamic Regime including President Rouhani for the Plot.

Briefly: The report clearly illustrates how the Iranian Regime uses the diplomatic shield of its embassies for performing the terrorist activity abroad. Such terrorist activities would also be made within the Supreme National Security Council entity. Some might claim that Hassan Rouhani was absent in the day that meeting with regards to AMIA bombing took place in the Supreme National Security Council entity. As such, Hassan Rouhani is innocent. I strongly refute this claim due to the fact that Iran's current president "Hassan Rouhani" has been and is one of the highest ranking members of this entity. Therefore, whether Rouhani attended this particular meeting or not, he was fully aware of the plot. This is a fact that no one can deny it. 







AMIA Bombing Report (2013).
URL<>. Accessed on 05.01.2014.

M. Sirani                           05.01.2014

Friday, January 3, 2014

A Wrong Idea, at the Wrong Time, at the Wrong Place (Lebanon).

Briefly: I really hope none of policy-decision makers in the EU and the Middle East think about the idea to perform a military coup in Lebanon somewhere in the near future. Any attempt in this regard would end up to a complete fiasco as far as I know particularly at the present time, based on many reasons. I really hope my prediction in this matter does not come true.

M. Sirani                             03.01.2014

Thursday, January 2, 2014

A Huge Explosion Has Hit the Political Office of Hezbollah (02.01.2014).

The explosion has resulted in 5 deaths and 20 wounded so far.

M. Sirani                                  02.01.2014