Monday, November 24, 2014

Vienna's Nuclear Negotiation With Iran Reached Another Deadlock. What Then Now?

The last round of nuclear negotiation with Iran finished in Vienna without any successful achievement. The representatives of all states involved in this dispute have decided to extend the negotiation for another six months. This event raises an important question as follows: What will happen in the next coming months?

I have written many short and long essay with regards to Iran's nuclear activity in both Persian and English. Through all these essays, i have explored different reasons, which the combination of all of them enforces the Iranian Regime to pursue nuclear weapon. Among these essays, the one entitled "Will the US attack Iran?" could be mentioned.

It would be useful, for those, who are interested to know more about Iran's nuclear activity, to take a look at this essay.

Title: Will the US attack Iran?


M. Sirani                                       24.11.2014

Saturday, November 22, 2014

Iran Has Checkmated All of You in The Nuclear Negotiation; Do You Know Why and How?

If you find a honest, logical, reasonable answer to this simple question, you might be able to use some damage control policy and prevent further loss amid Iran's adventurous nuclear activity.

Note: As i follow the news, observe your moves and read analyses of your policy makers regarding Iran's nuclear program, i don't see any light at the end of this tunnel; even, if Iran would sign an agreement before the deadline. You think you have the upper hand in this matter. But you are wrong. You are in a very shaky position and the Iranian Regime knows that perfectly.

M. Sirani                                       22.11.2014

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

Demolishing the Entire House of An Individual Terrorist in Jerusalem Is Totally Wrong and Counterproductive.

Needless to say that Hamas and Islamic Jihad are two terrorist groups. Moreover, this is a logical and reasonable response that every terrorist should be held responsible and accountable for his/her brutal and inhuman act in a legally binding manner.

But demolishing the entire house of an individual terrorist as a sort of punishment is totally wrong and counterproductive; in addition, it does not change anything at all with regards to the attitude, tactic and strategy of the terrorist groups in that region. Such a move would be much more beneficial for the terrorist groups in different terms, instead of Israeli authority. Thus, it would be wise for Israel to remove this type of punishment from its counter terrorism policy against individual terrorists.

M. Sirani                                     19.11.2014  

Tuesday, November 18, 2014

The Compatibility of Machiavelli's Statement With the Current Syrian Civil War.

Some part of Machiavelli's statement (here below) is to some extent compatible with the current civil war in Syria, when it comes to the position of some Syrian opposition. Some have joined ISIS or Al-Nusra Front for better proposal in different terms and some have settled down and started a new life in Turkey, Qatar, Lebanon, etc. So is the case of Iraqi army that abandoning city after city to ISIS fighters. These simple examples, however, show an important point. The important point is that there is not too much difference between general characteristics of mercenaries in 16th century and today's so-called modern time as Machiavelli defined couple of centuries ago. Here below is a copy of a short note in this matter that i wrote it last year.

M. Sirani                                    18.11.2014

Machiavelli's Statement About The Current Syrian Civil War.

I don't want to apply this statement to all the Syrian opposition. Simply, because I know there are many honest Syrian freedom fighters, who do their best to establish freedom, democracy and secularism in Syria for all the Syrian people. But part of the reason (I emphasize part of the reason) that after two and half years struggle, we have not been able to remove Bashar Assad from the power lies in this part of Machiavelli's statement. There are many other reasons, which are out of the scope of this short note; therefore, I don't explore them. However, according to Machiavelli:

"Mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous, and any ruler who relies on them to defend his state will be insecure and in peril; because they are disunited, ambitious, undisciplined, and disloyal; courageous when they are with their friends, cowardly in the presence of the enemy; they have no fear of God and don’t keep their promises. [Although he doesn’t say so, Machiavelli is now talking only about mercenaries. Auxiliary armies will be his topic in the next chapter.] With them as his army, the only way a prince can hold off his own ruin is by holding off any military attack; in peace one is robbed by •them, and in war by •the enemy. Why? Because they have no affection for you, and no reason to go to battle except the small wages you pay them, and those aren’t enough to make them willing to die for you! They’re ready enough to be your soldiers while you aren’t at war with anyone, but when war comes they either desert or run away on the battlefield"
                                                                                                           (Machiavelli, 2010, P. 26)
M. Sirani                       09.10.2013                
Bennet, J. (2010). The Prince. URL<:>.
Accessed on: 09.10.2013.

Do Not Inflame the Fire in Ukraine Further Anymore.

I have mentioned this in some of my earlier posts and i repeat it again.
When it comes to Ukraine, your current policy would end up to a devastating result. In fact, you are inflaming the fire by such a policy, not only in Ukraine and the Balkan States, but also in some other areas in the EU somewhere in the near future; of course, if you continue with such a policy. Your policy in this matter does not have any compatibility with the reality on the ground. You have been ignoring and underestimating the current global economic crisis, the power and leverages of Russia in Ukraine, the Balkan States and some other Eastern European countries and more importantly the vital role of Russia with regards to some other development in the Middle East including Iran's nuclear negotiation or the Syrian civil war for example. So, don't be shy; admit your miscalculation and mistake; adjust your plan in this matter, before it's too late. Otherwise, face with massive fiasco in different terms in the near future.

M. Sirani                                        18.11.2014

Monday, November 17, 2014

Russia is Willing to Cooperate With Hezbollah For the Sake of Stability in Lebanon and the Region.

According to Lebanon news, Russian deputy Foreign Minister M. Bogdanov has recently said:

"Russia is willing to cooperate with Hezbollah For the sake of stability in Lebanon and the region" (Lebanonnews, 2014).

This development not only empowers the position of Hezbollah in domestic arena within the Lebanese political system, but also unjustly increases the legitimacy of this terrorist organization in the regional and international arena. This event, in addition, shows that the Western countries and their allies are couple of steps behind their schedule with regards to ongoing development in the strategic region of the Middle East and the Mediterranean Sea; of course, in a comparison with the role of Iran and Russia. This issue, moreover, would create extra obstacle for Israel with regards to maintaining its security.

Furthermore, this event would pave the way, for Russia for entering into the club of countries that to some extent are involved in the peace process between Israel and Palestine, more than before. I'm wondering, how some of the Western and Arab countries provide money and weapon for the Lebanese authority and army, without that some of these help goes in the pocket of Hezbollah. It seems: This is one of those miracles and surprises of the Middle East. Anyway, no wonder that Israel does not trust anyone at all and no wonder that the international community has not been able to establish a sustainable peace between Israel and Palestine after a couple of years effort. (Those, how are interested to know more in this matter, should follow the domino effects of this event in different parts of the Middle East in various terms).

Note: What type of stability a terrorist organization like Hezbollah can provide for the region, is a serious question that Mr. Bogdanov should try to find a reasonable, rational and logical answer for it. In addition, I should remind Mr. Bogdanov to an important point as follows. In a critical and vital moment, between Russian authority and Chechen Rebels, Hezbollah would undoubtedly choose to fight alongside Chechen Separatists based on its divine ideological characteristic.  Furthermore, I'm wondering what the reaction of Mr. Bogdanov would be, if the Western countries, suddenly, for example, decide to cooperate with the Chechen Separatist-rebels? 

I'm fully aware that we are living in an era of total confusion in different terms including international politics. But, it would be wise that every politician looks at the consequence/s of his/her plan and action in the short as well as long term.

M. Sirani                               17.11.2014  


Exclusive: New Revelation Shows Iran is Still Seeking To Buy Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Tech-Products From Germany.

New revelation by the German Customs Criminal Office (CCC) shows that Iran is still seeking to buy nuclear, chemical and biological technology and product illegally from German market and smuggling them to Iran, as Der Tagesspiegel a German newspaper claims.

According to Mr. Norbert Drude, the president of CCC,  Iran's orders in these areas in the current year (2014) is likely similar to 2013 and 2012 orders in terms of magnitude and interests. This revelation shows clearly that there is no difference between Iran's former president, Ahmadinejad and the current president Rouhani, when it comes to achieving the WMD by the Iranian Regime. As the CCC states, the Iranian Regime has become a "Regular Type Customer" with the German Customs officials, when it comes to the violation of the Foreign Trade Act. Iran has been involved in two-thirds of a total 264 investigations that were performed in 2012 and 2013 by the Customs inspectors. In some cases, Iran has been successfully managing to bypass the sanctions and smuggling these goods from Germany to Iran, as the president of the CCC states in this article.

In the top of Iran's list, according to the CCC, are the technologies and products, which can be used for the production of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and missile systems.

M. Sirani                              17.11.2014


Sunday, November 16, 2014

President Erdogan Says: Muslims, Not Columbus, Discovered Americas.


Regardless of scholarly discussion behind this historical event, do not take Erdogan's statement in a simple, shallow and naive manner. This statement has much more deeper meaning; of course, if it would be considered along with some other policies of Turkey in the domestic and international arena in the last couple of years. The result of this consideration shows, where and in which direction Turkey is heading in the next coming years.

M. Sirani                               16.11.2014

Saturday, November 15, 2014

Philip Morris Corporation is Still Flying in the State of Denial.

Today, the members of the Islamic Parliament in Iran have recalled Iran's Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of Industries and Mines to the Parliament for an official impeachment with regards to signing the contract with Philip Morris Corporation. With such a clear and obvious revelation, the Corporation is still flying in the state of denial in this matter and completely denies such an economic agreement with the Islamic Regime.

Note: What a joke. These "Genius Investors" with multiple extra """"""""""""" (Quotation marks) think, we are blind. 

M. Sirani                          15.11.2014

Friday, November 14, 2014

Exclusive: The Malaysian Passenger Plane MH17 Was Shot Down By A Ukrainian Fighter Jet, Not By the Rebels (Leaked Satellite Images).

According to a news published in Mirror, the passenger plane MH17 was shot down by a Ukrainian fighter jet and not a surface-to-air missile fired by the rebels. In this article, Mirror has also published some satellite photos, which clearly illustrate the event. The leaked images have been captured by either a British or an American satellite as the article claims.
Here below are some of the images.

Photos (Mirror, 2014).
Some experts have confirmed the authenticity of the images, as the news states. If this story is true, it would be a huge scandal for some of the Western countries and their politicians from different angles.
Firstly, it shows how some of the western politicians and media made a series of unfair and unjust accusations against Russia and the Ukrainian rebels in this matter. Secondly, these images have been captured by either a British or an American satellite according to this news. This means, simply, that either the British authority or the U.S. administration should have been aware of these images during these past couple of months. This issue raises some serious questions as follows. Why the country, that the satellite belongs, has done nothing in this matter? Why this country has not revealed this sensitive and vital information up until this moment? Why this country has not informed the families of those 298 victims about the reality of this sad event? Why this country did not care about the lives of those 298 innocent people, who lost their lives in this devastating and inhuman event, by keeping these images secret? Why?  

Note: This news, if it is true, could be a total political suicide for officials in the country that its satellite has captured these images and additionally for some other western politicians, who have been accusing Russia and the rebels for this catastrophic event. This revelation, such a powerful earthquake, would shake the position of many officials in the West. In short, this scandal would be much bigger than Watergate, Iran-Contra or alike. 

However, some might claim these images are Photoshop and have been fabricated by the Russian authority. If this is your opinion, then deal with this accusation in a reliable international court publicly and openly; of course, if you don't have any stone in your shoes.      

A special note for Australian Prime Minister, Tony Abbott:
Due to the fact that the G20 Summit will be held in Brisbane, it is the best moment to shirtfront the one, who really is responsible for keeping secret this vital information about the flight MH 17 so far. In this particular case, i really support you from the bottom of my heart. The responsible actor or authority of this catastrophic event should be held accountable. The culprit of this horrible event should understand that in the era of high-tech evolution, it would be very hard to play such a dirty game in a secret manner for a long period of time.      

M. Sirani                                14.11.2014   

Mirror (2014).

Thursday, November 13, 2014

Do Not Intensify the Tension in Ukraine; You Are Losing Badly in Different Terms in Various Battlefields.

Do not intensify the tension in Ukraine; try to be reasonable and have some logical calculation. Try to understand that the current Russia is not the devastated country in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Try to swallow this simple fact that Putin is neither Gorbachev that you can buy it with a Nobel Peace Prize, nor Yeltsin that you can buy it with a couple of million dollars bank account in Switzerland. Wake up; the triumphal era of after the Second World War up until 2000 is over. The world has changed and still is changing. Try to observe and accept the rise of other powerful states in the world.
Do not underestimate Putin; Do not push Putin further than this. Putin not only can easily seize the control of Ukraine, but also can destabilize the Balkan States and maybe more. Putin has much more leverages to use than you ever imagine. Do not forget that by putting unnecessary extra pressure on Putin, you are also losing some type of support and coordination with regards to Iran's nuclear issue. For god sake, think realistically: what is important for you at this stage? A nuclear armed Iran or Ukraine? Which one of these issues would threatening your security and interests in the short and long terms?

It should be mentioned that i'm not a fan of president Putin. My point is that you are completely in the wrong track with regards to current tension in Ukraine and this issue would be perfectly beneficial for the Iranian Regime.

Note: By the way, for advertising NATO, for example, try to find a better subject. And sometimes you are missing the point who is your ally, competitor or real enemy. 

M. Sirani                       13.11.2014

It Seems The Deadlock in Oman Meeting Ended Up to Another Review in the U.S. Policy Toward Syria and ISIS.

I'm just speechless and don't want to write a simple line in this matter anymore. I just want to say that with such confusions, the Iranian Regime would take more advantages as much as it can. I'm pretty sure it will do.

M. Sirani                                13.11.2014  


Stuck With Regards to Iran's Nuclear Issue and the Destructive Role of Iran in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, etc? Tell Me from Which Galaxy You Have Landed on Those Political Chairs That You Are Sitting on!!!!

The Islamic regime of Iran is your creature. Throughout the last 35 years up until now, you have been feeding, nurturing and appeasing this monstrous political system in different terms, based on your economic, political and strategical benefit. During all these years, you have been supporting and promoting the Iranian regime's lobbyists in the most prestigious economic, social, political and educational sectors in your countries in the best possible way you could.

On the contrary, through all these years, you have left us (i.e. those Iranian, who really want to entirely overthrow the Iranian Regime) alone, without any help and support. In some occasions you have sold us to the Iranian Regime Intelligence Service in order to show your appeasement and obedience to the Islamic Regime. The massive number of assassinations against the Iranian political activists abroad is a clear example in this respect.

Now, you are stuck; you have no idea how to deal with the Islamic Regime in different terms. When it comes to nuclear negotiation, tension in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Yemen, Bahrain, Sudan, etc, you have reached a dead end alley.

I remind all of you to an important and simple lecture. This is not the end of story for the Iranian Regime. As soon as Iran obtains the nuclear weapon, all of you, no matter how powerful you think you are in economic and military terms, should leave the whole Middle East and Africa for the Iranian Regime. The Middle East and Africa should be under the command of the Islamic Regime. This issue would become a reality somewhere in the near future; you and your future generations should deal with it, whether you like or not. So, enjoy the rise of an Islamic type of Nazi Regime in the world. The genie is in the beginning of coming out of the bottle.

M. Sirani                           13.11.2014        

Wednesday, November 12, 2014

Some Simple Question to Those Contemporary Genius Policy Makers.

By the way, what happens to those Maidan and Umbrella revolutions? Did you achieve anything at all? If yes, would you please share your unlimited theoretical knowledge (in my dictionary: Kindergarten Foreign Policy) in these matters with us?

Note: I'm pretty sure the designer of so-called "Umbrella Revolution" has watched the movie "Wag the Dog" (shoe and soldier shoemaker) too many times. God bless Hollywood that once in a while shapes the international politics in a ridiculous way.     

M. Sirani                             12.11.2014                

Tuesday, November 11, 2014

Philip Morris New Contract in Iran and the Case of Robert Alan Levinson, Who Disappeared in Iran in 2007.

There are many rumors among Iranian websites that Philip Morris Company has signed a contract with the Islamic Regime. Regardless of the final result of the nuclear negotiation with Iran and whether the USA and the international community would remove the sanctions imposed on Iran or not, it would be a kind consideration, if the board of directors of this corporation would do a favor; of course, in addition to its exploitative business objective in Iran. One might wonder about this favor?

So this is the story. As we know American citizen Robert Alan "Bob" Levinson was disappeared in Iran since March 9, 2007. There are different stories about Mr. Levinson and his trip to Iran. Some say, he was a private detective, which was on an investigative mission with regard to smuggling illegal cigarette and tobacco from the UAE into Iran. Some claim, he was a CIA agent and the Iranian regime has arrested him in order to use him as a bargaining chip in some occasion. This allegation (the same as always) has been denied by the Iranian officials in various occasions. Regardless of these claims, there is one thing clear and that is that Mr. Levinson is probably still alive and is somewhere inside Iran. Here comes the favor of Philip Morris Company.

Due to close relationship between Philip Morris Corporation and some high ranking political actors within the Islamic Regime (which made this deal possible), it would be kind consideration that Philip Morris corporation would try to release Mr. Levinson and help him to return back to the USA and his family. In this respect, i suggest the board of directors of Philip Morris to take close contact with Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani (the former President) and Mohsen Rezaei (the former head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps). 

I mention these two officials due to the fact that the illegal cigarette and tobacco market in Iran is in the hand and full control of these two guys. Thus, there is high probability that Philip Morris corporation has signed the contract with either Rafsanjani, or Rezaei or both of these hostage takers. As such, i hope Philip Morris corporation would try to do this simple favor, in addition to its super legitimate business agreement with one of the most horrific and barbaric political systems in the world.

Note: Who knows, maybe after a nuclear deal with Iran in the coming days, we could see that Mr. Levinson and some other hostages / prisoners would be suddenly appeared somewhere  inside or outside Iran or freed from prison.   

M. Sirani                              11.11.2014


Exclusive: I Repeat: Do Not Offer Iran WTO Membership At This Stage.

Exclusive: I Repeat: Do Not Offer Iran WTO Membership At This Stage.

I have mentioned this issue in some of my previous notes and i repeat it again.

Whatever the final agreement of the nuclear discussion with Iran would become, do not offer WTO membership to Iran at at this stage. I cannot disclose the whole my idea openly in this matter in this weblog. You have absolutely no idea that with help of some simple and small adjustment within the policy and structure of WTO, we can completely paralyze the Iranian Regime at anytime that we want. This is our last chance for causing a serious fundamental change in Iran. This is the best opportunity that unfortunately your genius advisers have not discovered it yet. Think deeply about this issue, before you make any move in this matter.

M. Sirani                              11.11.2014

Welcome Iran to Nuclear Weapons Club and Do Not Forget to Take a Nice Cake in the Next Nuclear Negotiation.

Following this development, you will face with huge challenges in the whole Middle East. Your next challenge is how to persuade some other countries such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Turkey, and Egypt to do not seek nuclear weapon. Not to mention, that you should put extra effort on Israel that the country does not do some unexpected reaction with regards to Iran's nuclear facility and drag you unintentionally and unwillingly into a long period conflict. Moreover, you should bear in mind this simple fact that a nuclear armed Iran means a strong good bye to peace process between Israel and Palestine for at least many years to come. In short, be prepared for heavenly Middle East and Africa full of surprises for some decades to come.

M. Sirani                          11.11.2014

Monday, November 10, 2014

Did Putin Hit China's First Lady??? What A Childish, Dirty, Ugly and Cheap Trick of the Western Media (Kindergarten Foreign Policy).

Some of the western media has published an article, indicating that president Putin has tried to hit on China's first lady in today's Beijing APEC annual summit. As it appears this particular event has been censored by Chinese media and TV. The article, however, would apparently try to expose the censorship in China, but in reality this article would try to firstly demolish the personality of Putin and secondly create a conflictual atmosphere between the leaders of China and Russia in a dirty, childish, cheap and ugly manner. In order to understand what i'm talking about, just pay attention to some sentences of this article, which tries to project an uncontrolled and opportunist Casanova from Putin, which does not have any respect for moral, ethical and diplomatic principles. Here below are the interesting parts of the article.

The article begins with a poor lecture about diplomacy and claims:
 "The first unspoken rule of diplomacy might be "don't hit on the president's wife"

Moreover, the article tries to find a connection between the lecture of diplomacy and a weak characteristic of president Putin in a very childish manner by saying:
"but Russia's newly-single president Vladimir Putin seems to have missed the memo"

Furthermore, the articles tries to manipulate the mind of  viewers in a more detailed and comprehensive and at the same time cheap and dirty manner by claiming:

"While Xi was distracted talking to US President Barack Obama, who was sitting on his right, Russia's tiger-shooting, horseback-riding president made his move. After a brief exchange - you can almost imagine Peng making appropriately cliché small-talk like "my, isn't it chilly in here" - Putin abruptly stood up, grasped a tan coat in both hands, and wrapped it chivalrously around the first lady's shoulders. She smiled gracefully, thanked him, and sat down - only to surreptitiously slip the coat from her shoulders moments later into the waiting arms of an attendant" (smh, 2014).

The sad story is that a famous and prestigious news agency like Foreign Policy Magazine has also published this article.

For god sake: If you are desperate with regards to current tension in Ukraine; if you are desperate that the economic sanctions cannot fully be imposed on Russia; if you are desperate that these imposed economic sanctions have not functioned properly as you wished and expected; if you are worried about the rise of BRICS groups particularly Russia in the international arena; if you want criticize or damage the reputation of president Putin, try to find a better argument. With such childish, dirty, ugly and cheap arguments, you are destroying your reputation and on the contrary, you are maximizing the popularity and legitimacy of President Putin.

Due to the fact that this article is a very cheap one, i try to add a simple explanation for the author and finish this short note.

Dear Genius author of this article:
Russian girls and women are among the most beautiful females in the world. Moreover, president Putin is one of the most powerful and richest man in Russia. This simply means that he can easily get what he wants at any moment. He does not need to hit China's first lady. Dear author, If you don't trust my words, book a trip and travel to Russia.

Note: Don't blame me, when i say, we are living in the era of total confusion. The author of this article with such a mentality reminds me to some old and illiterate people, who lived 200 years ago in one of the developing countries.   

M. Sirani                               10.11.2014


Nigerian Government Should Be Awarded. Wonder Why?

In the era of total confusion, here by this short note, i propose the current Nigerian government for three prestigious awards as follows:

1- Nobel Peace Prize for creating the best secure and safe environment for the Nigerian People.

2- Nobel Prize for Political Science and Economics: because the Nigerian government is a real role model of Good Governance in the world. In addition, this political system has created the best welfare state for its citizens in the world by selling nearly 2.2 million barrels (350,000 m³) oil per day.

3- Oscar Prize: because the Nigerian government plays the role of good governance better than any actor in the entire film industry.

Not to mention that the Nigerian government should share these prestigious prizes with those generous and kind oil companies that are uninterruptedly sucking the Nigerian oil and don't care about anything happens in that country.

Note: Viva the rule of Jungle.

M. Sirani                              10.11.2014

Go Green Tony; Do not Pay Attention to the Media.

As media disclose, Tony Blair, the former Prime Minister of the UK, has been working for PetroSaudi Company since November 2010. For this lucrative job, Mr. Blair receives £41,000 monthly salary and  2 per cent commission on any deal that he would make. In addition to this lucrative and secret job, Mr. Tony Blair is the official Envoy of the Quartet on the Middle East; an entity, which supposes to mediate the Peace Process in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.

The combination of this lucrative - secret job with PetroSaudi Company and being the special Envoy for the Quartet on the Middle East entity makes Tony Blair a successful man for all the seasons; of course in the Contemporary Era of Total Confusion.

Note: A man, who sells his dignity, soul and moral principle just for money. This is the real story of those genius, who govern us. For god sake; dare to be yourself; shut the show business of the Quartet on the Middle East down and smell money wherever you want. Thus, like always Go green Tony for the rest of your life and do not pay attention to the media. 

M. Sirani                           10.11.2014  

Sunday, November 9, 2014

President Obama Waged the War Against ISIS, in Order to Win the Heart and Mind of Khamenei For a Nuclear Deal.


There have been many rumors that the CIA has been training, assisting and supporting various Islamic groups (particularly Sunni faction) in different parts of the Middle East in order to achieve particular goals. We all heard different news that the USA authority is, for example, training some groups in Jordan or Turkey. Some of the U.S. officials are also admitting this point in various occasions. The U.S. officials have, for example, repeatedly claimed that they are helping and supporting Syrian opposition in their struggle against Assad's Regime. Some of these rumors and news go further and include ISIS group as well. Although the role of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and some other Arab countries cannot be underestimated or undermined in this matter, some of these news
accuse the CIA and the U.S. government for the formation of a group like ISIS in the region.

Considering this issue, one might wonder, if this is the case, why the USA has decided to militarily attack to its creature i.e. ISIS at this particular of time?  The answer to this question lies in the peculiar and contradictory foreign policy of the Obama administration.

When it comes to the foreign policy, the reaction of the Obama administration has been accompanied with some type of miscalculation, mismanagement and failure in various occasions. We all remember the hasty reaction of President Obama with regard to the uprising in Egypt in 2011, when the President simply rejected then Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak in the favor of the God Father of all Islamic Groups in the Middle East i.e.  the Muslim Brotherhood. Don't misunderstand my words in this matter; i don't defend the corrupt and despotic political system of Hosni Mubarak. My point is, when i as the President of the most powerful country in the world i.e. the USA, have only two options of bad (Hosni Mubarak) and worse (the Muslim Brotherhood) with regards to an important country like Egypt, i should choose the bad option not the worse one.

I as the president of the USA, should choose the bad option not the worse one, because my decision in this matter determines the safety and security of my close allies i.e. Israel and the EU based on geopolitical and geographical position of Egypt with regards to Israel, Red Sea and the Suez Canal. By choosing the Muslim Brotherhood, the Obama administration was minimized the safety and security of Israel and the EU countries in different terms. Honestly, I,m not a fan of military coup at all, but in this particular case, we should thank general El- Sisi that saved the Egyptian people, Israel and the EU from a barbaric organization like the Muslim Brotherhood. One might wonder, what should Obama do? In those days, President Obama could put an extra pressure on Hosni Mubarak and force him to perform some real reforms in Egypt, due to the fact that the USA is funding Egypt with an amount of  nearly $1.5 billion dollar annually; instead of supporting the Muslim Brotherhood. This event was one of the biggest mistake of the Obama administration.

The withdrawal of the U.S. troops from Iraq in 2011 was another huge mistake of the current administration. I fully aware that the president Obama had promised to do this job during his first presidential campaign. In this respect, i have to emphasize that i'm  totally against any foreign occupation. But, if i put my feet in the shoes of the president of the USA, i should consider some other issues. As such, i should change my policy. If i was the president of the USA in that particular time, i would not have withdrew the U.S. troops from Iraq, simply due to the presence of the Iranian Regime my first enemy in the region, Iran's nuclear activity, Iran's progressive expansionist characteristic, and the close relationship between Tehran and Damascus. As a president of the USA, i should simply have known, if i withdraw my troops from Iraq, i would facilitate the best opportunity for my enemy i.e. Iran in the Middle East. By such a move, i would minimize the safety and security of my allies in the region as well.

The policies of the Obama administration with regards to current tension in Syria and Ukraine have also been accompanied with huge miscalculation and mismanagement. The result of such policies has causes many problems in different terms and at the same time has disappointed many people around the world. The combination of all these failures has forced the Obama administration to put all its eggs on just one basket in order to achieve and preserve three main objectives 1- The reputation of Barack Obama as one of the best presidents of the U.S. history, 2- The Democratic Party as the best political party in the USA, and 3- The USA as the most powerful and important country, which can solve any problem in the world. This basket is simply the nuclear activity of the Iranian Regime.

If the Obama administration would be able to make a deal with Iran in this important matter, the administration might be able to achieve these three objectives to some extent. To this end, the Obama administration has been trying to use every tools it can. But, there is a problem. The problem is that the supreme leader Khamenei does not trust the USA at all. In many occasions, Khamenei has repeatedly claimed that the USA says something, but later it does something completely difference. Or the USA cannot be trusted at all. In a perfect and comprehensive harmony with Khamenei, all the Iranian lobbyists, whether in the USA or the EU countries, repeat the same statement but with different tunes and words. All these statements, however, advertise one thing: the USA should build the trust with Iran; the USA should act (not just talk) in a way that Ayatollah Khamenei would trust the will and intention of the USA.

The military attacks against ISIS and the recent Obama's letter to Khamenei could be understood in this respect. In this letter, President Obama has clearly admitted that he would guaranty the interests of the Iranian Regime in the region. When it comes to Obama's plan against ISIS, we are facing with the same scenario. Firstly, ISIS is not a newly emerged terrorist organization. Secondly, as i have explained in my latest essay entitled" Obama's plan against ISIS: a fundamental solution or opening a new Pandora's Box in the Middle East", the current military operations in Iraq and Syria are just beneficial for Bashar Assad and the Iranian Regime. By such moves, letters and possibly hidden discussion, the Obama administration would try to win the heart and mind of Ayatollah Khamenei, at the expense of the Iranian people, American allies in the region and the American people, just in order to make a nuclear deal with the Islamic Regime.

This issue raises some important questions for me; which i would try to find  reasonable answers for them.
How did the Obama administration discuss this issue with the members of the coalition mostly the Arab countries? Did the administration tell the Arab countries that they are going to appease the Iranian Regime by attacking ISIS, in order to make a nuclear deal? Or did the administration lie the Arab countries in this matter?
Whatever the answers to these questions would be, two thing are to some extent clear for me. 1- The way that the politicians in Israel do not trust the USA anymore. 2- Maybe the politicians in Turkey analyzed the war against ISIS the same as i did in this short note. As such, the country did not join the war against ISIS as the USA wished and expected.

In sum, Iran might sign a nuclear deal with the world powers in the end of the November, although, the country has not compiled with IAEA's demands in an appropriate and comprehensive manner yet. But Iran is secretly pursuing its nuclear program until the country would obtain its nuclear weapon. Iran needs it. The inherently ideological and expansionist characteristics of the Islamic Regime force the Iranian Regime to obtain nuclear weapon.

M. Sirani                                     09.11.2014

Saturday, November 8, 2014

Why Has Obama Suddenly Begun Fighting ISIS After Nearly Three Years Delay?

I will provide a short note in this matter in the next two days; of course, if i get enough time. Obama's plan might end up into a huge scandal. To put it simply, President Obama has put not only his reputation, but also the reputation of the Democratic Party and the USA in a very risky and shaky policy.

M. Sirani                       08.11.2014

Friday, November 7, 2014

Exclusive Shocking Video: How the Islamic Regime Tortures the Young People (07.11.2014).

The video clip below shows how the Islamic Regime security forces behave with the Iranian young people. Watch the video clearly and think: Do you see any similarity between the way that Nazi party members humiliated the Jewish people during Hitler era and the behavior of the Iranian regime with its people? Do you see how the Iranian Regime create the atmosphere of fear, insecurity and humiliation among its people? Do you see how the Islamic Regime tortures and humiliates its people?

These young people might have done something wrong ( i emphasize they might have done something wrong, although i'm not sure in this matter); it is possible. But the point is: Firstly, they are the creature of the Islamic Regime; they are the real victims of the Islamic Regime and Islamic law and environment in that society. Secondly, if they have done something wrong, which i doubt about it, should they be treated in such barbaric, savagery and stone age manner? Should they be tortured in such a inhuman way?

Note: Those politicians, officials and pundits, who are appeasing the Islamic Regime based on different economic, political or strategical reasons, should be ashamed of themselves and should bear in their mind that: one day, they should be held responsible for their acts. They should remember:
We Iranian, who are trying to overthrow the Islamic Regime entirely, never forget, never forgive. 

M. Sirani                                07.11.2014

Some of the Consequences of the Syrian Civil War; What We are Observing Currently in Iraq, Lebanon, etc.

Here below is part of my essay entitled: An assessment about the current civil war in Syria. This essay was written on August, 2013. Some viewers might be interested to go through some of my predictions in that time about the consequences of the Syrian civil war; some predictions that we are dealing with them currently in Iraq, Syria itself, Lebanon and lone wolf attacks in the western countries, etc. 

M. Sirani                        01.11.2014

7- Some Consequences of the Syrian Civil War:
Whether we are supporting Bashar Assad or its opponents or are neutral, we should pay attention to some of the consequences of the Syrian civil war. Analyzing these consequences is very important, because some of them might occur beyond the Syrian geographical territory within the country that we live in. Some of these consequences are briefly as follows.
1- The first and important issue is the large number of human casualties and near-total destruction of the country’s infrastructure. We should not be genius to anticipate that this issue would be devastating for Syria, the Syrian people and the neighboring countries for some decades to come.

2- The second issue is about the overall effect of the civil war on the life of the Syrian people. This issue has caused that more than 1.6 million people have fled Syria and taken refuge abroad in some countries such as Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon and some North African countries. We should bear in mind that we are talking about more than 500,000 Syrian refugees in a country such as Lebanon with a population size of 4.2 million, or nearly 500,000 Syrian refugees in Jordan with a population size of almost 6 million people, etc. The large numbers of the Syrian refugees are the huge burden on the shoulders of all these states, the international organizations as well as NGOs. In the long term, this issue would cause many problems in different arenas including security for all these countries. As an example, asylum seekers and refuges are the most vulnerable groups around the world; because, in most cases they don not have proper access to their basic needs and rights. As such, some members of this vulnerable group would become the easiest preys for different criminal organizations as well as Jihadist groups. This issue is also applicable for some of the Syrian refugees in the Middle East. Given the fact that most of these countries mentioned above do not have a powerful, stable and reliable political system and the Syrian civil war has entered in the new phase of a conflict between the Shiite and Sunni groups, we can anticipate that the presence of large numbers of the Syrian refugees would threaten the peace, stability and security of some countries in the Middle East in the long term.
There is also another important issue with regard to the Syrian refugees. What these refugees would do, if Assad’s regime would manage to survive this civil war? Given the fact that some of these refugees, themselves or their relatives are fighting against Assad’s regime, would they dare to return to Syria in the future? Who / which powerful international entity would be able to provide and maintain their security in Syria under the rule of Bashar Assad? On the contrary, if Assad’s regime would collapse somewhere in the future, who, or which powerful entity would be able to provide and maintain security for those Shiite or Alawites people, who have supported Bashar Assad or neutrally have behaved during this conflict?

3- The overall presence of Hezbollah in this conflict and increasing numbers of conflict between the Shiite and Sunni groups in different countries in the region illustrate the fact that eventually, the Syrian civil war would spread to some other neighboring countries in the Middle East. In this respect, the two countries of Lebanon and Iraq are the most vulnerable states.

4- The Syrian civil war has facilitated the best environment in terms of training, access to different facilities such as money, weapon, training and network building for all Jihadists around the world. This chaotic environment functions like an academic institute for all Islamic fundamentalists including novice Jihadists, who enter Syria legally or illegally from different borderlines. After a while, these novice Jihadists would be expert in different military tactics and strategic matters such as using different weapons - explosive materials, organizing, surviving in harsh and difficult circumstances, network building, etc. The important and tricky point is the time that these jihadists would decide to return to their countries of origin, whether is somewhere in the Middle East or the EU or some other countries around the world. In this respect, we can anticipate that each of these jihadists would function as an ambassador of terror and would be able to organize and establish a terror cell in his /her country of origin.

5- This is the fact that the Kurdish people has been one of the most marginalized and deprived groups in Syria. The Syrian Kurds live mostly in the northern part of Syria along the southern border of Turkey and partly the northern border of Iraq. During the chaotic atmosphere of the civil war, the Syrian Kurds might decide to establish an either autonomous or a Kurdish self-regulated region in the northern part of Syria. This issue would threaten the sovereignty of Syria, Turkey, and Iraq. As a result, it would create extra instability and tension in the region.

6- We should bear in mind that some of these consequences, inevitability, would also affect the Israeli–Palestinian peace process to some degree.
All mentioned above, indicates the fact that the consequences of the Syrian civil war from different angles and to some degrees would be devastating not just for the Syrian people or the country of Syria, but also for all of us, no matter whom we are or where we live.


$14 Billion Dollar Energy Deal Between Hungary and Russia. Who Wanted to Impose Sanction on Russia? (An Example of Kindergarten Foreign Policy). 07.11.2014

Those genius western policy makers, who dragged Ukraine to what it is now, thought, Russia today is the same as Russia in the 1990s in different terms; they thought they would be able to buy President Putin with a Nobel Peace Prize, for example like Gorbachev; they thought, they would be able to buy President Putin with couple of million dollars the same as some western countries did for Yeltsin, etc.

The result of such a huge miscalculation, mirror imaging and underestimation has dragged Ukraine in a unnecessary devastating civil war and has caused massive economic and political crisis for different parts of the EU countries.

M. Sirani                           07.11.2014

Iran Refused to Answer the Two Important Questions Concerning its Nuclear Activity.

According to the latest report of IAEA, Iran has refused to answer the two important questions with regards to its nuclear activity.

Let us be honest with each other. When you are sending an appeasement letter to the supreme leader of the Islamic Regime; when you are desperately confused with regards to the current tension in Iraq and Syria and your military operation in these areas is totally beneficial for the Iranian Regime; when your high ranking political officials and investors are trying to appease the Iranian Regime in different terms and in various occasions; when you are supporting and promoting the Iranian regime affiliates in your countries in different terms; what would you expect?  

Are you expecting with such weak results, shaky positions and wrong policies the Islamic Regime would easily obey your command and follow the international law and convention?

For god sake, the head of Badr Brigade (the direct puppet of the Iranian Regime) has recently become Iraq's Interior Minister and you are happy that the new Prime Minister of Iraq, Haider Al-Abadi is going to form a inclusive and unity government in Iraq. With such a assumption that you have, would Iran follow your command and order?  

If you have such expectation, i can just say: Sweet Dream.

Note: Based on the weak position of the Western countries in both domestic and international arena, the Islamic Regime would probably try to get massive advantages as much as it can. Should this happen, Iran might agree to make a deal with IAEA. Otherwise forget the deal.

M. Sirani                        07.11.2014


German Military and Industrial Companies Were Under the Series of Cyber Attacks Operated Inside Iran.

German Intelligence service has recently discovered that some of the important military and industrial companies in the country have been targeted by massive cyber attacks since at least 2013. The main source of these cyber attacks has been identified inside Iran as German officials claim.

Note: The Iranian head, or tail or part of the body of these cyber attacks lie in Germany, other EU countries and the USA. Honestly, i have come to the conclusion that the Western countries are not so serious in their struggle against Iran; All of them to some degree would try to appease the Iranian Regime, rather than overthrowing this despotic political system. Otherwise i would write a useful short note based on my nearly 14 years experience in this particular matter.

M. Sirani                               07.11.2014

Thursday, November 6, 2014

President Obama Wrote Secret letter to Khamenei About Fighting ISIS.

According to the Wall Street Journal, President Obama has sent a secret letter to Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei this past October. Honestly, i'm not interested and i don't care at all about the details of this letter whatever it was. The only important thing for me is to know, who, which adviser has given such a proposal to the President to write such a letter to this person at this critical moment due to the shaky nuclear negotiation, current tension in both Iraq and Syria and the destructive and provocative role that the Iranian Regime has been playing in these countries and the whole Middle East for many years. This letter will be identified by the Islamic Regime as a clear sign of total desperation of the Obama administration.

Note: It seems somebody has to surprise us with some shocking news every damn day or who knows, maybe somebody wants to totally ruin the reputation of President Obama intentionally. Don't blame me in this matter and bear in mind that I'm not a fan of conspiracy theory at all. But when i read this news; when i hear that pentagon has been promoting and supporting Iranian Regime investment in Afghanistan; when i see the unbelievable huge miscalculation of the Obama administration in Ukraine; when i see that the current coalition operates in Iraq and Syria exactly in the favor of the Iranian Regime and Assad's regime and many other examples; i come to the seemingly logical conclusion that somebody might want intentionally ruin Obama's reputation with such unbelievable advises. Because, performing such a series of miscalculation and mismanagement, unintentionally, in short period of time, in the foreign policy of the most powerful country in the world, is almost impossible and unbelievable for me.               

M. Sirani                           06.11.2014


Nice News; Pentagon Promotes Iranian Regime Investment in Afghanistan (Kindergarten Foreign Policy).

At a time that the U.S. government punishes various companies and banks around the world with billions of dollars fine because they have violated the economic sanctions on Iran, Pentagon, the United States Department of Defense, itself has been secretly supporting and promoting the Iranian Regime investment in mining and pharmaceutical sectors in Afghanistan for many years, according to The Wall Street Journal newspaper.

This is not the end of the story. The funny part of the story is that Pentagon in its latest report about Afghanistan, accuses Iran for destabilizing Afghanistan by helping the Taliban against the foreign troops.

 You are supporting and promoting the Iranian Regime investment in Afghanistan and at the same time you are complaining that the Iranian Regime is supporting the Taliban against the foreign troops? 
Somebody helps me to understand this event. For god sake, who are you? What type of education you have? Do you have enough qualification for the job you are doing? How do you evaluate the situation? How do you design your plan and policy? Who is/are your genius policy maker/s in this matter?    


What should i say about this news and alike? The only thing i can say is that the Intelligence Service, State Department, Ministry of Defense and the White House have absolutely no idea about the Iranian Regime and these entities have absolutely no coordination whatsoever in this matter with each other. No wonder, the Prime Minister Netanyahu and the leaders of the Arab countries do not trust the USA on its struggle against Iran; no wonder the Iranian Regime abuses this type of appeasement of the U.S. authority in a best possible way in order to achieve its inhuman goal in the Middle East; no wonder, the Iranian Regime is possibly obtaining the nuclear weapon in the near future, etc.

Note to the Western Countries from top to bottom: Nobody takes you seriously in your conflict with the Iranian Regime in different matters; neither Israeli and Arab countries, nor the Iranian Regime, nor we as the Iranian people, who are trying to overthrow the Islamic Regime. But, i,m pretty sure, one day you will regretfully understand what i,m taking about, which is too late.   

M. Sirani                                     06.11.2014



Wednesday, November 5, 2014

Russia Told USA: It Will Not Attend 2016 Nuclear Security Summit.

Thanks to miscalculation, mismanagement and gambling on wrong actors such as Julia Tymoshenko and Vitali Klitschko performed by the Obama administration and consequently increasing level of unnecessary tension in Ukraine, Russia has officially informed the USA that it will not attend 2016 nuclear security summit. 

When you say "Fuck the EU"; when you openly and officially say: "we have spent $5 billion dollars in Ukraine since 1990"; when you say"we can use the dutch diplomat in the UN and put extra pressure on Russia"; when you ignore the warning of Estonian foreign minister; when you gamble on wrong horses; when you are contaminated with "Mirror Imaging disease" with regard to the ability of current Russia and president Putin ; you should expect much more worse news from Moscow. 

(The paragraph above could be summarized in one simple word: Kindergarten foreign policy).    

Good news for the USA and the rest of world lol. 

M. Sirani                                         05.11.2014


Tough Road Ahead For President Obama and the International Community in the Next Two Years.

 As i predicted in many of my earlier posts, the Republican got the control of both houses in the USA partly due to the massive miscalculation and mismanagement of the current administration. Such a development would create a hard situation for President Obama in terms of policy making in the next two years. The upcoming disagreement between the Obama administration and the Republicans, who have the majority in both houses, would undoubtedly impact the international politics in a profound and negative manner in the next two years and further more. To put it simply, we should be prepared for more chaotic situation in the international arena in different terms in various parts of the world, as a result of this new development. 

M. Sirani                         05.10.2014    

Here below is one of my earlier post in this matter.      

     The Next President of the USA Will Be A Republican.

I don't believe to astrology or prediction of an event in the future based on some type of dream or nightmare. But with high probability, i can say that the next president of the USA will be a Republican; unless a fundamental miracle happens in the foreign policy of the Obama administration in the next two years. If the Republican party chooses good and smart candidate and vice president (Not someone like Sara Palin; with all due respect to her), the party will win the next election by highest margin.

In short, i'm not a fan of Republican party or Neocon group or so-called warmongers. But, when it comes to the foreign policy, we (most of the people around the world) knew what the President Bush did want; we knew where his foreign policy would end up; we knew what was his main objective in every move. But with the Obama administration such a prediction is almost impossible. The administration moves first and then in the middle of the way stop in order to find a solution. In this respect, different examples could be mentioned. The latest chemical attack in Syria, which took place on 21.08.21013 is an example; when the President said the U.S. would attack Syria and later he changed his decision.

The recent unnecessary tension in Ukraine is another example. Such an unnecessary tension, which was based on wrong analysis and miscalculation of the administration has dragged Ukraine into a devastating and destructive civil war. This event, in addition, has caused many economic, political and social problems for Ukraine and the whole EU in different scales. Who/ how/when do you want to solve the problem in Ukraine? What did you achieve in this conflict so far?

The current war against ISIS is another example of mismanagement and miscalculation of the Obama administration. The administration has begun a war against ISIS in Iraq and Syria and it has called it "Systematic Counter Terrorism Strategy". But there are lots of flaw and ambiguity in this plan as i have discussed some of them in my short essay entitled: Obama's plan against ISIS: a fundamental solution or opening a new Pandora's Box in the Middle East. As i follow the news, i have come to the conclusion that this is not a Counter Terrorism Strategy, because words including "Strategy" have their own meaning and definition. What we are witnessing in Iraq and Syria are just some sudden tactical military operations in Iraq and Syria without any real future perspective.

The same as other examples mentioned above, the administration has begun with some move in Iraq and Syria; but they don't know where exactly they are going. They have started the war; but in the Middle of the way they have come up with the idea that they need ground forces; because the air strikes alone do not function properly. They have started the war in a hope that the moderate Syrian opposition gain the momentum on the ground against Assad's Regime; but in the middle of the way they have understood that the Syrian moderate opposition does not have proper capacity to do that. So is the case of Iraqi forces. So is the case of members of the coalition. Some of them have supported the ISIS and Al-Nusra front in different terms for many years. Now, they are members of a coalition against ISIS. Some like Turkey performs prisoners swap with ISIS, while innocent American and English journalists and aid workers such as Alan Henning would be beheaded by ISIS, etc.

Based on all mentioned above and many other examples, i predict that the next president of the USA will be a Republican. 

Foreign policy based on spontaneous and impulsive decision would undoubtedly end up to a huge fiasco.    

Sirani                              07.10.2014

Monday, November 3, 2014

Iran's Plan for the Whole Middle East; A Simple Map.

The map below illustrates what type of plan Iran is pursuing in the Middle East.

Figure 1: Iran's activities in the Middle East (Sirani, 2012)

Red arrow: Iran's offensive activities in the Middle East.

Green arrow: Iran's final plan for the Middle East.

Black arrow: Saudi Arabia's offensive and defensive activities in response to Iran.

For further details, read the essay entitled: Iran should not get the nuclear bomb. It should be mentioned that the essay does not include Iran's efforts in North African countries.

M. Sirani                          03.11.2014

Iran Should Not Get The Nuclear Bomb; A Critical Analysis Against Kenneth Waltz's Statement in This Matter.

Iran should not get the nuclear bomb.

                                An inquiry into the compatibility of Structural Realism

                           Approaches and Iran’s foreign policy in the Middle East

Figure 1: Iran's Expansionist Activities in The Middle East.

Red Arrow: Iran's offensive activities.

Green Arrow: Iran's final plan for the Middle East.

Mehran Sirani                                        03.09.2012

Note: It should be mentioned that i wrote this essay during a 5 credits extensive course (August 2012) in the first month of beginning of my master program in International Relations. 


Undoubtedly, the Islamic Republic of Iran is one of the most controversial states in the contemporary world, when it comes to the issue such as the behavior of state.  Since 1979, the harsh behavior of Iran in domestic issues against its own people has been criticized and condemned by many human rights and international organizations in different occasions. In the international arena, Iran has been continuously ignoring and violating the legitimacy and sovereignty of other states in many occasions. As a result, the country has been involved in many tension and turmoil in different situations and locations in the world. So far, different evidences have shown that Iran’s behavior does not have any harmony and compatibility with the behavior of some other states, particularly in the strategic region of the Middle East (Sirani, 2012).    
Iran’s nuclear activity is a clear example of such controversial attitudes, which, recently has caused many tension in the world. Iran constantly insists that its nuclear programme has peaceful nature and the country wants to use nuclear energy to meet its own domestic needs on key issues such as providing electricity, medical purposes, and scientific researches. Contrary to Iran’s claim, the US and the EU are not convinced about peaceful purpose of Iran’s nuclear activity; therefore, they have imposed sever economic sanctions on Iran. Although, these economic restrictions have put enormous pressure on the country, different evidences indicate that, so far, Iran does not want to halt its nuclear activities (Sirani, 2012).
Iran’s nuclear activity has generated controversial discussions in academic circles too. Many International Relations scholars have examined this particular issue from different perspectives and each one of them has offered a different opinion about it. Among these opinions, Kenneth Waltz’s statement is one of the most controversial and interesting one, which claims that a nuclear-armed Iran would cause peace and stability in the Middle East (PBS, 2012).       
An important question arises from this short introduction. Would nuclear-armed Iran provide peace and stability in the Middle East? Although, analyzing this issue in depth requires more data and time, but this paper will attempt to find an appropriate answer to this particular question.     

3: Main Discussion:
Before we begin the main discussion, it would be useful to examine the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear activity. The next section shall discuss this issue.      

3.1. Does Iran’s nuclear activity have peaceful nature?
As mentioned in the introduction section, Iran repeatedly claims that its nuclear activity has peaceful nature. However, there are some evidences, which to some extent undermine this claim. Firstly, Iran is among the richest countries due to its massive oil and gas reserves. The country is the fourth largest oil producer in the world ranking by extracting 4.252 million barrels of crude oil daily. In addition to oil reserves, Iran holds the second largest gas reserves in the world after Russia. According to the official report released by The World Factbook (CIA) website, just in 2010, Iran has exported approximately 7.87 thousand million cubic meters of natural gas to different countries in the world. This information indicates the fact that Iran has enough natural resources to meet its own domestic energy demands (CIA, 2012).  

Secondly, the country has one of the best geographical advantages in the world for producing the clean and renewable solar-wind energy. Iran has two major deserts of Dasht-e Kavir (390 km wide) and Dasht-e Lut (320 km), which both of them occupy majority of central, east, and southeastern areas of the country. These areas are arid, semiarid, relatively rainless with harsh climate, and almost uninhabitable. If Iran really needs energy sources, the country can generate relatively large amounts of solar-wind energy in these areas without any serious risks to human, animal health, environmental issues and tension with the international community (Britannica, 2012).
Thirdly, some other issues including: the lack of transparency and full commitment to collaboration with IAEA, the huge financial costs of research, construction, material, maintenance of nuclear plants, plus high probability of human and ecological risks inherent with any nuclear project, would pose a challenge to the mind of every thoughtful person about the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear activity. All explained above, to some extent undermines the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear activity; therefore, we can deduce that the probability of Iran’s willingness to acquire nuclear weapon is high. This issue raises a serious question: should Iran get the nuclear bomb? The next section shall analyze this question (Sirani, 2012). 

3.2. Should Iran get the nuclear bomb?
Contrary to the present and former Iranian policy makers, Kenneth Waltz is not in the state of denial and bravely answers “yes” to this particular question. Undoubtedly, K. Waltz is one of the most prominent scholars of structural realism, whose significant contribution to International Relations is something that no one can deny. In an interview with PBS, Waltz argues that for many years, Israel has held the position of the only dominant and superior country in the Middle East. This issue has caused unevenness power situation and consequently instability in the region. Moreover, he states that in the past 70 years, there has not been any offence from any nuclear state against crucial interest of another nuclear capable country. Waltz underpins his statement with an example from cold war era and further claims; since the United States and former Soviet Union possessed nuclear weapons, the balance of power, and consequently stability were established in the world. Moreover, he argues, when a state obtains enough numbers of nuclear weapons, it can use them for deterrence. In other words, as he states, nuclear weapons provide peace. Based on these types of arguments, Waltz concludes that a nuclear-armed Iran would create the balance of power between two countries i.e. Iran and Israel in the Middle East. As a result, this issue will provide peace and stability in the region (PBS, 2012).    

Some questions arise from Waltz’s controversial arguments noted above. How does Kenneth Waltz perceive the international politics? How does K. Waltz evaluate the behavior of states when he openly and loudly announces that Iran should get the nuclear bomb? The reasonable answers to these questions can help us to judge the issue of nuclear-armed Iran in an appropriate manner. However, Waltz’s statement about nuclear-armed Iran stems from his structural realism theory, which is commonly named defensive realism. Generally, structural realists (including defensive realists) agree that international politics is originally a struggle for power but they do not support the idea of classical realist that this is an effect of human nature. Instead, they argue that security rivalry and inter-state conflict occur, due to the absence of a superior authority above states and relative distribution of power in the international system. Waltz describes the structure of the international system, based on three main principles including:
“Organizing principles (anarchy, which corresponds to the decentralized realm of international politics, and hierarchy, which is the basis of domestic order), differentiation of units and distribution of capabilities” (Dunne & Schmidt, 2008, P.98). 
Amongst these principles, Waltz argues that the distribution of power is the important element for understanding the different events that occur in the international politics. Furthermore, he states:
“Power is a means to the end of security. … Because power is a possibly useful means, sensible Statesmen try to have an appropriate amount of it. He adds, in crucial situations, however, the ultimate concern of states is not for power but for security (Waltz 1989:40). In other words, rather than being power maximizers, states, according to Waltz, are security maximizers” (Dunne & Schmidt, 2008, P.98, 99).  
This statement clearly explains how Kenneth Waltz perceives the international politics and based on which assumption, he defends the nuclear-armed Iran statement. In order to justify or refute Waltz’s statement about this issue, it would be appropriate to evaluate the behavior of Iran in the international arena. If the result of this evaluation confirms that Iran is a security maximizer state (as Waltz’s theory generally explains), then we can justify Waltz’s statement that nuclear-armed Iran would create the balance of power and stability in the Middle East. On the contrary, if we find that Iran is a power maximizer state, then, we can claim that a nuclear-armed Iran not only would not provide stability in the Middle East, instead, it would intensify the scope of tension and conflict in the whole region. In this case, we can argue that Waltz’s statement about this sensitive and important issue is severely questionable or even more refutable. This important issue shall be discussed in the next section.     

3.2.1. Is Iran a power maximizer or a security maximizer state?
In order to answer this question, it would be useful to have a brief knowledge about Iran’s behavior abroad, particularly in the Middle East. The emergence of the Islamic Regime in Iran in 1979 inspired the whole Shiite people around the world particularly in the Middle East, Asia, and Africa. Since the early days of the Islamic revolution, Iran has begun to identify, organize, fund, and promote different Shiite groups around the globe, in order to mobilize and use them in different occasions towards its own main goals. Relying on such potential army of supporters, Iran has mapped out its foreign policy based on three main principles of 1- building alliance with its friends, 2- exporting the Islamic revolution to different countries and 3-causing hostility against its enemies. The fulfillment of these principles along with interference in internal and external affairs of other countries, so far, has caused many tension and instability around the world, particularly in the strategic region of the Middle East (Sirani, 2011, 2012).  
First and nearest victim of such meddling was Iraq. Since 1979, Iran has started to support the Shiite group in Iraq in different ways, in order to persuade them to rebel against Saddam Hussein, the former dictator of Iraq. Consequently, in 1980, this hostile behavior along with some other reasons triggered the war between the two countries for almost eight years. In addition to Iraq, Israel was one of the main targets for the Islamic Regime from the beginning. Therefore, since early days of the Islamic revolution, Iran has begun to build a strong relationship with Syria as a strategic partner in the Middle East. This relationship has brought some opportunities for Iran. Firstly, Iran could expand its influence and authority beyond its territory near the borders of Israel. Secondly, Iran has achieved a better possibility to assist Shiite minorities in Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine in their struggles against Saddam Hussein and Israel. In 1982, Iran’s overall supports helped the Shiite militia group in Lebanon and consequently the Hezbollah organization was officially established (Kepel, 2002; Buchta, 2000; Sirani, 2012).                    

It is worth nothing that during this particular time, while Iran was sponsoring the Hezbollah, Hamas, and Syria in their hostility against the US and Israel, these two states (Israel and the US) were selling weapons to Iran against Saddam Hussein. Moreover, Saudi Arabia was another important target for Iran, since 1979. From the beginning of the Islamic revolution, Iran has begun to provoke the Shiite groups in Afghanistan, Bahrain, and Yemen against Saudi Arabia. To summarize, since 1979, Iran has provided financial, logistical, military, and training supports to different Shiite groups in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Sudan, Nigeria, Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen. We should bear in mind that some of these Shiite groups have based their headquarters in exile in Iran. Some clear examples of Iran’s unlawful activities are: hostage taking of foreign nationals (e.g. in Tehran and Lebanon), bombing (e.g. Jewish cultural center in Buenos Aires), terror & death threats (e.g. Iranian dissidents abroad, Salman Rushdie) and sponsoring different Islamic fundamental groups (e.g. Hezbollah and Hamas) (Kepel, 2002; Buchta, 2000; Sirani, 2012).                     

This short summary of Iran’s activities abroad undermines the accuracy of Waltz’s statement mentioned in the previous section from different angles. Waltz argues that in a crucial situation, the ultimate concern of any state is its security. As mentioned above, the Islamic Regime, from early days of the revolution (i.e. a crucial situation), has begun to support the different Shiite militia groups abroad. This example indicates that this part of Waltz’s theory (with all respect to Waltz) is not compatible with the behavior of Iran and is severely questionable (Dunne & Schmidt, 2008).
Furthermore, Waltz argues that all states, rather than being power maximizers, are security maximizers. This part of Waltz’s statement is also highly questionable. Based on all explained above, then how would we evaluate Iran’s aggressive behavior beyond its borders? Would Iran be recognized as just a security maximizer state, since the country, from the beginning, has constantly interfered with any external and internal affairs of different Muslim countries in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East? More generally, would it be reasonable to generalize this part of Waltz’s statement to all states including Iran with such aggressive behavior abroad? These questions to some extent undermine this part of Waltz’s statement and prove that Iran is not just a security maximizer state. Another realist scholar such as Randall Schweller also criticizes this part of Waltz’s statement and claims that historically this assumption is not correct. Schweller argues that:
“The assumption that all states have an interests in security results in neo-realism exhibiting a profoundly status quo basis” (Dunne & Schmidt, 2008, p. 99).
Schweller uses the ideas of other scholars such as Morgenthau and Kissinger and further defines the difference between status quo state and revisionist state by using Germany as a historical example. He categorizes Germany as a revisionist state in the 1930s and a status quo state after the Second World War and further argues that these two positions i.e. status quo and revisionism have had tremendous impact on the behavior of Germany in the international system during these periods of time. From this, Schweller concludes:
“Not only do states differ in terms of their interests, but they also differ in terms of their ability to extract and direct resources from the societies that they rule” (Dunne & Schmidt, 2008, p. 99).      

Schweller’s argument to certain extent refutes waltz’s statement and at the same time, it underpins our argument about the behavior of Iran abroad. In fact, the history of Iran’s behavior in the Middle East illustrates that, Iran gradually, continuously and sometimes even aggressively has expanded its hegemony and dominance beyond its borders in different parts of the region. These hegemonic behaviors indicate that, unlike Waltz’s statement, Iran is more prone to power maximization and sometimes even more; Iran has been willing to gamble and sacrifice its own security in order to achieve more hegemony and power. The recent nuclear standoff would be a clear example of such attitude. Iran’s doubtful nuclear activity, so far, has caused severe economic sanctions for the country and even more, it might lead Iran into a devastating war. However, with all these difficulties and potentially dangerous consequences, Iran still does not want to suspend its nuclear activity, even at the expense of its own security and the life of its own people (Dunne & Schmidt, 2008; Sirani, 2012). 

All explained above, brings us to two important points. Firstly, it indicates that Iran is a power maximizer state and more generally, in the crucial situation, (e.g. the early days of the Islamic Revolution and current nuclear stand off); the ultimate concern of Iran has not been and is not security as waltz’s theory generally argues. Secondly, it proves that defensive realism theory is unable to find reasonable and reliable explanation about the behavior of Iran abroad. Therefore, we can conclude that the idea of nuclear-armed Iran stated by Kenneth Waltz is seriously questionable. However, in order to reject this idea with more accuracy, we need more theoretical explanation and evidence about Iran and Its behavior. The next section shall analyze these issues.

3.3. Analyzing the nature of Iran’s behavior:
In order to examine the behavior of Iran more in depth, it would be appropriate to review another approach within structural realism, which is relevant to this topic. This approach, explored by John Mearsheimer is termed as offensive realism. This view shares some basic assumption with Waltz’s defensive realism; but differs when it comes to the issue of how much power any state would desire. Mearsheimer argues that the lack of a central powerful authority, which can control the behavior of states, has caused anarchy in the international system. In this anarchistic system, all states are potential threats to each other; therefore, they face uncertainty and distrust about the intentions and purposes of other states. This situation, inevitably, forces states to increase their power and sometimes their offensive military abilities, in order to protect their security and sovereignty (Baylis, 2008; Dunne & Schmidt, 2008).   
Moreover, Mearsheimer claims:
“There are no satisfied of status quo state; rather, all states are continuously searching for opportunities to gain power at the expense of other states…The states recognize that the best path to peace is to accumulate more power than anyone else…He concludes that the world is condemned to perpetual great power competition” (Dunne & Schmidt, 2008, P. 99).

Contrary to Waltz’s theory, Mearsheimer’s statement is more comprehensive and gives us a better explanation, when it comes to analyzing the behavior of Iran. From Mearsheimer’s statement, we can deduce that some issues such as anarchy, sense of uncertainty and the lack of a central authority in the international system force Iran to maximize its power. As a result, Iran’s power maximization behavior causes hostility and tension in different parts of the Middle East. However, this issue raises some other questions about the behavior of Iran in the region. Why Iran’s hostility is mainly focused on Israel and Saudi Arabia in the Middle East? Why Iran, so far, has not demonstrated any serious aggressive behavior against Turkey for example?
These are the questions, which Mearsheimer’s statement cannot answer them. However, these questions leads us to the point that in addition to Mearsheimer’s statement and more generally, the international distribution of power factor, some other elements should be considered, when it comes to analyzing the behavior of states. Some issues like this have raised many questions among realist scholars too, particularly, since the end of the cold war. These issues have motivated a group of realists to find a better and more comprehensive explanation about the behavior of states. This group of scholars, which Gideon Rose identified them as Neoclassical Realists, while acknowledges the basic assumptions of structural realists about the behavior of states, argues that there are some other factors at the individual and domestic level, which can influence the behavior of states in the international arena. These factors are “the perception of state leaders, state-society relationships, and the motivation of states” (Dunne & Schmidt, 2008, p. 99).
These factors can lead us to a better understanding of Iran’s activities abroad. In order to examine the compatibility of these factors with Iran’s behavior, it would be useful to have some knowledge about the mindset of Ayatollah Khomeini the founder of the Islamic Revolution. This knowledge can offer us better perspectives about some issues including: how the opinion of Khomeini has influenced the domestic issues in Iran, how he has perceived the international society and/ or politics, and finally, how Khomeini’s ideas has shaped and determined the destination of Iran’s activities abroad. Regarding these issues, David Armstrong argues:
“Khomeini challenged not just American power but the prevailing conception of international society. He believed the problems of the Middle East and other Muslim countries to have been caused by their disregard of Islamic religious principles and called for the overthrow of the illegitimate political powers that now rule the entire Islamic World and their replacement by religious government. More generally, he argued that not only were earthly governments illegitimate, but the states itself and the concept of nationality were equally invalid. …Khomeini insisted that the only important social identity for Muslims was their membership of the community of believers, or umma” (Armstrong, 2008, p. 49).

If we review the behavior of Iran in the international arena, particularly in the Middle East, we come up to the point that up until now, Iran exactly and progressively has pursued Khomeini’s statement during the past 34 years. Based on this theological doctrine, Iran has been continuously ignoring the legitimacy and sovereignty of other states and more generally, the international laws in different occasions. These types of behaviors indicate the fact that the religious factor plays an important role in Iran’s behavior not only in domestic arena but also in the international system. This issue confirms the reliability of neoclassical realism as Stephan Walt argues:”the causal logic of neoclassical realism places domestic politics as an intervening variable between the distribution of power and foreign policy behavior” (Dunne & Schmidt, 2008, P. 99).
From all above, we can deduce that, Iran’s non-stop hostile attitude against some states such as Israel and Saudi Arabia stems from its ideological characteristic (Shiite  Islam) and not only from the lack of balance of power in the region, as Waltz argues. This kind of hostility is unstoppable, irreversible, and irresistible characteristic, which is embedded in the political structure of Iran. This inherent character, irresistibly forces Iran to behave aggressively in the international arena (particularly against Saudi Arabia and Israel) and this process is more likely to continue in the future too. This characteristic has tremendous tendency towards expansion too, as the history of Iran’s behavior in the past 34 years has shown. During all these years, Iran has been trying to expand its influence and authority beyond its borders at the expense of other states. It seems unrealistic maybe, but different evidences indicate that Iran is pursuing a bigger plan in the Middle East, i.e. to become a religious regional hegemon. In order to achieve this goal, Iran should defeat Israel and Saudi Arabia; therefore, since the beginning, Iran’s hostility has been mainly focused on Israel and Saudi Arabia in the Middle East. If Iran would manage to defeat these states, Iran would be able to have enormous authority over the strategic parts of the world. Consequently, the side effect of Iran’s effort in this direction causes continuous tension and instability in the region (Figure 1) (Sirani, 2012).       

Figure 1: Iran's activities in the Middle East (Sirani, 2012)

Red arrow: Iran's offensive activities in the Middle East.

Green arrow: Iran's final plan for the Middle East.

Black arrow: Saudi Arabia's offensive and defensive activities in response to Iran.

So far, to some extent, Iran has managed to implement some parts of its plan in the Middle East, particularly, since the US has officially withdrawn its troops from Iraq. The withdrawal of American forces from Iraq has created an excellent opportunity for Iran. Finally, for the first time and after 34 years effort, Iran has found a free transit road from its territory towards the borders of Israel. However, up until now, Saudi Arabia has managed to control Iran’s offensive behaviors in Bahrain and Yemen, but the main battle in Syria is continuing. Therefore, it would be hard to believe that Iran would halt its nuclear activities and withdraw its support for Syria. Because, these two particular issues are related to each other and both of them are the important parts of Iran’s plan for the Middle East. Based on all explained above, we can conclude that a nuclear-armed Iran not only would not provide instability in the Middle East, instead, it would offer Iran more power and opportunity to move faster towards its final destination i.e. the establishment of a religious regional hegemony, with more aggressive and offensive behaviors (Sirani, 2011, 2012).  
In conclusion, I have to imply that the notion of peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear activity is severely questionable and to some extent even refutable. The large amount of different natural resources and geographical advantages in the country, indicate that Iran is likely to obtain nuclear weapon. Moreover, different evidences, illustrate that contrary to Waltz’s theory, Iran is not a security maximizer state like any other states. Instead, the history of Iran’s activities abroad shows that Iran is an aggressive power maximizer state. The root cause of Iran’s aggressive behavior originates from its ideological characteristic. This is an unstoppable and irreversible characteristic, which causes hostility and consequently instability in the international arena. This religious characteristic, irresistibly forces Iran to expand its authority and influence, at the expense of other states and even more, its own security and people. As discussed in this paper, I found out that both defensive realism and to some degree offensive realism approach, was not able to explain the root cause of Iran’s aggressive behavior Contrary to these approaches, neoclassical realism could explain the behavior of Iran with more accuracy. In fact, the case of Iran proved that in addition to the distribution of power and security maximization, some other factors such as ideological characteristic of state leaders or political system and motivation of states are the important issues, which should be considered when it comes to analyzing the behavior of states. Based on all explained in this paper, I refute the idea of nuclear-armed Iran strongly, because Iran does not have the similar interest and ideology like any other current nuclear-armed states. Nuclear weapon might function as a deterrence and defensive factor for the current nuclear-armed countries, but it would not be logical and reasonable to generalize this assumption to a country like the Islamic Republic of Iran with such aggressive history. One last issue to mention is that almost all realist scholars including Kenneth Waltz argue that the lack of an overarching authority above states causes anarchy and instability in the world. This argument raises a serious question especially for those realists who defend the nuclear-armed Iran statement: If Iran would mange to become a member of the nuclear-armed countries, which powerful international authority would be able to control its hegemonic religious behavior ?     

Mehran Sirani                                                                  03.09.2012

Note: It should be mentioned that i wrote this essay during a 5 credits extensive course (August 2012) in the first month of beginning of my master program in International Relations. 


Armstrong, D. (2008). The evolution of international society. In: Baylis, J. & Smith, S. & Owens, P. (4th ed). THE GLOBALIZATION OF THE WORLD POLITICS: An introduction to international relations, p. 36-52. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Baylis, J. (2008). International and global security. In: Baylis, J. & Smith, S. & Owens, P. (4th ed). THE GLOBALIZATION OF THE WORLD POLITICS: An introduction to international relations, p. 226-241. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Britannica. (2012). Dasht-e Kavir.
Accessed on: 20.08.2012

Britannica. (2012). Dasht-e Lut.
Accessed on: 20.08.2012

Buchta, W.  (2000). WHO RULES IRAN? : The Structure of Power in the Islamic Republic. A Joint Publication of The Washington Institute for Near East Policy and the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung.

Dunne, T. & Schmidt, B. (2008). Realism. In: Baylis, J. & Smith, S. & Owens, P. (4th ed). THE GLOBALIZATION OF THE WORLD POLITICS: An introduction to international relations, p. 90-106. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Accessed on: 17.08.2012.

Kepel, G. (2002). JIHAD:  THE TRIAL OF POLITICAL ISLAM. Translated by: Anthony F. Roberts, Published by THE BELKNAP PRESS OF HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

PBS NEWSHOUR. (2012). The Upside of a Nuclear-Armed Iran: A Chat With Kenneth

Accessed on: 18.08.2012.

Accessed on: 19.08.2012.  (This is a Persian language article about Iran’s activities in the Middle East including in Syria, which I published in the Persian websites).

Accessed on: 17.08.2012. (In this Persian language article, I have predicted the possibility of war between Iran and the West).

The World Factbook. (2012). IRAN.
Accessed on: 19.08.2012.