Will the US Attack Iran?

As it appears the nuclear negotiation between 5+1 and Iran has reached a new critical point. As far as i know, both sides are disagree on some issues including:

1- Heavy Water Nuclear Facility in Arak.
2- Visiting Parchin facility; a military base that IAEA suspects that Iran has done some nuclear test over there
3- A full and comprehensive Additional Protocol, which gives IAEA inspectors unlimited and unexpected access to all Iran's nuclear facilities at any time.
4- Iran's Missile Development Program.
5- Development of New types of Nuclear Centrifuges (High speed).

In this respect, some observations are in order.

1- Iran might apparently agree to change the Heavy Water reactor to a Light Water reactor in Arak Nuclear Facility.

2- The chance that Iran would give permission to IAEA inspectors to visit Parchin Facility is honestly very low; unless Iran would be sure that it has perfectly cleaned this Facility in a way that IAEA inspectors would not find any evidence against Iran.

3- About Additional Protocol, Iran might agree to accept it finally. But, there is a serious question in this matter. Can the IAEA or the international community trust Iran? The answer to this question is also negative. An example, which confirms my statement is a new report, which claims that Iran has been hiding Plutonium in the special metal pipes.

4- In terms of Missile Development program, i have to say that Iran would never accept such an deal specially at this stage with the West. Such a deal with Iran might be possible in one occasion and that is that Iran has obtained nuclear weapon. In that case, Iran might agree to sign a agreement such as The New START Treaty with the West plus a strong international legally binding confirmation that the West would never militarily attack Iran.


M. Sirani                          14.05.2014  

For those, who are interested, i re-upload my previous essay in this matter here below.

Will the US attack Iran?

 Mehran Sirani                                  01.11.2012

Introduction:

Iran’s nuclear activity is one of the main topics of discussion amongst most politicians around the globe. This issue has generated enormous fear and uncertainty amongst some policy makers, particularly amongst those officials in the strategic region of the Middle East. In response, Iran continuously insists that the nature of its nuclear activity is peaceful and the country does not have any plan to build a nuclear weapon. On the other hand, after many years’ efforts, still the IAEA has not been able to verify the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear activity, due to the lack of full control and access to all Iran’s nuclear plants and programmes. Consequently, so far, the US and the EU have enforced severe diplomatic pressure and enormous economic sanctions on Iran. However, despite all these hard pressures, Iran not only has not stopped or reduced its nuclear activities; instead, it has intensified its nuclear programmes at one of its underground nuclear facilities i.e. Fordo. The combination of all these issues has made Iran’s nuclear activity more suspicious and dubious. It seems that Iran is moving towards building a nuclear weapon. This is something that is unacceptable for most of the countries around the world including the US. Regarding Iran’s nuclear activity, there are two general opinions amongst most of the people. The first group believes that the current situation is very critical and Iran would finally stop its nuclear activity. The second group argues that Iran would not halt its nuclear activity and the country is trying to acquire the nuclear weapon. In response to the first group, we can argue, if Iran stops its nuclear activity, then the problem has been solved. Regarding the premise of the second group then, we are facing a serious question as follows: will the US attack Iran? This paper will attempt to find a convincing answer to this important question (Aei, 2012; Sirani, 2012).       

1- Literature Review:

In this paper, I would try to find a reasonable answer to the question of will the US attack Iran or not. Here below are the lists of literatures, which I find relevant and helpful to this topic.

1.1. Beginning with R. Jackson & G. Sørensen’s book “Introduction to International Relations: Theories & Approaches 4^th EDITION” which is a comprehensive book about different theoretical approaches within IR studies. In some chapters, the authors explain different IR theoretical subjects within the frame of a historical event. This method helps the reader to understand the IR theoretical subjects easily and with more accuracy. Personally, I recommend this book to every IR student. However, In order to analyze the possibility of this war, I use Yetiv’s theoretical framework in the chapter 9 (P. 225-248), titled “Foreign Policy” within this book.       

1.2. When it comes to analyzing the different issues about war and various types of philosophy of war, I think the book titled “SECURITY STUDIES: AN INTRODUCTION” 2e, edited by Paul D. Williams is a fascinating and useful book. The book consists of 37 chapters and all of them are relevant to different subjects within security studies. This book is also a comprehensive book and necessary for every IR student to read. In order to identify different types of philosophy of war in my paper, I use the chapter 13 (P. 187-205), titled “War” within this book.  

1.3. In order to analyze some other issues related to war, I use the chapter 12 (P. 210-224), titled “The changing character of war” written by M. Sheehan, within the book titled “THE GLOBALIZATION OF THE WORLD POLITICS: An introduction to international relations”, 4e, edited by J. Baylis, S. Smith, P. Owens. This book consists of 32 chapters, which all of them are relevant to important theoretical approaches and subjects within IR studies.

1.4. In order to analyze the ideological characteristic of the Islamic Regime, I use two religious websites of Eteghad and Al-Shia. Some details in these websites are necessary for those who want to know more about Shia branch of Islam.

2- Methodology:

All details in this paper were limited to secondary data derived from various books, articles, and internet resources relevant to this topic. I used desk study technique for my analysis in this paper. Through this process, i reviewed and examined the necessary information relevant to this topic. This paper is organized as follows: The first part examines the question of will the US attack Iran or not within Yetiv’s framework. This part consists of three separate sections and each section examines the main question of this paper separately within different models. The second part is a brief analysis about the reliability of Yetiv’s framework. The third part evaluates the mindset of policy makers in Iran. The fourth part examines the reaction of the US. The final part is conclusion.               

3- Main Discussion: Will the U.S. attack Iran?

In order to find a reasonable answer to this question, we need to have some knowledge about the mindset of decision maker in the US. In other words, how would the U.S. policy makers perceive the current nuclear dispute with Iran? In doing so, it would be helpful to use a theoretical framework, which has been introduced by Steve A. Yetiv in 2004. Through this framework, Yetiv has analyzed the main causes of the US invasion to Iraq in 2003. Although, there are many differences between that war and current tension between the US and Iran in different terms, but this framework, to some extent might help us to find a convincing answer to our main question. However, Yetiv’s framework consists of three theoretical models, which all of them should be examined parallel to each other and simultaneously. These theoretical models include 1- The Rational Actor Model (RAM), 2- the Groupthink Model and 3- the Cognitive Model (Figure 1) (Jackson & Sørensen, 2010).

 

                                                   

Figure 1: Yetiv’s framework for analyzing the possibility of a war (Jackson & Sørensen, 2010).

3.1. The Rational Actor Model (RAM):

The main structure of the RAM model is based on realist point of view. According to this model, the anarchic nature of the international system forces states to rely on self-help, in order to achieve and protect their national security and interest. In the anarchical international system, a state, based on rational choice would go to war, if it recognizes that its vital national security or interests are in jeopardy. Thus, in the international system: war is always a possibility. With this brief explanation, let us examine the possibility of the US war against Iran within the RAM model. So far, the nuclear activities of Iran have been causing many tension and uncertainty in the international arena, particularly in the strategic region of the Middle East. The US (i.e. policy makers in the USA) knows that a nuclear-armed Iran would dramatically change the balance of power in the Middle East. Such change in the first place, would weaken and threaten the superiority-security of Israel as the US closest ally in the region. On the other hand, a nuclear-armed Iran would also threaten the security of some other oil-rich states including Saudi Arabia in the Gulf area. This event, as a result, would accelerate a nuclear arms race amongst other states in the Middle East. Such a nuclear arms race in an area, which supplies large amount of oil and gas to the rest of the world would automatically threaten the global economy too (Jackson & Sørensen, 2010; Nti, 2012; Sirani, 2012).

This brief explanation shows that the RAM model faces a serious dilemma. On the one hand, as we know, most of the realist scholars including Kenneth Waltz are the proponents of a nuclear-armed Iran idea. These scholars claim that a nuclear-armed Iran would create the balance of power between Israel and Iran in the Middle East. As a result, this issue would promote peace and stability in the region. From this point of view, based on the RAM model, we can deduce that the US would not attack Iran. However, on the other hand, a nuclear-armed Iran would lead the Middle Eastern countries towards a nuclear arms race. This event, consequently, would threaten the national security-interest of not only the oil-rich states in the Middle East but also other countries around the globe, which are dependent on oil, and gas of this region (Jackson & Sørensen, 2010; Pbs, 2012).   

Moreover, there is tremendous fear about the growing activities of fundamentalist non-state actors such as Al-Qaida in the region and access of these fanatic groups to any types of weapons of mass destruction including nuclear weapon. This is also a crucial issue for most politicians in the world including the policy makers in the US. If, for instance, Iran obtains nuclear weapons and after a while, this political system would face a serious political turmoil, some radical Islamic non-state actor or some fundamentalist faction within this political system might have access to the nuclear bomb in the country. In this case, what would happen? How would the international community be able to control this nuclear-armed fundamentalist group? The combination of all these issues, would automatically threaten the national security and interest of the US and its close allies in the region. In this case, based on the RAM model, we can conclude that the US would attack Iran, in order to protect the national security-interest of itself and its close allies in the Middle East. As illustrated above, the RAM model faces a serious dilemma and gives us two contradictory outcomes of negative and positive conclusions about the possibility of this war (Jackson & Sørensen, 2010; Pbs, 2012).   

3.2. The Groupthink Model:

This model focuses on the mindset and perception of small group of advisors, who their opinions to some extent would influence the process of decision making for war. These advisors (Think Tanks) might work in the private sector, some government bureaus, university departments or some public institutions. This group of advisor provides useful information and consultation on different international issues for states. We should bear in mind, that any miscalculation or misperception in these advices, could lead the process of decision making towards an unnecessary and devastating war. The US invasion of Iraq in 2003 would be a clear example of such erroneous decision. Regarding that war (2003), Yetiv claims that a small group of advisors mistakenly convinced President Bush that the economic sanctions against Saddam’s regime would not function anymore. As a result, the president Bush approved an unnecessary and costly war against Iraq without any further consultation even with some of his experienced staffs including C. Powell and N. Schwarzkopf (Jackson & Sørensen, 2010).       

Based on some reasons, analyzing the possibility of the US war against Iran within this particular model, would be difficult too. One of the main reasons is the broad range of foreign policy advisers with different IR theoretical thinking within Obama’s administration. The simultaneous presence of some leading realist figures such as Z. Brzezinski and B. Scowcroft and some liberal internationalists such as S. Rice and H. Clinton within this administration portrays an image that it seems; Obama’s administration is swinging between realism and liberal internationalism approaches in terms of its foreign policy. This bipolarity makes our analysis within this model a little bit more difficult. Consequently, we are left with some unanswered questions including: who would be the main and final advisor/advisors regarding this war? Would these advisors have a realist or liberalist understanding about the international system? Which one of these approaches would be the dominant idea in the final stage of the decision-making? (Antiwar, 2012; Jackson & Sørensen, 2010).      

3.3. The Cognitive Model:   

This model focuses on the individual key decision-maker, in this case the President Obama, who can profoundly change the course of the decision-making process regarding this issue. In order to analyze the possibility of the US war against Iran within this model, we need to find reasonable answers to some questions including: How does Obama perceive the current tension with Iran? Does Obama use any historical analogy regarding this war? What kind of images does Obama have about this tension? Are these images derived from accurate information through an authentic source or are mixed by fake and bias information? Answering these questions is not also an easy task, because it requires some confidential information, which unfortunately is beyond our access and authority (Jackson & Sørensen, 2010).

The lack of such confidential information limits the scope of our analysis within this model. This issue compels us to rely on some information about Obama, which we have observed in the past four years of his presidency. In this case, we can argue that there are two different images from Obama. On the one hand, Obama is a president that:

“He has racked up some notable successes, including significantly weakening al Qaeda, effectively managing relations with China, rebuilding the United States' international reputation, resetting the relationship with Russia and ratifying the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), achieving a UN Security Council resolution imposing harsh sanctions on Iran, completing overdue but welcome free-trade accords, and withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq”      (Foreignaffairs, 2012).

Based on this statement, Obama is a liberal internationalist. From this characteristic, we can deduce that Obama would prefer to solve the current nuclear dispute with Iran through a diplomatic and peaceful manner. On the other hand, we have seen another face of Barack Obama, which to some extent undermines the previous deduction. Obama’s hasty reaction to Hosni Mubarak, the former Egyptian president, and the US military intervention in Libya that led to regime change in this country portray another image about Obama. From these examples, we can assume that Obama has some tendency towards liberal interventionism approach too. However, whether Obama is a liberal internationalist or a liberal interventionist or combination of both these approaches, we should bear in mind some important points. Firstly, these different approaches do not mean that Obama will continue to this diplomatic struggle with Iran in an infinite period; since every diplomatic effort, even a diplomatic marathon type (i.e. a long-term negotiation) has a time limitation, particularly when it comes to sensitive and crucial issue like the nuclear weapon. Secondly, these approaches do not signify that Obama would always solve every tension in a peaceful and diplomatic manner. Regarding Iran’s nuclear activity, Obama has clearly expressed his opinion in different occasions and publicly announced that, the US prefers to solve the nuclear dispute with Iran through a diplomatic manner, but all of the options including the military action are still on the table. Moreover, recently, Obama has strongly emphasized that the clock is ticking and as long as he is the president, he would not allow Iran to obtain the nuclear weapon. Thirdly and in addition to all explained above, we should also bear in mind this part of M. Doyle’s statement, when he claims: “Liberal democracies are as aggressive as any other type of state in their relations with authoritarian regimes and state less peoples” (Jackson & Sørensen, 2010; Nytimes, 2012; Dune, 2008, p.113).

3.4. The Summary of Yetiv’s Framework:

In the last three sections, we have tried to find a convincing answer to our main question within Yetiv’s framework. Through this framework, we have examined the possibility of this war within three separate theoretical models. The result of its RAM model led us towards two contradictory negative and positive conclusions about the occurrence of this war. The results of two other analyses of the groupthink and cognitive models also could not give us a concrete and precise answer about the possibility of this war, due to the lack of access to some confidential information within Obama’s administration. However, in general, the results of Yetiv’s framework bring us to some important points. Firstly, it indicates that a nuclear-armed Iran to some degree would threaten the national security and interest of the US and its close allies in the Middle East. In other words, if Iran would not agree to stop its secret and mysterious nuclear activities, there would be some possibility that the US will attack Iran (Jackson & Sørensen, 2010).

Secondly and more generally, Yetiv’s framework might have been helpful in case of analyzing the US invasion to Iraq in 2003, but it cannot be a universal and comprehensive theoretical tool to use by every analyzer (with all respect to Yetiv) in every case study; due to some complications in its groupthink and cognitive models. As illustrated above, these two models can be examined properly, only by those analyzers who have access to some confidential and secret information, in our case study, within Obama’s administration. The lack of such important information undermines the accuracy and efficiency of Yetiv’s framework. This shortage of knowledge, as a result, creates extra complication for us. For example, in the current situation, there are some important events going on in the international arena. Each one of these events to some extent might increase or on the contrary, decrease the possibility of this war; but within Yetiv’s framework, we cannot evaluate them. The current global economic stagnation is one of these events. Within this framework, we cannot analyze, whether the current global economic stagnation would be a driving force towards this war, or on the contrary, this issue would prevent the war. The second event is ongoing severe civil war in Syria as one of Iran’s closest allies in the Middle East. Within this framework, again we cannot figure out whether this issue would increase the possibility of this war or not? Although, analyzing the effect of current economic stagnation on the possibility of this war is beyond the scope and format of this paper, but the recent conflict in Syria is an important issue, which should not be overlooked. In order to find out how current tension in Syria might increase or decrease the possibility of this war, we should turn our attention to the mindset of policy makers in Iran. In other words, what is the final goal of policy makers in Iran? How would the policy makers in Iran perceive the current tension in Syria? The next section shall analyze these issues.   

4- The Mindset of Policy Makers in Iran:

The ideological foundation of the Islamic Republic of Iran is based on the Shia branch of Islam. The Shia Muslims in Iran (Mostly Twelver) are the followers of the twelve descendants of the Prophet Mohammad. According to Shia mythology, some three centuries after the death of the Prophet Mohammad, the twelfth Imam (Mahdi) went into an indefinite period of occultation. The fundamental belief of Shia branch is as follows: when the world is full of injustice, inequality, and violence, Imam Mahdi will return and fill the world with justice and prosperity for all people, through the establishment of an Islamic state on Earth. Based on this theological doctrine, the Islamic Regime has been trying to expand its influence and hegemony beyond its own geographical borders, particularly in the Middle East. This religious expansion is a celestial duty for the Islamic Regime and it pursues a sacred goal: the establishment of a Shia Empire in the region. Two of the most important functions of this Shia Empire would be as follows: 1- It would facilitate the advent of Imam Mahdi and 2- It would provide the necessary assistance and support to Imam Mahdi, when he will return from occultation. Iran precisely knows that the achievement of such a divine and important goal without the nuclear weapon is almost impossible. This is the main reason behind Iran’s nuclear activities. However, different evidences indicate the fact that recently despite enormous diplomatic pressure and severe economic sanctions, Iran not only has not reduced its uranium enrichment programmes, instead it has accelerated its nuclear activities, for example at Fordo underground facility near Qom city (Afshari, 2011; Aei, 2012; Sirani, 2012; Eteghad, 2012).

This issue raises a serious question. Why Iran does not halt or reduce its nuclear activity, despite all these diplomatic and economic sanctions? The answer to this question has direct connection with current civil war in Syria and Shia group uprising in Yemen. As we know, from early days of the Islamic Revolution, the policy makers in Iran have been trying to hold a durable, solid, and close tie with Syrian regime. This close relationship between Tehran and Damascus can be understood partly within the concept of a stronger strategic partnership against Israel. However, this is not the whole story; since, there is some other important reason beyond this inseparable strategic partnership. According to different hadiths in Shia branch of Islam, the righteous movement in Yemen and bloody civil war in Syria are amongst five events, which would occur before or during the emergence of Imam Mahdi (Eteghad, 2012; Sirani, 2012).

According to one of these hadiths:

“One example of the direct help that Imam Mahdi will receive from Allah s.w.t. will be his defeat of Sufyaani. Sufyaani will be a man from the family of Abu Sufyan, and he will emerge from Damascus and conduct a ruthless campaign of bloodshed and mass killing, during which thousands of innocent people will be slaughtered. He will be supported by the people of the tribe of Kalb.

Sufyaani will dispatch his army to Mecca in order to destroy Imam Mahdi, however Imam Mahdi’s army will easily defeat Sufyaani’s army. Sufyaani will then lead a separate contingent of his remaining army to face Imam Mahdi himself. This army will subsequently be destroyed by an enormous earthquake at Baidaa on the road to Mecca” (Al-Shia, 2012).

It seems unrealistic for us, but this is the way that the policy makers in Iran perceive the Shia uprising in Yemen and the current civil war in Syria. In fact, the policy makers in Iran have a strong belief that currently, the Sufyaani army (i.e. the Syrian Liberation Army and those states who support them) wants to defeat Syrian regime and after that, this army will move to Mecca in order to kill Imam Mahdi. Therefore, defending Assad’s regime would become a divine duty for policy makers in Iran, which has to be fulfilled at the expense of everything, in order to save Imam Mahdi. In fact, the combination of the current civil war in Syria, Yemen and the Arab spring has portrayed an image in the mind of religious policy makers in Iran that these rallies across the Middle East arise from the chaos of the final war. In other words, according to Shia mythology, we are close to the advent of Imam Mahdi or the Day of Judgment. Thus, based on Shia eschatological philosophy, Iran should defeat its enemies and establish a new world order; a new world without war, injustice and inequality (Williams, 2013; Al-Shia, 2012; Eteghad, 2012).

This is an important matter that most of the scholars and politicians do not pay attention to it.

Based on all explained above, we can deduce that Iran’s eschatological war, across the Middle East including in Syria has begun. In the mind of policy makers in Iran, this is the historical-religious moment that Iran should acquire the nuclear bomb in order to accomplish its divine mission. Therefore, the chance that Iran would stop or reduce its nuclear activities is very low. As a result, we can expect that eventually, these diplomatic negotiations will also reach a dead end somewhere in the future. In this case, there is high probability that the US will attack Iran. The next section shall discuss this issue (Williams, 2013; Sirani, 2012).   

5- The Reaction of the US:  (If Obama wins re-election):

Obama knows that a military strike on Iran would increase the price of oil and this event would consequently deepen the global economic stagnation, at least for a while. Moreover, he does not want to repeat the same mistake that his ancestor (former President Bush) did and dragged the country into an unnecessary and costly war. Furthermore, he is fully aware that there is ongoing political transformation in different parts of the Middle East and a new war would generate more chaos and instability in the region. On the other hand, a nuclear-armed Iran would threaten the security of other states in the region and consequently would spark a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Such nuclear arms race would jeopardise not only the national security but also the national interest (e.g. oil and gas) of the US and its close allies in the region. This is a dangerous issue and a clear red line for Obama, particularly, since most of the states in the Middle East to some extent have been challenging by different radical Islamists non-state actors inducing Al-Qaida. However, after a while, Obama will come to the final point that the costs of waiting for sanctions to function are increasingly surpassing the benefits and the Islamic Regime is an intransigent regime, which cannot be trusted and negotiated anymore. In this case, against his own will, Obama might go to war against Iran somewhere in the future (Jackson & Sørensen, 2010; Sirani, 2012).

Through this war, Obama will try to minimize the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran in the Middle East. In fact, this war will be an instrument for the US in order to achieve a political and rational purpose; and that is to protect and maintain the national security and interest of the US and its close allies in the Middle East. From this, we can conclude that the US involvement and its perspective about this war will be based on the political philosophy and understanding of war (Williams, 2013).

As Michael Sheehan also states:

“Wars are fought for reasons. The Western understanding of war, following Clausewitz, sees it as instrumental, a means to an end. Wars in this perspective are not random violence; they reflect a conscious decision to engage in them for a rational political purpose. They are rationalized by those who initiate them by appeal to belief and values systems” (Sheehan, 2008, P. 214).

Conclusion:

In this essay, i tried to find a convincing answer to the question of whether the US will attack Iran or not. In doing so, i used Yetiv’s framework. Within this framework, i examined the possibility of this war within three separate theoretical models. The result of its RAM model was a dual negative and positive conclusion about the occurrence of this war. The results of two other groupthink and cognitive models within this framework were also unclear and uncertain, due to the lack of access to some important and confidential information within Obama’s administration. These ambiguities compelled me to turn my attention to the other actor of this tension i.e. Iran. My aim was to find out how the policy makers in Iran perceive the current tension. The result showed that there is some connection between the current tension in Syria and Iran’s nuclear activities. Moreover, it showed that this connection stems from ideological characteristic of the political system in Iran, which compels Iran to move faster towards acquiring the nuclear weapon. From this, it can be concluded that the chance that Iran would stop or reduce its nuclear activity is very low. Consequently, this issue might force Obama to go to war against Iran. Through this war, the US would try to delay the Iranian nuclear weapon programmes or possibly destroy the entire Iran’s nuclear facilities. The result of such military strike would be devastating in different terms for both sides. Many people, mostly Iranian would lose their lives during this war and the effects of nuclear particles and radiation would pollute not only the country but also the region in the years ahead. Iran might not be able to compete militarily with high technological military equipments of the US, but the country has some powerful weapons to retaliate, which should neither be underestimated nor ignored. The first and important weapon is that Iran would carry out a proxy war in the whole Middle East by using its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Ghods elite force and other Shiia militia groups including Hezbollah. The second and important weapon of Iran is the vulnerability of the Strait of Hormuz. Iran would easily close this strategic part of the world. One might wonder how? So far, Iran has accumulated large amount of oil in the fixed storage in the Khark Island (23 million barrels) and its floating oil tankers in the Persian Gulf. Iran would easily spill some amount of this oil in the Persian Gulf and burn them. In this way, Iran would be able to close the Strait of Hormuz, at least temporarily for a while. In sum, the hostility between Iran and the US will continue more or less until the final days of the Islamic Regime in Iran (Sirani, 2012).

Mehran Sirani                                                   01.11.2012                                                                                                                    

    

References:

Afshari, R. (2011). HUMAN RIGHTS IN IRAN: THE ABUSE OF CULTURAL RELATIVISM. Published by University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia

Al-Shia. (2012). The Emergence of Imam Mahdi.

URL:< http://www.al-shia.org/html/eng//page.php?id=528>. Accessed on: 22.10.2012.

American Enterprise Institute. (2012). Iran has only accelerated its nuclear activity.

URL:< http://www.aei.org/article/foreign-and-defense-policy/regional/middle-east-and-north-africa/iran-has-only-accelerated-its-nuclear-activity/>. Accessed on: 22.10.2012.

ANTI WAR. (2012). Liberals, Realists Set to Clash in Obama Administration.

URL:< http://antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=14095>. Accessed on: 20.10.2012.

Dunne, T. (2008). Liberalism. In: Baylis, J. & Smith, S. & Owens, P. (4^th ed). THE GLOBALIZATION OF THE WORLD POLITICS: An introduction to international relations, p. 108-122. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Eteghad. (2012). The Emergecne of Imam Mahdi.

URL< http://www.eteghadat.com/forum/topic-t627.html >. Accessed on: 20.10.2012.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS. (2012). Scoring Obama's foreign policy.

URL:< http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137516/martin-indyk-kenneth-lieberthal-and-michael-e-ohanlon/scoring-obamas-foreign-policy>. Accessed on: 23.10.2012.

Jackson, R. & Sørensen, G. (2010). Introduction to International Relations Theories & Approaches, 4^th EDITION. Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York.

NTI. (2012). Obama Pledges to Prevent Nuclear-Armed Iran.

URL:< http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/obama/>. Accessed on: 19.10.2012.

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

Waltz. URL: < http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/07/among-those-who-study-international.html>. Accessed on: 20.10.2012.

Sheehan, M. (2008). The changing character of war. In: Baylis, J. & Smith, S. & Owens, P. (4^th ed). THE GLOBALIZATION OF THE WORLD POLITICS: An introduction to international relations, p. 210-225. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sirani, M.  (2012). WHEN A NATION DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THAT, THE WAR HAS BEGUN. URL: < http://www.akhbar-rooz.com/article.jsp?essayId=46402>.

Accessed on: 21.10.2012.  (This is a Persian language article about Iran’s activities in the Middle East including in Syria, which I published in the Persian websites).

Sirani, M. (2012).  How can Iran  close the Strait of Hormuz?

URL: < http://www.akhbar-rooz.com/article.jsp?essayId=46506>. Accessed on: 25.10.2012

(This is a Persian language article about how Iran can close the Strait of Hormuz, which I published in the Persian websites).

The New York Times. (2012). Obama Rebuffs Netanyahu on Setting Limits on Iran’s Nuclear Program.

URL:<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/world/middleeast/obama-rebuffs-netanyahu-on-nuclear-red-line-for-iran.html?_r=0>. Accessed on> 22.10.2012.

Williams, P, D. (2013). SECURITY STUDIES, AN INTRODUCTION.2nd EDITION. Published 2013 by Routledge, 3 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN.

Nigeria on the Verge of Explosion Sooner or Later.

The ongoing visible and invisible clash between four main different groups would ultimately drag Nigeria into a devastating chaotic situation. These groups include:

1- The undemocratic and corrupt political system that is supported by the Western countries and companies because of oil and other natural resources.

2- The majority of Nigerian people that live under severe poverty, inhuman and undemocratic condition.

3- The rebels that are active in the Niger Delta area (South of the country).

4- The Boko Haram group that is active in north east of the country.

The ongoing conflict between these four different groups would sooner or later lead Nigeria toward a huge disaster.


M. Sirani                               09.05.2014

Nearly 300 Innocent Young Girls Should Be Abducted in Nigeria that the World Understand What Type of Political System Governs in That Country? (Shame on Those Politicians that Have Closed Their Eyes on Nigeria Because of Oil and Other Natural Resources).

Shame on those politicians and multinational companies that have closed their eyes on the undemocratic and corrupt political system in Nigeria because of oil and other natural resources. Imagine that one of these young girls was your own daughter, what would you do? Shame on you that money and political position are the only important issues for you.


M. Sirani                             08.05.2014

China Deepens and Develops Defense Cooperation With Iran.

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

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

M. Sirani                                  05.05.2014

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

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

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

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



M. Sirani                            26.03.2014

Instead of Russia, Buying Gas From Iran? Are You Out of Your Mind?

When i clearly and loudly say that some of the policy makers in the West do not have any idea what they are doing with regard to the current tension in Ukraine, don't blame me. In the beginning of this conflict, i had anticipated that Iran would use the current tension in Ukraine in the best possible way in order to achieve its main goal i.e. developing nuclear weapon. I had also predicted that the conflict in Ukraine would cause an extra tension between the West and Russia. Such an environment would be beneficial for Iran in different terms. As some example, Russia might neglect Iran's nuclear activity within 5+1 group, in order to put an extra pressure on the West. So is the case of reaction of Russia with regard to the current civil war in Syria.

Now, we are going to face an extra problem. The problem is that some policy makers in the West are talking about buying gas from Iran in order to put the pressure on Russia. These policy makers have absolutely no idea what are they talking about, or what are they doing. These policy makers should think about two simple questions as follows.

1- Russia is a serious threat for the West or a nuclear-armed Iran?
2- How would the West be able to prevent Iran in obtaining nuclear weapon, when the West is energy dependent on Iran's gas? (in case the West implements such a wrong idea).

In sum, the wrong policy of the West in Ukraine would cause extra tension and problem for the Western countries in both short and long terms.


M. Sirani                               05.05.2014

Exclusive: The Western Countries Are Gambling On The Wrong Horses in Ukraine.

The West would regret and would pay a high price for its wrong policy in Ukraine.


M. Sirani                    04.05.2014

Warning: Ukraine on the Verge of A Devastating Civil War.

The wrong policy of the Western countries and current Ukrainian interim government would probably drag Ukraine into a devastating civil war. If the Western Countries and current interim government would not be able to make a peaceful and diplomatic deal with Kremlin as soon as possible, Russian troops would probably enter into Ukraine. The result of such a move would not be pleasant neither for Ukraine, nor for the Western countries. In the worst case scenario, the combination of Russian army and ethnic Russian-Ukrainians would seize the control in North, East and South of Ukraine. To put it simply, the current country of Ukraine would be completely disconnected to the Sea of Azov and Black Sea, if Russia would not be able to annex the whole country. (I have warned about this event in some of my previous notes).


M. Sirani                           02.05.2014

The Latest Claim About Iran's Aircraft Carrier.

In an interview with Mashregh News Agency, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Navy Commander Rear Admiral Ali Fadavi said that Iran's aircraft carrier will be used for some military maneuvers somewhere in the future. In this interview, Admiral Ali Fadavi strongly rejects the idea that this aircraft carrier has been made for a movie as some news agency in the region claimed.

In sum, there are quite a few flaws in Fadavi's claim, when he says that this aircraft has been made just for some military maneuvers. As such, i re-upload once again my previous note about Iran's aircraft carrier. I believe this is an important issue that should neither be ignored nor underestimated. Here below is my earlier short note in this matter.


M. Sirani                          25.04.2014

Iran’s Aircraft Carrier

As the media reveal, Iran is building an aircraft carrier. The construction of this warship, which has been first discovered from some satellite photos in the last summer, is taking place at the Gachin shipyard, near Bandar Abbas on the Persian Gulf. As the photos show and according to some intelligence analysts, Iran's warship has the same shape and style of the American Nimitz-Class aircraft carrier. This issue has raised some speculations among many Western intelligence and military experts.

Regarding this vessel, Cmdr. Jason Salata, a spokesman for the Navy’s Fifth Fleet in Bahrain, claims:
“Based on our observations, this is not a functioning aircraft carrier; it’s a large barge built to look like an aircraft carrier”. Furthermore, Cmdr. Jason Salata states:  
“We’re not sure what Iran hopes to gain by building this. If it is a big propaganda piece, to what end?” (1).

Some other American Navy and intelligence analysts call the vessel a mock ship and claim that the construction of this warship is Iran's new military deception tactic. This group of experts generally believe that following the completion, Iran would move the vessel to the Sea and blow it up, while filming the explosion event, in order to make a propaganda movie against the West, in case that the nuclear negotiations within P3+3 group would fail and reach a dead end. From this type of statement, we can deduce that Iran might use this propaganda movie in order to show to the world that a high technological military vessel such as an American aircraft carrier is vulnerable and defeatable in the Persian Gulf, in case of any military confrontation between Iran and the West.

In response to these statements, a few explanations should be mentioned. Firstly, Iran is not the only country in the world that uses different military tactics including military deception method in order to foster an atmosphere of doubt, fear and hysteria among its enemies. This is obvious that Iran has used such tactics in the past and will undoubtedly use it in the future as well. But Iran's intention behind the construction of such a vessel might not be identified as pure military deception tactic based on different reasons including: the size, shape, time, energy and costs of the construction of such a warship. We should not forget that the construction of a huge vessel such as an aircraft carrier cannot be compared with construction of a drone or a tank or a warplane in different terms.

Secondly, based on my knowledge, Iran does not need such a huge, time consuming and costly project just in order to make a propaganda film to show that an American aircraft carrier is vulnerable and defeatable at the Persian Gulf. One might wonder why? This is a Christal clear point that Iranian Navy would not be able to compete with the American highly technological and equipped Navy. But we should not forget that Iran's missile and rocket industries have had huge developments in the last couple of years in terms of power, range and precision. I believe at the present time, Iran is easily capable to target any object at the Persian Gulf with its surface-to-surface long and middle range rockets and missiles from its territory.

In this respect, a high technological military defense system such as the American Iron Dom system might not be able to respond and dismantle such an attack in an appropriate way. The recent wave of rocket attacks, which were fired from Gaza to Israel, confirms my statement to some extent. The Israeli Iron Dom defense system could not detect and dismantle all the rockets and as a result some of the rockets reached the targets in the Israeli territory. Such an event would / might occur for an American aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf as well; of course, in case of a military confrontation with Iran. Thus, it would be wise to avoid "The Mirror Imaging" perception in this matter. At this juncture an important and additional issue should be mentioned. That is Iran's intention behind such rocket attacks on Israel. In fact, Iran is trying to test the weakness and strength points of the Iron Dom defense system through such a sudden rocket attack on Israel.

Thirdly, some experts claim that Iran wants to blow up the so-called Nimitz maket, while filming the explosion event, in order to make a propaganda movie. By this, Iran might tell the world that it has dismantled the American aircraft carrier Nimitz. This is not a realistic and good scenario based on many reasons. For example, What would Iran do, when the vessel Nimitz take a position in the Persian Gulf or in the international water? What would Iran do, when the international media show a 5 minutes live clip about Nimitz? Such an event would be a huge scandal for Iran.

Fourthly, as it appears some of the western intelligence and military experts do not take Iran seriously not only in this matter but also in other arenas. As it noted above, for example, Cmdr. Jason Salata claims that the vessel is not functioning at the present time or some other experts call the vessel a mock ship. As these statements illustrate, it seems most of the Western analysts underestimate Iran's ability and capability. This type of perception about the Iranian Regime is totally wrong. For example, Cmdr. Salata claims that the vessel does / might not function at the present time. That’s true; but that does not mean that the vessel will not function in the future too. There are different examples, which show that Iran has surprised the international community in various terms in different occasions through the last 35 years. So might be the case of current war ship.

As an example, i refer to one of Ayatollah Khomeini's statements, when he in the beginning of Iran and Iraq war said: “The road to Qods (Jerusalem) passes through Karbala". 
What was our reaction in 1988, when Iran signed the peace agreement with Iraq after eight years war? As Ayatollah Khomeini himself said, we claimed that Khomeini drank the poison and Iran lost the war. What is Iran's current position in Iraq? Iran has conquered Iraq in the sense that the USA and its allies forced to leave the country. In addition to Iraq, Iran has expanded and strengthened its influence in Syria and Lebanon as well. To put it simply, through all these years, Iran has precisely followed Khomeini's statement. Another example is the case of Iran's nuclear activity and Iran's developments in this matter. Where did stand Iran 20 years ago with regard to uranium enrichment? Where does Iran stand now? Did we think that one day Iran  might be able to build a nuclear facility such as Fordo plant almost 90 meters below the surface?

All these examples indicate that we should not underestimate Iran's ability and capability in any direction including the current warship or the so-called "the mock ship". Otherwise, we might be surprised once again by the Iranian Regime. In sum, i think Iran might have a serious and long term plan for this war ship; something, which is directly related to its nuclear activity. Iran might try to use this issue in order to be able to continue with its uranium enrichment program at a level that can be used for a nuclear aircraft carrier. Such an event would empower Iran's military capability and in addition would facilitate an undercover opportunity for Iran to pursue its main goal; obtaining nuclear weapon.



M. Sirani                                22.03.2014



Reference:

(1) http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/21/world/middleeast/a-ship-being-built-in-iran-looks-awfully-familiar-to-the-us.html?smid=fb-nytimes&WT.z_sma=WO_ISI_20140321&bicmp=AD&bicmlukp=WT.mc_id&bicmst=1388552400000&bicmet=1420088400000&_r=0

The United Nations is Enjoying The Hibernation Mode; Instead of Solving all the Conflicts Around the Globe.

We are observing a large numbers of conflicts around the world. South East Asia suffers from different territorial conflicts mainly between China, Japan, and South Korea. The nuclear tests of North Korea have caused massive fear and insecurity for the neighboring countries in the region. Most of the countries in the Middle East are struggling either with the growing number of Islamic fundamentalist groups or struggle of power with each other or rapid militarization and arms race. The shadow of nuclear armed Iran is going to cover the sky of the whole region. The civil war in Syria has forced couple of millions people to leave the country and take refuge in different neighboring countries. Some countries such as Iraq and Lebanon are suffering from a broad conflict between different Shiite and Sunni groups. After nearly 60 years, still the conflict between Israel and Palestine has not been solved. Egypt is struggling with the Muslim Brotherhood. The authorities in Yemen cannot defeat Al Qaeda and other Islamic Fundamentalist groups. After more than 35 years, still Afghanistan is the save haven for Islamic fundamentalist groups and drug dealers.

The situation in Africa is worse. The ordinary people are suffering in Nigeria, Mali, Somalia, South and North Sudan, Niger, etc.
All these examples raise some serious questions as follows. Where is the United Nations? What is the role of the United Nations with regard to all these conflicts? Why the UN is not able to do anything about all these conflicts? and furthermore; if the UN cannot do anything about these conflicts, what is the benefit of the UN?
Do we need a huge international organization like the UN that cannot solve our problems?

We have entered a new era. Most of the international organizations and institutions belonged to the previous era. As such, these international organizations and institutions cannot solve our contemporary problems. These international institutions do not function properly anymore. We should not be genius to understand this simple fact. We should dismantle and shut down all these useless international organizations. We need a fundamental revolution in this matter. We need some new international institutions.


M. Sirani                          24.04.2014

Hamas - Fatah Reconciliation, A Disastrous Event For Israel and Peace Talks in the Middle East.

Briefly:
I'm neither a fan of an Islamic fundamentalist group such as Hamas, nor a corrupt political group like Fatah. In my opinion, both of these groups cannot provide peace, prosperity and stability neither within Palestine nor in the relationship between Palestine and Israel. The unity between these two groups might ease the tension temporarily within Palestine, but this event could be understood as a huge disaster for Israel as well.
To put its simply, this reconciliation would be a strong nail in the coffin of peace process between Israel and Palestine.

The policy makers in Israel missed a good opportunity during the last three years. One might wonder, which opportunity? Here is the story. Since the beginning of the civil war in Syria, most of the Arab states in the region including Hamas itself, have begun supporting the Syrian opposition against Assad's Regime i.e. Iran's closest ally in the region. Israel could use this event as a common ground and make a reasonable and peaceful deal with Palestine. As such, Israel would have been able to firstly, isolate the Islamic Regime, Assad's Regime and Hamas to some extent by this move. Secondly, Israel would have been able to improve its relationship with other Arab States in the region to a large extent. If the policy makers in Israel had moved in this way, now Israel would have had only one major problem in the region and that was the Islamic Regime of Iran. To put it simply, Israel would have used its resources in one battlefield with the Islamic Regime, instead of three battlefields with Iran, Hamas, and Palestine (Fatah).

Unfortunately, Israel has not done in this way. Let us see what would happen now.
Hamas and Fatah have united. This means, simply, Israel should use extra resources because its enemies have become stronger. In addition, we should not forget, that Hamas has been designated as a terrorist group by some of the Western countries as well. Such a characteristic would make the peace process talks between Israel and Palestine much more difficult than before. Another issue is Hamas's ideological characteristic. The chance that Hamas would change its ideological characteristic is very low or we might say is almost zero. Such a characteristic would undoubtedly influence the domestic and foreign policy of the Palestinian Authority to some extent. Such an event would automatically and negatively impact Israel in different terms. Moreover, we should not forget that in the last couple of months and weeks, the Islamic Regime has profoundly improved its relationship with Hamas. This means, simply, that such a reconciliation would facilitate a good opportunity for the Islamic Regime in both Gaza Strip and West Bank.

In sum, Israel did not make a reasonable and peaceful deal with Palestine during the last three years. Now, Israel should struggle with organized and re-conciliated enemies such as Hamas, Fatah, the Islamic Regime of Iran and Assad's Regime. From this, we can deduce that Iran would gain a lot from this event not only within Palestine against Israel, but also with regard to the current civil war In Syria to some extent. To put it simply, Iran is gradually surrounding Israel from different directions. Therefore, this reconciliation could be understood as a huge disaster for Israel, in my opinion.


M. Sirani                                     23.04.2014

Don't Push Russia Too Far; Ukraine Might Totally Lose Its Accessibility To Black Sea and Azov Sea.

Don't Push Russia Too Far; Ukraine Might Totally Lose Its Accessibility To Black Sea and Azov Sea.

During the last couple of weeks, I have repeatedly written some short notes about the wrong policy of the Western countries in Ukraine and its possible negative consequences. As it appears, still the current Western politicians do not have a logical and reasonable analysis about the current tension in Ukraine and more importantly, most of them underestimate the power and leverage of Russia in this matter.

If the combination of the Western countries, the current Ukrainian interim government, the ethnic Russians, who live in Ukraine, and Russia would not be able to find a diplomatic solution for this conflict as soon as possible, Ukraine would undoubtedly experience a devastating civil war. The result of this civil war would not be pleasant for neither the West, nor Ukraine. In such a scenario, Russia would be the main winner based on many reasons. Russia has enough leverages to divide Ukraine into two separated parts of 1- North-West Ukraine (Pro-West), and 2- East-South Ukraine (Pro-Russia). 

This means simply that the current Ukraine might lose its accessibility to Black Sea and Azov Sea. This is the ultimate and final goal of Russia, if it would not be able to preserve its interest in Ukraine.


M. Sirani                                    23.04.2014    

The Fourth Political Theory; Euroasianism Developed By Alexander Dugin.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS Magazine has recently published an article entitled "Putin's Brain" written by Anton Barbashin and Hannah Thoburn. The article explores The Fourth Political Theory (Euroasianism) developed by Alexander Dugin (a Russian thinker) and claims that Russia's invasion in Crimea is based on Dugin's theory.

I'm not defending the article and I'm not a follower or fan of Alexander Dugin. But since the Forth Political Theory is a newly developed idea (as far as i know), we should have a deeper and more comprehensive knowledge about it.
According to Dugin, we have entered a new era. As such some old theoretical assumptions such as Liberalism, Marxism, fascism, nationalism are not able to define the contemporary world affairs in different terms in an appropriate manner. As i have understood, Dugin claims: this is "The End of The World" for previous political theories. But Dugin does not say his theory is the so-called "the Last Standing Man". Dugin's theory seems to be a combination of regionalism, traditionalism and to some extent Heideggerian philosophy.

Understanding this theory is important for different fields of Social Sciences, because its definition and explanation cover broad characteristics of contemporary human society. I believe all scholars and students in International Relations, Political Science, Political Economy, and Sociology should have a basic knowledge and understanding about this theory.

Here below is the link of the article.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141080/anton-barbashin-and-hannah-thoburn/putins-brain


M. Sirani                              17.04.2014                

Exclusive: The Current Wrong Policy of West and NATO Will End UP in a Huge Fiasco in Ukraine.

I don't have enough time to explore this issue in details. But some policies such as NATO enforcement, or military maneuvers in the Baltic Sea or Black Sea do not solve anything at all in Ukraine. Such provocative military operations, instead, would encourage the ethnic Russians to be more radical in their demands. Such a military environment would also facilitate a better opportunity for Russia to intervene in Ukraine as well. I hope those policy makers in NATO would calculate all the details of the current military operation and understand an important point. The important point is that they are not directly fighting with Russian army in Ukraine. Such a characteristic would make the operation very complicated for NATO in different terms.

My anticipation is that the current wrong policy of the West and NATO would end up in a huge fiasco in Ukraine.


M. Sirani                    16.04.2014

Gunmen Abducted About 200 School Girls in Nigeria. Shame on Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron, Texaco, Total and Agip Oil Companies.

As CNN reports, the school girls were sleeping in their dormitories, when the attack occurred. During this attack, which took place last Monday, the heavily armed Boko Haram Islamists attacked the Government Girls Secondary School in Chibok. During this horrific event, nearly 200 innocent school girls were abducted by Boko Haram gunmen.


This is a scandalous and shameful event not only for corrupt and undemocratic Nigerian government, but also for those multinational oil companies that have close economic relationship with Nigerian authority. Among these multinational oil companies Royal Dutch Shell (British-Dutch), Chevron-Texaco (American), Exxon-Mobil (American), Agip (Italian), Total (French) could be mentioned.


This barbaric and inhuman act raises some questions as follows.
1- Who is/are the main responsible person or entity for such a horrific act?

2- Who should we blame?

3- Should we blame the Boko Haram organization alone?

4- Or should we blame the corrupt and undemocratic Nigerian government?

5- what is the role of all multinational oil companies in this matter?

6- Do these western multinational oil companies support and assist the corrupt and undemocratic Nigerian government or not?

7- Do we have the right to blame the Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron-Texaco, Exxon-Mobil, Agip, Total in this matter or not?

8- Do we have the right to blame Dutch, British, American, French and Italian governments in this matter or not?

9- Should the Dutch, British, American, French and Italian governments feel responsible in this matter or not?

10- Should these states have a little bit control about the activities of their multinational oil companies in Nigeria and other third world countries or not?

11- How can we trust these states, when they are talking about human rights and democratic values, while they are supporting every damn undemocratic political system around the world because of oil, gas and other natural resources?

And many other questions.

Briefly, I don't put the blame on the Nigerian government or the Boko Haram alone. I put the blame mainly on Dutch, British, American, French and Italian authorities, Because they have closed their eyes on the activities of these multinational oil companies in Nigeria. Shame on those states and multinational oil companies that are supporting and assisting the undemocratic and corrupt Nigerian government because of the exploitation of natural resources in Nigeria.
These states and multinational oil companies are indirectly the collaborators in this horrific act. 

 



M. Sirani                   16.04.2014

Warning: Be Aware of the Russian Military Airplanes and Helicopters in the Eastern Part of Ukraine.

The Ukrainian interim government has decided to disarm the ethnic Russians through a military confrontation. In this respect, some military tanks are waiting for a order from Kiev to move toward some cities in the eastern part of Ukraine. Using such a high-tech military equipment in order to disarm the ethnic Russians is not a pleasant event for Kremlin. Should this happen, Russia would retaliate. The Russian retaliation might not be a broad ground invasion at this stage. But there is some probability that Russia uses some of its military airplanes or helicopters and target the Ukrainian military tanks in the eastern part of Ukraine. This is something that the Ukrainian interim government should be aware of it.


M. Sirani                              15.04.2014

Briefly: Do Not Use Excessive Pressure With Regard to current tension in Ukraine; Be Careful About The Future of The New START Treaty.

I hope the current policy makers around the world think about this issue, while they are developing any plan for Ukraine. 

M. Sirani                        15.04.2014

Do not Underestimate Putin; Russia Has Massive leverages to Use Not Only Within Ukraine But Laso at Regional and Global Level.

Most of the policy makers in the West did / do underestimate Russia. This is the result of a clear "Mirror Imaging" and huge miscalculation. That's why, Russia has been able to completely surprise the West couple of times during the last months. The annexation of the Crimean peninsula was one of these surprises. The current ethnic Russians demonstrations in the eastern parts of Ukraine is another one. I had anticipated some of these events in my previous notes. Here below, i re-upload one of them. I hope this brief note would refresh the mind of some policy makers in the West.

In sum, the West should implement "control Damage policy"; before it's too late.

M. Sirani                             14.04.2014

The First Side Effect of Dispute in Ukraine; A possible $20 Billion Dollars Trade Between Russia and Iran.

As i had anticipated in some earlier notes, any escalation of tension in Ukraine, would inevitably decrease the level of cooperation of Russia at the global level in different terms. In some of my previous notes, i had briefly illustrated this event by referring to Syria and Iran as two clear examples. The rumor about a $20 billion dollars economic deal between Russia and Iran confirms my previous statement to some extend. This is, however, not the end of the story. If the West would not be able to find a diplomatic and peaceful solution for current dispute in Ukraine with Russia, the West would face some bigger problems in different arenas mostly at global level. Among these problems, the Syrian civil war, disarmament of chemical arsenals in Syria and Iran's nuclear activity could be mentioned.

Thus, it would be wise for the policy makers in the USA and EU to  perform a simple "Cost and Benefit Analysis" simultaneously, while they are looking for a fundamental solution about current tension in Ukraine. As some examples, the policy makers in the West should think about some questions as follows:

1- Would the West benefit from Ukraine at the expense of creation a nuclear-armed Iran?
2- Would the West be able to tolerate and deal with massive and broad instability in all the neighboring countries of Syria or in some countries in the Eastern part of the EU in an exchange rate such as Ukraine?

To be honest, Russia can easily destabilize not only the Eastern part of Ukraine but also the Eastern part of the EU to some extent by provoking the ethnic Russians in all these countries. Russia can easily destabilize all the neighboring countries of Syria by simply prolonging the Syrian civil war and influx of huge numbers of Syrian refugees. Russia can easily destabilize the whole Middle East by simply letting Iran develops its nuclear weapon. The EU dependency on Russian oil and gas is another weapon of Russia. The New START Treaty is another weapon for Russia. Russia can simply withdraw its participation from this treaty and would threaten all the EU countries in terms of security. Russia can arm every country around the world, for example, Iran or American Latin countries, with most high-tech weapons, in order to damage the security of all the Western countries.

In sum, whether we like or not, Russia does have many leverages at the present in different terms to use them against the West. Considering all these examples, I'm wondering based on which logical arguments, President Obama underestimates Russia and simply says: Russia is "A REGIONAL POWER". Such a statement is simply the result of a huge miscalculation. Any analysis, based on this type of miscalculation would end up into a major fiasco. The loss of Crimea was / is the first sign of such a fiasco. 


M. Sirani                                10.04.2014

Offering WTO Membership To Iran is the Biggest Mistake.

There is a rumor that the Islamic Republic of Iran might be the new member of the WTO. This is the biggest mistake based on many reasons. I don't explore all these reasons openly in this weblog.
Briefly, the international community can use the WTO membership card to change the course of history in Iran for ever and for good; of course, if the WTO would be able to implement some additional regulations in advance.
Once again, i cannot explore all the details openly in this note; but such a membership is one of the best leverages that the international community should / can use it, in order to change the course of history in Iran for ever. I hope those responsible officials in this matter would understand this important point and opportunity.


M. Sirani                            13.04.2014

Briefly: Choosing Hamid Aboutalebi For the UN is A Clear Humiliation Test for the USA. Would the U.S. Pass or Fail This Test?

In this respect, i re-upload my previous note about this event once again. It might refresh the mind of some policy makers in the West. Here below is the note.

M. Sirani                       12.04.2014

A Former Hostage Taker As Iran's New Amabassador for the United Nation.

The Iranian Regime has appointed Hamid Aboutalebi as its next United Nation ambassador. As the Iranian media declare, Hassan Rouhani has appointed him as the new Permanent Representative of Iran to the United Nation. Hamid Aboutalebi has previously worked as Iran's ambassador in Belgium, Italy and Australia. In addition to these high ranking positions, Hamid Aboutalebi has a controversial historical background, the same as most of the politicians in Iran. The controversial historical part is that Hamid Aboutalebi was a member of the radical student group that attacked the United State embassy at Tehran in 1979 and took hostage 52 American diplomats for 444 days. This event is neither an accidental nor unintentional act of the Islamic Regime. The Iranian Regime has a clear message in this regard. Choosing a former hostage taker like Aboutalebi for such a position in the United Nation headquarter, which is located in the U.S. territory, shows that Iran would try to crush and humiliate the United State in every direction and dimension by all means and all leverages.

Do most of the policy makers in the West see how smartly the Iranian Regime play the chess game in the international arena? Do these experts have enough knowledge about the Iranian Regime and its special characteristics? My answer to these two questions is negative.



M. Sirani                            31.03.2014

The First Side Effect of Dispute in Ukraine; A possible $20 Billion Dollars Trade Between Russia and Iran.

As i had anticipated in some earlier notes, any escalation of tension in Ukraine, would inevitably decrease the level of cooperation of Russia at the global level in different terms. In some of my previous notes, i had briefly illustrated this event by referring to Syria and Iran as two clear examples. The rumor about a $20 billion dollars economic deal between Russia and Iran confirms my previous statement to some extend. This is, however, not the end of the story. If the West would not be able to find a diplomatic and peaceful solution for current dispute in Ukraine with Russia, the West would face some bigger problems in different arenas mostly at global level. Among these problems, the Syrian civil war, disarmament of chemical arsenals in Syria and Iran's nuclear activity could be mentioned.

Thus, it would be wise for the policy makers in the USA and EU to  perform a simple "Cost and Benefit Analysis" simultaneously, while they are looking for a fundamental solution about current tension in Ukraine. As some examples, the policy makers in the West should think about some questions as follows:

1- Would the West benefit from Ukraine at the expense of creation a nuclear-armed Iran?
2- Would the West be able to tolerate and deal with massive and broad instability in all the neighboring countries of Syria or in some countries in the Eastern part of the EU in an exchange rate such as Ukraine?

To be honest, Russia can easily destabilize not only the Eastern part of Ukraine but also the Eastern part of the EU to some extent by provoking the ethnic Russians in all these countries. Russia can easily destabilize all the neighboring countries of Syria by simply prolonging the Syrian civil war and influx of huge numbers of Syrian refugees. Russia can easily destabilize the whole Middle East by simply letting Iran develops its nuclear weapon. The EU dependency on Russian oil and gas is another weapon of Russia. The New START Treaty is another weapon for Russia. Russia can simply withdraw its participation from this treaty and would threaten all the EU countries in terms of security. Russia can arm every country around the world, for example, Iran or American Latin countries, with most high-tech weapons, in order to damage the security of all the Western countries.

In sum, whether we like or not, Russia does have many leverages at the present in different terms to use them against the West. Considering all these examples, I'm wondering based on which logical arguments, President Obama underestimates Russia and simply says: Russia is "A REGIONAL POWER". Such a statement is simply the result of a huge miscalculation. Any analysis, based on this type of miscalculation would end up into a major fiasco. The loss of Crimea was / is the first sign of such a fiasco. 


M. Sirani                                10.04.2014

Warning; Ukraine on the Verge of A Military Invasion.

Since couple of days ago, the Russian ethnic groups have occupied some governmental buildings in Eastern part of Ukraine. These pro-Russia activists demand a referendum to join Russia. The talks between activists and the Ukrainian authority have not reached a peaceful solution yet. In the latest development, the current Ukraine's interior minister "Arsen Avakov" has given a 48-hour ultimatum to the activists. According to this warning the activists should voluntarily leave the occupied buildings during the next 48 hours or they will be forced to leave the governmental properties. Such a harsh reaction is totally wrong, particularly at this critical moment.

I hope the policy makers in Ukraine and the Western countries would carefully pay attention to the following brief explanation.
As we know, Russia has deployed nearly 40,000 armed forces close to Ukrainian borders. One of the main reasons of this deployment is to protect the lives and properties of those ethnic Russians, who live in Ukraine, as Kremlin claims. Bearing in mind this issue, what would be the possible reaction of Moscow, if the current Ukrainian interim government violently and forcefully attack the pro-Russia activists in the end of this 48-hour ultimatum?
The answer to this questions is very simple. There is high probability that the Russian army would invade the Eastern part of Ukraine. Should this happen, what can the NATO, the USA, the EU and current Ukrainian interim government do? Does any authority in the West dare to start a war with Russia? Of course not.

Thus, it would be reasonable and logical for the interim government in Ukraine and its Western allies to think about the possible consequences of their act at this critical stage and do not make a hasty decision based on revenge or emotion. Otherwise, they pay a very high price in this matter. To put it simply, don't facilitate a military invasion opportunity for Russia by your own wrong tactics.

As it appears the current policy makers in Ukraine have no idea about the possible consequences of their acts. Thus, this is the responsibility of the policy makers in the USA and EU to warn them; of course, if they don't really want Russia annex the Eastern part of Ukraine as well.




M. Sirani                                   09.04.2014
      

Khamenei's Today Speech About Iran's Nuclear Activity (09.04.2014).

Today is the National Nuclear Technology Day in Iran. Because of this event a gathering was held for the staff of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI). In this meeting, Khamenei delivered a speech to the Atomic Energy Organization's staff, which should neither be ignored nor underestimated. Here below are the most important parts of Khamenei's today speech.


1- Iran should not / will not tolerate or accept any type of language of force amid its nuclear activity.


2- Iran will never allow its “scientific nuclear move” to be brought to a halt, and stressed, “None of the country’s nuclear achievements could be shut down, and nobody has the right to bargain over them, and nobody will do that.” (Tasnim, 2014).


As I follow carefully the speeches and statements of Khamenei and some other high ranking policy makers of Iran, it seems to me that Iran has been gradually passing the red line with regard to its nuclear activity. In other words,  Iran has reached the critical stage with regard to development of its nuclear weapon. To put it simply, I might say "the genie is out of the bottle".


In sum, the Middle East is moving toward a nuclear weapon race faster than we think. This is something that the IAEA and some other responsible international organization should carefully pay attention to it and prevent it; before, it's too late.




M. Sirani                                   09.04.2014




Reference:
Tasnim (2014). URLhttp://www.tasnimnews.com/English/Home/Single/333495. Accessed on: 09.04.2014.

The Latest News About Missing Malaysian Flight MH370.

Today, ALALAM News Network "Iran's news agency" has published an article about the missing flight MH370. The article, which is quoted from a Russian newspaper,  claims that the flight MH370 has landed near Kandahar, a city in Afghanistan. According to this article, one of the wings of the plane is broken and all the passengers are alive. The hijackers want to use the passengers in order to bargain with the USA and China, as the article further describes. As an individual, I cannot verify this news. But it would be wise if some international organization or the authority in Afghanistan would be able to check the area. Based on this news, i re-upload my previous note about the missing flight Mh370 once again. Here below is my previous note about flight MH370.



M. Sirani                             08.04.2014


The Previous Note About MH370.

     About The Missing Malaysian Airlines Flight MH370.

As the new data suggests, the flight MH370 may have been sabotaged or hijacked. If this news is true, there are two possibilities for this flight. Either the flight MH370 has been intentionally or unintentionally crashed or exploded by the hijackers somewhere in the middle of the Indian Ocean, or it has landed in a secret comfort zone, which might be a blind zone for most of the radars and satellites in that area. If the flight MH370 has been crashed or exploded, (which i hope not) then sooner or later, we will / should find the wreckage and the black box of the plane somewhere in the region. But, if the plane has been hijacked or sabotaged, we are facing another story.

There is, so far, a hypothesis in this regard. Some claim that the flight MH370 has headed toward the Andaman Islands located in the Indian Ocean. The probability that flight MH370 has landed somewhere in these Islands, is very low, based on many technical, geographical and most importantly military reasons. As an example, these Islands are strategically important areas for India. Thus, the idea that the flight MH370 has landed in one of these Islands and the Indian authorities have not detected this event yet, is something hard to believe.

If the plane has been hijacked and the perpetrators have not exploded or crashed the plane yet and moreover, if the plane has flown toward the West, as the Malaysian authorities claim, the flight MH370 may have landed in a remote area in some other countries in the region. Among these potentially suspicious countries, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Yemen, Somalia and Sudan could be mentioned. I don't want to point my finger at any of these countries directly and blame their authorities for such an event. My point is that these countries have the best potentiality for such an action, based on many reasons, which are out of the scope of this short note. In this respect, however, Iran might or could be an exception, due to the fact that Iran has done such a hijacking in the past. As a clear example, the hijacking of a civilian plane in 2010 and subsequently capturing and arresting Abdolmalek Rigi by the Iranian authority, could be mentioned.

After all, what lesson/s can we draw from this event, if ( I emphasize "if") the flight MH370 has been really hijacked, as the Malaysian Authority claims? In response to this question, four important issues could be mentioned.

1- The first important issue is the safety and security of all passengers and the crew of flight MH370. This is something that not only the Malaysian authority but also the international community should be aware and focus on it.

 2- The second issue is a fact that after all these years since 9/11, some states, airports and airlines are still vulnerable and chaotic in terms of following, implementing and preserving the proper security measures.

3- The third issue is a potential serious threat, which might be used against us somewhere in the near future. This missing plane can be used as a powerful weapon to aim at any target around the world. Thus, it would be wise that all the states in the region should be on full alert in terms of security concern, at least for a while.


4- The fourth issue is the scale of threat in this hijacking. If the perpetrators have hijacked the plane and after couple of days, still they have not demanded any ransom or request, we should be much more careful, more than the third issue mentioned above. Such a behavior might be understood that the perpetrators are preparing themselves for some big and sudden further move or attack. Therefore, they don't want to reveal their location or identification at this stage. In this case, we should be carefully prepared and follow the rule of "expect the unexpected".
(Once again, i emphasize that the issues mentioned above are some possibilities, in case that the flight MH370 has been hijacked). 


In sum, I don't want to develop a conspiracy theory by saying that an important person has been in this flight; thus a governmental authority in the region or elsewhere has decided to secretly hijack the flight MH370. But, it would be very useful, if the Malaysian authority reveals the real names and photos of all the passengers and the flight crew of the flight MH370. By using this type of data, we might be able to find a better and reliable information about the mystery of flight MH370. Otherwise, the flight MH370 might be added to many so-called "unresolved, unknown and mysterious events" in our historical archive, at least for some decades to come.  

Note: If i had enough information, for example about the passengers and crew in this flight or some technical information such as: how far the flight MH370 can fly (in terms of fuel), or the type of communication devices (visible or hidden) embedded within this plane and their accessibility for passengers and crew as well, i would have provided a better and more reliable analysis in this matter. However, as an individual, i hope all the passengers and crew of the flight MH370 are in a safe and secure condition & environment, wherever they are and soon will join their families and relatives. Maybe, I'm too optimist, but this is the only thing i can do at the present; wish them all the best of luck.



M. Sirani                                   15.03.2014    

Pro-Russia Protesters Occupied Some Governmental Building in Eastern Ukraine Today.

As I had noted in some of earlier posts, Russia does not need to use military force for destabilizing Ukraine. Instead of using military forces, Russia can easily provoke and mobilize the ethnic Russian citizens in Ukraine and some other countries in the eastern part of the EU.



Today's events in Ukraine confirm my statement. Today, the pro-Russia demonstrators seized some governmental buildings in two important cities of Donetsk and Luhansk. The protesters demanded a Crimea-model referendum to join Russia. such events are, in fact, Russia's indirect warning shots. There is high probability that such events would continue and spread in different parts of Ukraine, if the current Ukrainian interim government, the West and Russia would not be able to find a diplomatic and peaceful solution for current dispute in Ukraine in the near future.












We should not forget that the instability and chaos in Ukraine might spread to other neighboring countries as well, if the tension between Russia and the West would escalate with this tempo we are observing at the present. In this respect, Russia won't lose anything at all. On the contrary, this is the EU as a whole, would face major and bigger problems from different aspects. In addition, we should remember that controlling such a domestic civilian uprising is beyond the responsibility, capability and power of NATO forces. This is something that the Western policy makers should know it.


Thus, it would be wise that the policy makers in the West should carefully pay attention to these types of Russia's warning shots and find a diplomatic solution for this dispute as soon as possible, before it's too late; before this type of instability and chaos would spread to other parts of Ukraine and some other neighboring countries.




Important Note: Ukraine is going to held a new election on 25 May, 2014. The most basic, fundamental and important element for every election is peace and stability. So is the case of upcoming election in Ukraine. If the West would not be able to settle down a diplomatic agreement with Russia amid dispute in Ukraine before the election, Russia can / has the power to drag the whole country into a total chaos during the election time. I just hope some policy makers in the West avoid mirror imaging and do not compare today's election in a chaotic country like Afghanistan with the upcoming election in Ukraine. Because, there is massive fire, which is smoldering under the ashes in Ukraine and waiting for a suitable moment.  


M. Sirani                                 07.04.2014