Delivering S - 300 Rockets to Syria!!!

Delivering S -300 rockets to Syria cannot save Asad Regime. This event would esclate the tension further and change the course of the Middle East dramatically in different aspects for many years to come. What president Putin should know:

1- Asad Regime does not have the same solid political structure that we have observed in the former Soviet Union or current Islamic Regime in Iran. If anything intentionally or unintentionally would happen to Bashar Asad himself, the Syrian political system would collapse during 48 hours time. In this respect, what would happen to these high technological weapons in an unstable country like Syria?

2- Delivering S - 300 rockets to Syria intensifies and spread the tension further between Syria and Israel and some other neighbouring countries, due to the fact that it changes the balance of power fundamentaly in the region. This event would intensify the new round of arms race in the region.

3- There is high probability that some other countries such as Iran as well as fundamentalist groups such as Hezbullah would get access to these high-tech weapons.

In this respect, i can say that Putin has gambled on a dead horse and his move would threaten the peace and stability in the Middle East.

Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani was disapproved by the Guardian Council.

Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani was disapproved by the Guardian Council. The presidential race in the final stage would possibily countinue between Jalili, Aref and Rohani. Among these three candidates, there is high probability that Jalili would become the next president in Iran. Regardless of who would become the next president in Iran, this development, however,  illustrates some other important issue more than presidential election. It shows clearly that the Islamic Regime is preparing itself for exteremely hard circumstances. As such, the Islamic Regime would try to choose a person as the next president, who has less disagreement with the regime. From this, we can deduce that 5+1 nuclear negotiation would also reach nothing in the future. However, by this, i don`t mean that if Rafsanjani was chosen, we could have seen any progress with regards to Iran`s nuclear negotiation. Because the process of nuclear enrichment by the Islamic Regime was started during Rafsanjani`s presidency and moreover, the president in the Islamic Regime is just a puppet and nothing more.  

Israeili Attacks Inside Syria Would Provoke Iran.

Israeili attacks inside Syria would provoke Iran. Given the fact that Syria is Iran`s red line, what would be the possible reaction of the Islamic Regime at this stage?

If Iran had the nuclear weapon, it would have responded Israeili attack directly, without any fear with regards to the retaliation of the US and Israeil. Based on passive reaction of Iran, we can claim that Iran has not been able to obtain the nuclear bomb yet. However, the passive reaction of Tehran could be understood as a trick; it means Iran has bigger and more important plan, which it does not want to ruin and destroy it at this stage.
Thus, the probability of Iran`s direct attack against Israel would be very low, at this stage. There might be some possibility that Iran`s subset i.e. Hezbullah would fire some rockets on Israeil. Regarding this issue, i can say that the probability of this event is also very low, due to the fact that Germany, Bulgaria and some other European countries are discussing a plan to whether designate Hezbullah as a terrorist organization or not. This issue like a alarm might prevent Hezbullah to fire too many rockects on Israeil, the same as it has done it before. Or, it might not fire any at all.

M. Sirani      05.05.2013

The Revolutionary Guard Corps, a Global Terrorist Organization; A Fact or A Myth?

This is the title of my recent research, which has been finished. Unfortunately, i cannot publish it in my weblog now, due to some circumstances. However, in this research, i have explored some issues including: the origin, process of development, scope of power along with some of the most important activities of this entity in the international arena. In sum, different evidences show that the Revolutionary Guard Corps is not just a military entity within Iran; infact this military entity functions as a transnational criminal organization in the international arena and is involved with enrmous unlawful activities such as arms, narcotics trafficking, etc. I think in the middle of May or maybe earlier, i would be able to upload it in the weblog.

M. Sirani      17.04.2013

Iranian Diplomat Has Applied For Asylum in Norway!!!

Another Iranian diplomat in Oslo has defected and applied for asylum in Norway. Although, Mohammad Reza Heidari a former Iranian diplomat, who has refugee status in Norway, through a short article published in some of the persian websites released his name, the current defected diplomat would like to remain anonymous OUT OF CONSIDERATION TO HIMSLEF AND HIS FAMILY!!!!!
Although, i do not have time to spend on this issue, but some false arguments releasde by this guy and other defected Iranian diplomats force me to write a brief comment about this type of Iranian diplomat defection. This brief comment would also be beneficial for the Norwegian Authority as well as those kind readers, who visit my weblog daily.
The defection of this diplomat (M.Z) and those guys like him, raise some serious questions including:
1- The current diplomat would like to remain anonymous out of consideration to himself and his family!!!
Which type of consideration? Security? by whom?  What does this phrase mean? Does it mean that the Iranian Regime does not have any clue that one of its diplomat has applied for asylum in Norway; therefore he would like to remain anonymous? Is this a joke or what?
2- The second question is why and based on which reason is this guy applying for asylum in Norway? As i heard, the diplomatic mission of this guy was going to end after almost one and half month ( from this date) and he should return back to Iran. Why has he applied for asylum like a last minute flight passanger? The other defected diplomat i.e. Mohammad Reza Heidari also had the similar issue. He applied for asylum in Norway almost between two to four months before he supposed to return back to Iran.
3- I am wondering, what does this guy want to say to the UDI in Norway. Does he want to say that he is againts the turure, execution and undemocratic institutions within the Islamic Regime? In this case, the UDI employee has to ask him: where have you been in the last 34 years? Did n`t you notice these issues in the past 34 years?

Some Recommendations for the Norwegian Authority:
1- The Iranian Regime is the master of fabricating artificial opposition and double agent.

2- The next presidential election in Iran will take place on June 14, 2013. According to the constitution, Ahmadinejad cannot participate in this election. It means that some other person will become the next president and consequently, the new president will replace and change most of the diplomats. (This guy knows about this issue very well too).

3- This guy has enormous amount of information about Iranian secret agents and activities in Norway and possibly other countries in the EU. If he denies this issue, he is lying. Therefore, the Norwegian Authority should focus on this issue as soon as possible.

4- Those who get the opportunity to work abroad (e.g. diplomats and embassy employee) for the Islamic Regime at any level, have shown their 100% loyalty to the regime in theory and practice through many years. If the Islamic Regime did not fully trust them, they would not have taken any work abroad at all.

5- My last advice is that the Norwegian Authority should not trust this guy and those like him at all (26.02.2013).     

Iran Will Never Shut Down the Fordo Facility!!!

Today, Alaeddin Boroujerdi, the Chairman for the Committee for Foreign Policy and National Security of the Islamic Parliament in an interview with ISNA annunced that: Iran will never shut down the Fordo Facility. 
He rejected the new offer of 5+1 (Removing the gold trade sanction) and strongly claimed that shutting down the Fordo Facility is totally out of the question.  

The nuclear clock is ticking.

The Islamic Regime has two clear demands: 1- A Recognition as a Regional Hegemony in the Middle East or 2- A war with the West. How would the leaders in Iran analyze the situation? The main political actors in Iran think: If the West would agree to recognize Iran as a regional hegemon, Iran has won the case. If the West would not agree with this issue and in the final stage would attack Iran, Iran also would win. Because the Islamic Regime would show the entire Muslim countries that Iran has faught againts the West and in this way, Iran would earn some types of recognition and religious prestige. Based on such ideological-political assumption, Khamenei is repeatedly saying the ball is in the West`s ground. From his point of view, in fact, the ball is in the West`s ground.

My final words:
The international community should be smarter and don`t play Khamenei`s favorite game. It should be a third option i.e. neither the nuclear-armed Iran, nor the war. (17.02.2013).       
 

Khamenei's Recent Speech!!!

Today, i watched Khamenei's recent speech. Part of the speech was devoted to the recent conflict between Ahamadinejad and the Larijani brothers i.e. the head of the Judiciary authority and the speaker of the Islamic Parliament. The other part of the speech was his assumption about the direct negotiation with the US along with a long list of demands including: the US should recognize Iran`s right to acquire nuclear energy, the US should not interfere in the Middle East, the coercion and sanction do not function anymore, and Bla, Bla, Bla (As usual as always).

My Assumption:I think the main politicians within the Islamic Regime, including Khamenei himslef have reached the POINT OF NO RETURN. Although, he spoke very calm and cold blooded, but i felt his craving for war, deep in his words.
I can predict that the future meeting in Kazakhstan (Feb 26, 2013) will reach nothing too. After that meeting, the Islamic Regime will proabably leave the negotiation for a while, due to the coming presidential election, which will take place on 14 June. Then,,,,
God knows, what will happen from now on until the next 6 months.

My final words: The UN should urgently and seriously concentrate on this issue; otherwise all of us to some extent, will arrive in the new devastating chapter in the history of the world. (16.02.2013). 
I hope my prediction would not come true.  

Wrestling Diplomacy And India`s Intermediation in Iran`s Nuclear Programme!!!

As i follow the news, i noticed that:
1- American wrestling team is heading to Iran. This event reminds me to Ping-Pong diplomacy between China and the US in the 1970s. If my assumption is correct, i have to say:
The political system in China, its ideological characteristics and goals in the past, present and future is not the same as the political system in Iran. This is a clear Mirror Imaging, which would lead you to nowhere. You will understand my short note, when your wrestlers will return back to home. 

2- French President, Francois Hollande asked India to intermediate on the issue of Iran`s nuclear programme.
Regarding this proposal, i have to say: The only country, which couple of years ago could put some pressure on the Islamic Regime with regards to its nuclear ambition, was Russia. Based on many reasons, Russia did not do that. At this stage, however, even Russia, which is the closest ally to Iran cannot stop the Islamic Regime. In my opinion, in this case, Russia plays the role of a double agent in nuclear negotiation with Iran. Russia knows, in the worst case scenario, the Western Countries would not invade Iran the same as the US did in Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003). In the worst case scenario, the Western Countries would attack Iran`s nuclear, military or industrial facilities and they would not use ground force at all. If this would happen, which country would get new contracts to rebuild Iran`s infrastructure facilities? The answer to this question is Russia and China.
Therefore, Russia joins the nuclear negotiation with Iran, just in order to pretend that she is respecting the International Law, order and she is collaborating with the West. But at the same time Russia knows that she is the final winner, if the worst case scenario would occur.  
Moreover, Iran functions as an indirect proxy for Russia. Through Iran, so far Russia has managed to keep Assad in the power in Syria.
But in the long term Russia would be one of the main losers, If the Islamic Regime would be able to get the nuclear bomb. If Iran manage to get the nuclear bomb, then the Islamic Regime would start to expand its hegemony in Tajikestan, Daghestan, Azarbaijn, Chechnya, etc amongst different Islamist groups in these areas. In fact, Russia is nurturing not just a snake but a dragon in her bosom. (15.02.2013).          

The IAEA Inspectors Couldn`t Visit the Parchin Facility Again!!!

Once again, the IAEA inspectors couldn`t visit the Parchin facility and returned home with their empty hands. I have to repeat myself again. If you want to have a better prediction and analysis about the action of the Islamic Regime; just follow these steps:

1- You should put yourself in the shoes of Khamnei. It means, you should look at the whole issue from Khamenei`s perception and not yours.

2- You should have a proper knowledge about the Shia branch of Islam.

3- You should have a proper knowledge about the Iranian culture as well as mentality.

4- Your analyst should not have any connection what so ever with oil, weapon, nuclear lobbies and more importantly some factions within the Islamic Regime.

5- If you manage to follow these four steps mentined above, then you should put aside for a while all theories you have learned so far. After this, put yourself in the shoes of Khamenei in different arenasie.e the domestic as well as international issues. If you manage to achieve this stage precisely, then use your theoretical knowledge and chose appropriate tactic and strategy (i.e. instead of Khamenei). This method is comletely the opposite side of what your analysts have done during the past 34 years.

Notification: Do not pay attention with what a Mullah even a grand ayatollah in Qom, Najaf or a member of Parliament or even the President say. These people are just a bunch of puppets and would divert your mind from a proper analysis. If someone (anyone) tries to encourage you to focus on the statements of such puppets, you should be aware that this person wants intentionally or unintentioanlly give you wrong address. If this person give you wrong address unintentionally; it means S/he does not have any clue about the Islamic Regime. If This person give you wrong address intentionally; it means S/he has some connection with oil, weapon of nuclear company or some factions within the Islamic Regime. In this case, therefore, you should kick such person out of your office without any consideration.

If you follow these simple steps, you will be able to have a better prediction about the Islamic Regime action in the future. Otherwise, whether you like of not, you are just wasting your time, energy and money.   

The Final Countdown!!!

Iran Will Likely Launch a satellite into HEO in the Near Future.

It seems, the Islamic Regime will likely launch a satellite into High Earth Orbit (HEO)in the near future; to an

altitude of almost 35-36,000 km above the Earth. If this plan would come true,then Iran would be able to

reach everywhere in the world by its long-range missiles.

We should bear in mind that: The distance from Tehran to Paris is (4221km), to Tel Aviv (1589 km) to

London (4407 km) and to Washington (10755 km).

Maybe, because of this hidden surprise, Ali Ahani, the Iranian Ambassador in France announced that

Iran is ready to give the IAEA inspectors permission to visit The Parchin Facility. It`s funny, but as i

see the event, it seems the Islamic Regime is the main player of the real carrot and stick game.

Carrort = Visiting the Parchin or using small amount of domestically made nuclear fuel rods in some of its nuclear facilities.

Stick = launching a Long-Range Missile into Space or Exporting 40 Tons Weapons to Yemen.

A tricky but gradually and steady way to reach "Advanced Military Capability" under the name of "Scientific Exploration".  (11.02.2013).

Khamenei Rejected Joe Biden`s Recent Proposal.

Today, Ayatollah Khamenei rejected Joe Biden`s recent proposal regarding a direct negotiation between the two authorities. During a speech for Air Force Personnel, the supreme leader stated that the policy of the US in the Middle East has failed and Americans need a winning card. Therefore, the US tries to bring Iran to negotiation table. Moreover, he addressed Americans and said "I am not a diplomat, i am a revolutionary and i talk openly and honestly. You have pointed gun at us and you want to have negotiation! The Iranian nation will not be intimidated by these attitudes". Furthermore, he called those Iranian officials, who have optimistic assumption about this issue as "Naive or betrayer" and added that"The negotiation does not solve anything". 

The short text noted above, was brief summary of Khamenei`s statements. At first glance, the readers might think that this speech was just an ordinary and regular talk and nothing more. In my opinion, there are two important points in this simple speech, which should not be underestimated. These points will help us to have a better prediction about the future events. The first point is Khamenei`s assumption about the overal failure of the US in the Middle East.(For further information about Khamenei`s assumption, i would suggest you to see the two essays of 1-”Iran should not get the nuclear bomb” and 2-”Will the US attack Iran” published in this weblog).  

The second point is a strong warning for those Iranian officials, who have optimistic view about the direct negotiation with the US. Khamenei stated that these types of people are either naive or betrayer, which the Iranian nation will deal with them. 

Notification: The Iranian nation will deal with them, means that Intelligence community, the Judiciary authority, the Revolutionary Guard Corps and Basij will deal with them.

The map below illustrates what type of plan the Islamic Regime has for the Middle East.

          

Red Arrows: Iran’s offensive activities in the Middle East.

Green Arrows: Iran’s final plan for the Middle East.  

Some Key terms for readers to focus more:

1-     Regional Hegemon (J. Mearsheimer).

2-     Chamberlin and Munich Agreement in 1938.

M. Sirani                                                                       (07.02.2013).

Shell Versus The Niger Delta! (Future Consequences).

Unbelievable News:

Despite all strong evidences, The Hague Civil Court rejected all cases against the Netherlands-based company, Shell. The Court repeated Shell's statements and ruled that sabotage and oil theft have been the main causes of the oil spils in the Niger Delta, not the poor maintenance of Shell's facilities in the area.

From this brief news, we can assume that simply and apparently Shell won the case. But, there are some other issues, which all of us including Shell's strategic advisors should carefully consider and that is the future consequences of today's event. Let us simply put some pieces together to find what type of final puzzle we would get in the future as the consequences of this event.

Piece Number 1: The people in this area live under poverty line.

Piece Number 2: The whole life of this people in the Niger Delta is based on fishing & agriculture, which have been extremely damaged, due to this disaster, whether by sabotage, oil theft, poor maintenance of Shell's facilities or any other reasons what so ever. The point is that this people are extremely vulnerable at this particualr and important time. I emphasize the important time, due to the circumstances in North Africa.

Piece Number 3: 50% of  Nigeria's population are Muslims.

Piece Number 4: The activities of different Islamic Fundamentalist groups have been increasing recently in various parts of North Africa. 

Piece Number 5: Up until today, the vast majority of people in the Niger Delta have been suffering too much mostly just because of poverty, but not too much because of injustice; although in reality poverty is the result of injustice, as we know. But, the result of today's Court clearly showed them somethings more than poverty. In other words, today, this people deeply felt, exprienced and understood the meaning of poverty and moreover, the sense of injustice, ignorance and exclusion more than before. 

Piece Number 6: I`m pretty sure that different rebel groups and some of the Islamic Fundamentalist groups in North Africa will focus on the people in this area in the near future, because they have become more vulnerable, desperate and furious; so they are easy prey to be recruited. 

I don`t have the time to prolong the rest of the story anymore. However, if you as the reader of this short article are interested to know what would be the consequences of today's Court, you can put these 6 pieces together. Then, you will be able to imagine a clear picture about the consequences of this event in the near future.

To be honest, sometimes, some news are shocking me. I mean the strategic advisors of Shell, or the Judiciary system or moreover the Dutch Authority do not understand the special circumstances, we are facing at the present time? Do they have any idea that with this event they have facilitated better opportunity for the Islamic terrorists as well as rebel groups in this part of the world? Do they have any idea that with this dicision they are intentionally or unintentionally pushing the people in this area towards more sabotage and ilegal activity? 

Today, the Dutch Authority and Shell could solve the problem and avoid the disasterous consequences in the future by spending just some couple of millions of dollars. But, as it seems, they have no idea about tactic, strategy, short term, long term interest, consequences, timing, etc. (30.01.2013).           

Argentine-Iran Recent Agreement! (Amia Blast)

On July 18, 1994, a car bomb explosion in front of the Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires resulted in death of 85 and injured hundreds innocent people. Following this barbaric event and after some years investigation, finally on October 25, 2006, Argentine procecuters officialy accused the Islamic Regime and one of its proxies i.e. Hezbollah as the mastermind actors behind the blast. However, yesterday, after almost 19 years, the two authorities of Argentine and the Islamic Regime signed an agreement to set up a commission to investigate the event. It is worth noting that the commission would consist of five independent judges, which are neither from Argentina nor Iran. The establishment of this commission has shocked many including the Israelis. It is christal clear that the result of this agreement would be nothing, except wasting money, time, energy and an useless propaganda. This commission would not be able to bring those terrorists, who planned and carried out this terrible event to justice; simply, because the Islamic Regime`s high ranking officials are the real master minders of this barbaric event. The establishment of this commission is just a pure tactical political move and to some extent beneficial for both parties i.e. Argentine & Iran.
Through the establishment of this comission, Iran would try to protect, maintain and further empower its influence in Latin American countries including Argentine.
Argentine looks at this event based on the old phrase of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". We know that Argentine is still suffering about Malvinas dispute. The country desperately tries to find a solution for Falkland Island. The establishment of this mutual commission with the Islamic Regime could be unrderstood as a political and tactical tool for Argentine in this direction, and nothing more. (29.01.2013)   

Explosion at Fordo Nuclear Facility!?

The recent blast in Fordo facility raises some questions including:

1- Did this blast really happen?
2- Did this blast happen at 19th or 26th January?
3- What was the main cause of the blast?
4- Did this blast happen due to an accident?
5- Did this blast happen due to a clandestine or covert action from somewhere against this facility?

According to RSOE Map, the blast has occured on 26.01.2013 at 05:04:09. The probability that this blast happened due to a clandestine or covert action is very low. If it was so, we would have experienced for sure some type of retaliation against the West in some area e.g. Iraq,Afghanistan, Bahrain, Yaman, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Saudi Arabia, etc. There is one serious question left; whether this event happened accidently or not. We should bear in mind that the Islamic Regime never ever put all its eggs in one basket. Moreover, as far as we know, Fordo facility locates almost 60 to 90 meters under ground. This issue simply shows that Iran has built this facility deep under ground, in order to maximize the security and surveillance of this nuclear plant as much as it can. From this, we can deduce that the Islamic Regime should be more careful and cautious about this particular facility, much more than any other nuclear facilities in Iran. To be more clear, if this blast happened accidently in Bushehr or Natanz plants, it was more acceptable for me. Based on this simple calculation, we are facing some other questions:
6- Did Iran carry out an extraordinary test, which it could n`t control the consequences?
7- Or is it a new game to delay the nuclear negotiation in the future?


Reference:
RSOE (2013). URL: <http://hisz.rsoe.hu/alertmap/index2.php>. Accessed at: 28.01.2013.

To Those Iran's Experts

To Those Iran's Experts:

In order to have an appropriate and more reliable analysis about the future actions of the Islamic Regime, you should have a proper set of knowledge about 1- the structure of power within this political system, 2- Shia baranch of Islam and 3- The mentality and culture of Iranian people. The combination of these three elemnts make you able to have an accurate analysis. Otherwise, you are faceing with some serious issues including: Mirror Imaging, Analytical Error, Cassandra Complex and .......................... 

If you don`t have these qualifications,  Please don`t apply for such huge responsibility. Because, your miscalculation would bring the lives of millions of people (in and out of Iran) at devastating risk. Whether you or your authority like it or not, you should remember, we have arrived at this dangerous no-turning point, because of miscalculation of you or someone like you. 34 years time is too much for an analysis. 

Ahmadinejad has approved an amount of $ 4 million dollars as gift to three African countries

 Today, Ahmadinejad has approved an amount of $ 4 million dollars as gift to three African countries. The name of these countries, or institutions or individuals, which will get this money are still unknwon. Are you following,,,,,

21.01.2013

About Mali:

Your method for defeating the Jihadists is totally wrong and you will never win this battle. You can defeat the Islamists Jihadists in Mali physically by using technological and modern military equipments, but the ideological mentality of the terrorists would remain and spread to somewhere else. You are just changing the battlefield geographically and nothing more. This is a simple lesson, which, we should have learned from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The experience of last decade has clearly shown that the Broader Middle East and North Africa Initiative does not work. We should find a fundamental solution for the ideology & mindset of terrorist.

M. Sirani                                                                                    15.01.2013

Will the US attack Iran?

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).       

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).

Analyzing the possibility of a war

The Rational Actor Model                 RAM

The Groupthink Model

The Cognitive Model

The Causes of             War

 

                                                  

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 will 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 would 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. Some of the consequences of this war would briefly be as follows. The result of such military strike would be devastating in different terms for both sides. Many people, mostly Iranian would lose their life during this war and the effects of nuclear particles and radiation would pollute the country in the years ahead. Iran might not be able to compete with high technological military equipments of the US, but the country has some powerful weapons to retaliate, which should not be underestimated. 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 Shia 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. 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. However, the hostility between Iran and the US will continue more or less until the final days of the Islamic Regime in Iran (Sirani, 2012).

M.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.