The fragility was built into the halt to the hostilities from the outset, starting with differences over whether the halt constituted a ceasefire. Iran rejects the notion of a ceasefire, even if it has agreed to halt the hostilities. Iran has insisted from day one of the Israeli assault that it would only stop retaliation for Israeli strikes once Israel halts its attacks.

A most fragile ceasefire

As far as Tehran is concerned, that is what Iran is doing in response to Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s labeling the halt of hostilities as a ceasefire. “As Iran has repeatedly made clear, Israel launched war on Iran, not the other way around. As of now, there is ” on any ceasefire,” ��������’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on X.

“However, provided that the Israeli regime stops its illegal aggression against the Iranian people…we have no intention to continue our response afterward,” Araghchi added. Even so, an Iranian missile fired at Israel minutes after the halt of hostilities went into effect, and Israel’s destruction of a radar in northern Iran in response demonstrated the halt’s fragility and provoked .

Bowing to Trump’s demand that Israel restrain itself, Netanyahu Israeli fighter jets making their way to other Iranian targets.

Trump’s anger outburst indicated the degree to which the president can stop Israel from violating the ceasefire by striking at will whenever it feels that Iran is raising its head by, for example, attempting to rebuild its nuclear programme or replenish its missile arsenal.

Israel has consistently insisted that it has the right to strike whenever it feels that is warranted, as it does in Lebanon, despite the November 2024 ceasefire with Hezbollah, the Iran-backed Shiite Muslim militia, and Syria.

“For Israel, the risk is you have to sit and watch as some targets appear that you would have wanted to strike but now can’t,” said former senior director for Middle East affairs at the US National Security Council, Michael Singh.

“Maybe they have to watch as Iran tries to rebuild its nuclear programme. And they have to now put a lot of trust and hope in the United States to be able to deliver some kind of diplomatic agreement that preserves the gains that you have made militarily,” Singh added.

Singh put his finger on the pulse with Iran determined to rebuild its nuclear programme and likely still in possession of of uranium enriched to 60% purity. The uranium, if further enriched, would be enough for nine nuclear warheads.

To be sure, the US and Israeli attacks have caused substantial damage to ��������’s nuclear infrastructure, despite questions about the degree of damage and the whereabouts of the highly enriched uranium. The uranium, if further enriched, would be enough for nine nuclear warheads.

Also, unclear is to what degree the US and Israeli strikes have impeded ��������’s ability to enrich, leaving aside whether Iran would want to further enrich the 410 kilograms. Iran has consistently denied wanting to have nuclear weapons. An initial US Defence Intelligence Agency assessment, denounced by the White House as “flat-out wrong,” concluded that the US strikes at three Iranian nuclear facilities core components of the country’s nuclear program and likely only set it back by months.

Iran is down but not out

Even so, Esmail Baghaie, the Iranian foreign ministry spokesman. conceded that the US and Israeli strikes had “badly damaged the country’s nuclear programme. “,” Baghaie said without going into detail. Meanwhile, a growing body of Iranian voices suggests that the strikes, coupled with the near-collapse of ��������’s forward defence strategy based on non-state allies in Lebanon and Palestine and former President Bashar al-Assad’s Syria, make nuclear weapons ��������’s best option to reestablish deterrence.

Iran’s potential withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) could embolden those who advocate for developing nuclear weapons.

Fuelling fears that Iran may opt for development of nuclear weapons, ��������’s parliament approved a bill to with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN’s nuclear watchdog. The bill, which must be approved by Iran’s unelected Guardian Council to become law, stipulates that any future IAEA inspections of Iranian nuclear sites would need approval by the Supreme National Security Council. 

The bill “talks about suspending, not putting an end to the cooperation,” Baghaei said. The spokesman said restoring cooperation would depend on IAEA recognition of ��������’s “inalienable rights” in accordance with the NPT, including the right to enrich uranium up to 3.67%, and that the “security and safety” of the country’s nuclear sites and scientific community is guaranteed.

In addition to the damage caused by the US and Israeli strikes against nuclear installations, Israel has said it killed 14 Iranian nuclear scientists during the 12-day war. There is bound to be resentment in Tehran for these killings. Further threatening the sustainability of the halt of hostilities is the fact that ��������’s Axis of Resistance may be down but is not out.

A senior political official of the Houthi militant group in Yemen said that they are by the Israel and Iran halt of hostilities, asserting they would continue their attacks “until the aggression against Gaza stops and the siege is lifted.” The Houthis could provoke a breakdown of the ceasefire by targeting the US Navy and international shipping in Gulf waters.

In the same vein, it is hard to determine to what degree Israel may have diminished ��������’s ballistic missile arsenal and ability to replenish it. Nevertheless, Iranian missile barrages highlighted weaknesses in Israel’s air defences, causing significant damages when they evaded the multi-layered anti-missile system.

Similarly, Israel struck at Iranian multiple non-nuclear targets, including police, cyber police, Basij militia, state television, and Red Crescent Society headquarters, the entrance to Tehran’s notorious Evin Prison, a power grid in the northern part of the Iranian capital, and a natural gas processing facility and gas refinery in Bushehr Province.

The strikes demonstrated Israel’s ability to hit whatever it fancies, including targets that could significantly impact the Iranian rulers’ grip on power as well as the degree of its intelligence penetration of Iran. Iran this week on charges of spying for Israel after earlier executing another three. Iran allegedly has arrested 700 people on suspicion of collaborating with Israel. So far, there seems to be no threat to the Iranian regime’s grip on power though.

The Israeli principle of overwhelming force is unlikely to work

The strikes followed a long familiar Israeli pattern that operates on the principle that sledgehammers and overwhelming force will whip opponents into submission. It’s a pattern applied to the Palestinians for decades that has failed to produce results. So far, there is no indication that it has worked in Iran despite Messrs. Trump and Netanyahu’s veiled assertions that this approach has worked.

The halt of hostilities is likely to remain fragile, even if it leads to a resumption of US-Iranian negotiations, given that there is no indication that Iran will bow to Trump’s demand that Iran “unconditional(y) surrender” and give up its right to enrich uranium to 3.67%.

In The Hague, Trump said that US and Iranian officials would meet next week but, convinced that the US strikes had “obliterated” ��������’s nuclear program, downplayed the significance of a formal agreement with the Islamic Republic. In doing so, Trump appeared to signal that the US would be hardline in the talks

“We’re going to talk to them next week, with Iran. We may sign an agreement. I don’t know. To me, I don’t think it’s that necessary… I don’t care whether we have an agreement or not,” Trump said. The president insisted that the US would not allow Iran to rebuild its nuclear programme. “We won’t let that happen. Number one, militarily we won’t,” Trump said.

Trump’s dismissal fuelled fears that a resumption of Israeli Iranian hostilities may be inevitable. The threat of revived hostilities was compounded by the absence of any suggestion that Iran would agree to restrictions on its missile programme. Even, so Trump appeared to offer a carrot by indicating that he would not from buying oil from Iran, saying Tehran needs the money “to put that country back into shape.” This small carrot might not be enough.

[ first published this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post High Risk of More Conflict as Iran-Israel Ceasefire Could Collapse appeared first on 51�Թ�.

How Khamenei rose to power in Iran

Succession has occurred only once in the history of the Islamic Republic. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (1900–1989), the first Supreme Leader of Iran, did not settle the issue of his succession while still alive for several reasons. First, as the supreme spiritual leader, he deemed it beneath himself to engage in a matter that would appear as political . Second, for a long time, nearly everyone Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri, a prominent cleric, as Khomeini’s de facto successor. Third, towards the end of his life, Khomeini suffered from rapidly worsening cancer, which likely cut short any last-minute plans.

A close-knit group of three — Ahmad Khomeini, the supreme leader’s son and confidant, Khamenei the president, and Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the speaker of parliament — took charge of managing the succession issue. They plotted to rule together in a power-sharing arrangement, with Khamenei at the helm as leader, Rafsanjani as president and Ahmad carrying the torch of his father’s legacy. However, the trio eventually fractured, and in a real-life cloak-and-dagger drama filled with hidden agendas and maneuvering, Khamenei outsmarted and eliminated his rivals, solidifying his position as the supreme and unchallenged leader. 

Raisi’s rise and fall reflects ���󲹳���Ա�’s strategic planning

Khamenei has long tried to prevent his progeny and legacy from suffering the same fate that befell his predecessor’s. To achieve this, he purged potential disruptors and handpicked loyalists years in advance to ensure a smooth succession.

Raisi’s rise from obscurity wasn’t about him becoming Supreme Leader. The establishment positioned him, not to succeed Khamenei specifically, but to guarantee the continuation of Khamenei’s ideology, regardless of the next leader. Charisma wasn’t Raisi’s strong suit; in fact, he was utterly bland. But what he lacked in personality, he made up for tenfold in devotion to the regime and Khamenei. Therefore, if Mojtaba were to be groomed for leadership, Raisi would serve as his facilitator, not his competitor.

The death of Raisi disrupted ���󲹳���Ա�’s plan. Speculation abounds as to who benefits from this, but those subjected to rounds of purges and consigned to the regime’s margins are the most likely candidates, namely the so-called Reformists/Moderates and the disaffected parts of the IRGC. 

In the first decade after the 1979 revolution, the future Reformists were among Ayatollah Khomeini’s closest allies. They even called themselves the “” in his honor. However, Ali Khamenei and his faction sidelined them starting in 1989. Their influence further diminished after the of Hashemi Rafsanjani in 2017. Out of power, they pragmatically adopted the label “Reformist” and began to rebuild relations with the West.

Decades of exile haven’t dimmed the ambitions of Iranian Reformists/Moderates. Based in Europe and North America, they haven’t given up hope. They dream of replacing Khamenei with Western backing and transforming the Islamist regime into a “moderate” version of itself. These figures remain active and any hiccups in Khamenei’s succession plan could be their golden opportunity.

Within the Revolutionary Guards exists a shadowy contingent I call the Shadow Guards. Not all Guards are Khamenei loyalists. Some commanders have even his authority or shown disapproval. These dissenters, if not eliminated, now operate on the regime’s fringes. Khamenei further disrupts potential power grabs by rotating commanders. This creates an amorphous entity within the IRGC. Their loyalty isn’t necessarily to Khamenei, but to the regime’s core ideology. However, they see an opportunity to gain power when the leadership changes, and have begun making connections with former adversaries overseas.

The Reformists/Moderates and the Shadow Guards are finding common ground as the Iranian regime weakens. Both sides aim to preserve Iran as an authoritarian oligarchy, albeit through different tactics. The Reformists/Moderates cloak themselves in a liberal/leftist mask, while the Shadow Guards ultranationalism. They both wield extensive media influence and strong in the West. Their strategy is to co-opt elements of the monarchist opposition and a new elite to secure their control.

Iran’s authoritarian grip endures

Post-Khamenei Iran will see Islam remain the foundation of the regime, with nationalism acting as a masking its Islamist core. Already, some monarchists advocate for Iran to revert from with revolutionary clerical rule to , where a Shah presides over a Shiite establishment. This regime will continue to exclude most people and parties from political participation. Followers of minority religions can expect continued poor treatment, if not outright persecution. The regime’s foreign policy and relationships with its neighbors and the West will remain a mystery in a box.

The democratic world must be on high alert. To derail Khamenei’s criminal plans is undeniably attractive, but we cannot lose sight of the regime’s systemic corruption. Simply removing the top leadership won’t halt the tide of radicalism overflowing from Iran. It’s a trap — just like replacing communists with nationalist remnants of the Soviet regime didn’t its problems. Only a to a liberal democracy can normalize Iran and prevent future threats to its own people, its neighbors, and the global community.

[ edited this piece]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Post-Raisi Iran: A New Chapter in Iranian Politics appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Raisi’s life and achievements

Ebrahim Raisi was in Mashhad, Iran in 1960. He lost his father at age 5, causing his family to struggle financially. At age 15, he joined the seminary in the city of Qum. At age 20, he joined ��������’s new judiciary following the conclusion of ��������’s 1979 . In 1983, he married Jamileh Alamalhoda, of Mashad’s Friday prayer Imam Ahmad Alamolhoda. They had two daughters together.

From here, he was appointed to several important positions. In 1988, he stood as a member of a judicial committee overseeing political prisoners, including the members of the terror organization. A year later, he became the prosecutor of ��������’s capital city of Tehran. In 2004, he was appointed as first deputy chief justice. In 2006, he was elected to the of Experts, a clerical body appointing the Supreme Leader. In 2012, Raisi earned his PhD in law from Shahid Motahari University. He was Prosecutor General of Iran in 2014 and chair of the , one of ��������’s biggest religious endowments, in 2016.

His political career did not stop there. Raisi ran in the 2017 presidential election as a critic of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The incumbent president , who invested much of his reelection campaign in the JCPOA, ultimately won. In 2019, Raisi was appointed as ��������’s chief justice. He ran again in the 2020 presidential election and won in 2021. He earned 62% of the popular vote, though the turnout was around 49%. This was over three years after US President Donald Trump unilaterally from the JCPOA.

Finally, on May 19, 2024, Raisi in the aforementioned helicopter crash in the mountainous region of Azerbaijan. His funeral processes were held in Tabriz, Tehran, Ray, Qum and Mashhad, with over a million attendees.

Raisi was the people’s president. He worked seven days a week, traveling across the country, visiting every province and talking to people from all walks of life. He sat with villagers as if he were one of them, listening and trying to address their issues. In government, he developed positive relations with ��������’s judicial and legislative branches. He enjoyed good relations with the military and religious authorities.

Raisi took the focus away from ��������’s unsuccessful approach with the West, instead turning attention to neighboring countries and the East. He relations with Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Egypt, India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Uzbekistan. In particular, he solidified ��������’s friendship with Russia and China. A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman speaking on behalf of Chinese President Xi Jinping Raisi made “positive efforts to consolidate and expand the comprehensive strategic partnership between China and Iran.”

In February 2023, Raisi the 25-year “strategic cooperation pact,” with China. The two countries signed numerous other . In April 2023, Raisi led Iran to join the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (), a Eurasian political, economic and security organization. He led Iran to sign an with Iraq to construct a railway from the Iranian city of Shalamcheh to the Iraqi city of Basra.

In May 2023, Raisi signed an agreement with to build a 170-kilometer railway connecting the Iranian city of Rasht to the Azerbaijani city of Astara. In November 2023, a month after the October 7 Hamas terror attack on Gaza and Israel’s barbaric response to it, Raisi in a Saudi summit. This meeting condemned Israel’s war crimes against Palestinians in Gaza.

In January 2024, Raisi led Iran to join Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (), an intergovernmental organization promoting non-interference, equality and collaboration. In May 2024, he signed several with Pakistan to strengthen “bilateral relations across political, economic, trade, and cultural domains.” That included increasing the bilateral trade to $10 billion.

During Raisi’s tenure, Iran its crude oil exports from 0.6 million barrels per day in June 2021 to over 1.6 million in April 2024. The country achieved this over 200% increase despite the draconian sanctions the US implemented in 2018.

Official condolences from world leaders

Iran was showered with from countries worldwide honoring Raisi and the other officials. “I send condolences upon the deaths of President Ebrahim Raisi, Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian and all who perished in yesterday’s helicopter crash,” Pope Francis wrote to ��������’s Supreme Leader.

Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim was “deeply saddened” by Raisi’s passing. “His dedication to justice, peace, and the upliftment of the ummah [the Islamic community] was truly inspiring. We committed ourselves to bolstering Malaysia-Iran relations, working together for the betterment of our peoples and the Muslim world. Our pledge will be fulfilled,” Ibrahim said.

Even the , ��������’s worst adversary, sent Iran a message regarding his death: “As Iran selects a new president, we reaffirm our support for the Iranian people and their struggle for human rights and fundamental freedoms,” Department of State spokesman Matthew Miller said.

declared five days of mourning for Raisi and the other officials’ deaths. Lebanon and Syria followed with three days while and Iraq took one. On May 21, the lowered its flag to half-mast in honor of the late president. The UN atomic watchdog observed a minute of silence to honor him.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres and members of the Security Council “sincere condolences to the families of the deceased and to the Government and people of the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

��������’s policy will not change

��������’s democracy must continue without Raisi. According to of the Iranian Constitution, “The Council…is obliged to arrange for a new President to be elected within a maximum period of fifty days.” Iran has already the popular presidential election for June 28.

The deaths of Raisi and others will not ��������’s foreign policy. After such large public attendance at his funerals in five different cities, any loyal follower is obliged to enforce his policies: to strengthen relations with neighboring countries, collaborate further with China and Russia and support oppressed people worldwide. Specifically, Iran would continue supporting the oppressed until they can restore .
Raisi was a great man. We must never forget nor devalue his policies that brought our world one step closer to peace.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Wondrous Life and Strong Policies of President Ebrahim Raisi appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Iran’s leadership demonstrates sagacity rather than acting capriciously. It has no desire to provoke an unnecessary war with Israel. However, when Israel senior Iranian officials in Damascus via an airstrike on April 1, 2024, Iran needed to respond. On April 14, Iran with a drone and rocket attack that targeted Israeli territory but caused no deaths.

In the aftermath of Iran’s attack, the US has made efforts to rein in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and prevent escalation. However, this endeavor has proven to be challenging. Netanyahu believes that the US Congress would compel the US to support Israel in a potential conflict with Iran. Presently, he finds himself surrounded by fellow hardline extremists who, like him, fail to recognize the shifting attitudes of the American populace towards Israel. Notably, among the younger generation of Americans, only 14% sympathy towards Israel, a stark from 64% in 2023. These Americans are unwilling to commit to armed conflict or sacrifice their lives for Israel.

Once again, the US intervened to support Netanyahu, Iran to permit a symbolic Israeli strike. Iran, of course, refused, but on April 19, Israel carried out an air strike in ��������’s Esfahan province. There were . For the moment, this seems to be the end of the exchange.

Netanyahu is cognizant that his political career is effectively after the Israel–Hamas war, and thus his mandate as well, ends. He faces for personal corruption and mismanagement, particularly concerning dealings with Hamas. He thus has a personal incentive to prolong the war, perhaps banking on US intervention to safeguard Israel.

Should Israel or the US mount another offensive resulting in casualties or significant damage, hell would break loose in the Middle East. Such a war could destroy US influence in the region and even imperil the very existence of Israel.

A century of struggle and suffering in Palestine

Let’s back up a bit and consider why Gaza is such a sensitive topic for Iran.

In the early 20th century, Jews persecution in Christendom and migrated to Palestine. Palestinians initially welcomed them, providing sanctuary. Palestinian hospitality encouraged Zionist-minded Jews to settle in Palestine. By 1930, tensions escalated as the newcomers perpetrated violence against Palestinians. This violence peaked between 1947 and 1948, resulting in the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians known as the .

Related Reading

Palestine and Israel: A Bloody Saga

Since then, Israel, with the support of the US-led West, has continued to marginalize Palestinians and push them into plots of land. Israel split Palestine into two territories: the larger West Bank in the east, and the tiny Gaza Strip, only 365 square kilometers, to the south. After Palestinians voted for Hamas in 2006, the militant group assumed control of the Gaza Strip. Israel (and Egypt) responded by blockading the territory, creating what is frequently called an , with two million people crammed into an area the size of the US Virgin Islands (home to 87,000 people).

Since the outbreak of the present Israel–Hamas war in October 2023, Israel has not only killed over people in its land and air assault on the Gaza Strip but its blockade, at times even restricting the inflow of drinking water, and put the territory’s population on the brink of starvation.

Founded in a revolution against an oppressive secular government backed by Western powers, the Islamic Republic of Iran sees itself as the protector of the Islamic world against oppression and imperialism. For Iranians, Palestine is the prime case of a suffering Muslim people. So, naturally, whatever happens in Gaza reverberates in Iran.

��������’s commitment to standing with the oppressed finds its origins in the nation’s majority Shia Islamic faith. Wherever Shia Muslims reside, they draw inspiration from , a grandson of the Prophet of Islam, who sacrificed his life and those of his loved ones in defense of justice. “In the face of oppression,” Imam Hussein , “I choose to stand with courage and uphold the banner of justice.” Shias align themselves with the oppressed and advocate for justice. They do not discriminate based on race, religion, ethnicity, or any other criteria. Presently, Shias in Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and various other nations unite in solidarity with Palestinians, even though most Palestinians are Sunni Muslims rather than Shia. What matters most for Iranians is solidarity with the Muslim community and with oppressed peoples across the globe.

Israel’s actions have provoked anger worldwide, even in the West. What is true in the rest of the world is true in Iran tenfold. Iranians are deeply angry. Yet it is a testament to the restraint and prudence of ��������’s leadership that it has so far not let this righteous outrage tempt it into a war.

Iran’s strategic calculations in the face of Israeli provocations

Although Iran rejects aggression, Israel nearly drew it into war anyway by striking its officers. On April 1, 2024, Israel breached Syrian and Iranian sovereignties by bombing the Iranian consulate compound in Damascus, Syria, resulting in the death of 16 individuals. Among the were three senior commanders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’s Quds Force — Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Zahedi, General Hossein Aminollahi and General Mohammad Hadi Haj Rahimi — and six other Revolutionary Guard members.

The US promptly that it had nothing to do with Israel’s bombing of ��������’s consulate in Syria. However, the US administration from condemning it. As usual, its media empire the US assertions by downplaying the Israeli assault on the consulate. Incapable of independent thought, the US and its media still keep persistently echoing Israel’s lies, propaganda and unverified rumors.

For years, Iran’s Supreme Leader has exercised patience in response to Israel’s provocations, including sabotage of its endeavors in ��������’s and programs as well as targeted killings of Iranian and military personnel. Following Israel’s bombing of Iran’s consulate in Syria on April 1, military action was withheld initially, with Iran appealing to the UN Security Council to denounce the violations.

After the UN to condemn Israel, Iran’s Supreme Leader declared Iran’s intention to retaliate against Israel, approximately ten days before the attacks. Demonstrating an exemplary degree of responsibility, Iran issued a warning to Israel, the US, the UK, France, and other supporters, prompting them to prepare for defense. Approximately 72 hours before the attacks, Iran both its regional neighbors and Western powers of its imminent intentions. This deliberate choice allowed Israel and its allies time to prepare for defensive measures. Symbolically, Iran sought to showcase its capabilities to its adversaries while assessing their strengths and vulnerabilities.

On April 14, Iran executed its attacks on Israel utilizing outdated, sluggish drones and missiles. The journey spanned three to five hours before reaching their intended targets.

By international law and moral standards, Iran’s response was appropriate. Unlike Israel, which follows the Western model by indiscriminately targeting innocent men, women and children, Iran’s objective from the outset was to minimize casualties. Notably, the attacks resulted in no deaths and only one unintentional .

Through the operation, Iran successfully achieved its objectives. The strikes seriously damaged at least two Israeli bases, including the highly sensitive Airbase, previously utilized by Israel to target Iran’s consulate. Notably, Israel’s purportedly top-tier defense infrastructure faltered during this operation. While British, French and other Western forces participated, the conducted the bulk of the interceptions. 

To Iranians, the attacks served as significant experimental endeavors. Remarkably, the financial to Iran amounted to less than $2 million, whereas its adversaries had to spend $3 billion to counter the attack. Perhaps more importantly, the exercise afforded Iran a deeper understanding of its adversaries’ capabilities.

On April 19, Israel launched rockets toward the nuclear facilities in Natanz, Esfahan province, Iran. Reports that Iran intercepted all incoming projectiles, with some debris landing in Iraq. Iran has not retaliated.

The ever-pro-Israeli US press, led by , sought to ignore or downplay ��������’s success and paint the exchange as a mere distraction. Americans should exercise discernment and not take such propaganda at face value. Instead, they should seek out independent sources, such as 51�Թ�, for a more realistic perspective.

A call to reform US policy on Israel

It is time for Americans to shake off the passivity they have indulged for too long. The US, after all, is supposed to be a democracy. Yet a significant majority, 60% of Americans, disapprove of Israel’s actions in Gaza, while Congress $26 billion in more aid for Israel. To reclaim the nation’s integrity, Americans must conscientiously vote out representatives who support such allocations in future elections.

As an American committed to safeguarding the nation’s long-term interests, I advocate for constructive engagement with Palestinians to facilitate the cessation of Israeli colonization and the restoration of the Palestinian state. This endeavor should ensure equal rights for all Palestinian Christians, Jews and Muslims. Additionally, individuals of Jewish descent without historical ties to Palestine should be permitted to repatriate to their ancestral lands or other countries, provided they have not been complicit in crimes against humanity.

True Christians and Jews must actively follow their religious teachings by promoting brotherhood and peace. They must not permit political and religious demagogues to encourage or engage in atrocities such as those in Palestine in their names. Additionally, they should acknowledge that Israel is no friend of the US, but rather an adversary, one which has even the US Navy with apparent impunity.

Under President Joe Biden — a self-declared — achieving a peaceful solution in Palestine appears unlikely. Nevertheless, it remains certain that each individual will be held accountable for the suffering they cause, whether directly or indirectly, upon others. Before they are held accountable before God, let us hold them accountable at the ballot box, and perhaps save their souls or, at least, our own.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post How Do You See Iran’s Attacks on Israel? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

New rules in the Iran–Israel war

The unprecedented Iranian attack marks a significant escalation from the two countries’ ongoing shadow war. Previously, the Iranians directed their attacks on Israel through their proxies, such as the Shia terrorist group Hezbollah in southern Lebanon or other militia groups in Syria and Iraq. For its part, Israel limited its operations against Iran to attacks on those proxy groups, cyberattacks against various Iranian computer networks, including the famous in the Natanz nuclear weapons development complex, and assassinations of key Iranian nuclear scientists and IRGC commanders.

It was just such an elimination operation in Damascus against the IRGC’s senior commander for the Levant on April 1, 2024, that led to ��������’s decision to launch its 320-plus missile and drone barrage against Israel. Israel responded with its own on an Iranian air base in Esfahan. While that attack avoided nearby Iranian nuclear facilities, it sent a clear message to Tehran that Israel can strike Iran anywhere it desires with destructive effect. Meanwhile, Israel shot down nearly all of the Iranian missiles and drones launched its way with minimal damage and no loss of life, thanks to considerable help from the Americans, Jordanians and others.

For now, the two sides have decided to stand down. However, few believe that this most recent exchange is the end of it all. Iran will continue to employ its IRGC-supplied and directed proxies to attack Israel, including, since October 7, the Houthis in Yemen. And Israel will take measures to protect itself, not only targeting these various proxies themselves but also the IRGC commanders who advise them. The gloves are off for both; their respective territories are now fair game under the new rules of the game after April 13.

IRGC power is now increasingly assertive in Tehran

Why did Iran, whose IRGC officers have been targets in the past of Israeli and American attacks, decide to respond with a direct attack on Israel? Previously, Iran had been careful about directly targeting Israel or US facilities in the region. The one clear exception was ��������’s January 2020 missile attack against a US base in Iraq that injured more than 100 US soldiers. The attack was in response to the US of IRGC commanding general Qassim Soleimani only days before during a visit to Iraq. Then-President Donald Trump had ordered the assassination. Like the April 2024 attack against Israel, the 2020 attack against a US facility was the first direct Iranian attack against its adversary launched from inside Iran. The Americans did not respond to the missile attack against their base, and the tit-for-tat stopped.

It is more than a coincidence that these direct attacks occurred in response to the killings of very senior IRGC officers. One was the senior-most commander, while the other was the second senior-most IRGC officer in the Levant. Soleimani, in particular, was an immensely powerful and popular figure in Iran with almost superman status. So, it wouldn’t be presumptuous to infer that the IRGC that the political leadership in Tehran, namely Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, approve direct reprisal attacks to redeem the IRGC’s honor and establish a red line on eliminating its senior leaders.

Younger IRGC officers, who are much less risk-averse than their senior leaders, must have been furiously overwrought that their senior leaders could be removed in this way without compensating losses among senior leaders of Israel and the US. To maintain the loyalty and commitment of the IRGC — ��������’s most ideologically committed, dedicated and likely best-trained military force — the political leadership had no alternative but to bow to their demands. Why else would the Islamic Republic of Iran risk a war with a vastly militarily superior Israel backed by the most powerful superpower on Earth, the United States?

The day after the Iranian attack on Israel, the Swiss ambassador in Tehran was summoned to the IRGC headquarters. (As there is no US embassy in Tehran, the Swiss officially represent US interests in Iran.) The ostensible reason was to deliver a message for the ambassador to pass to the US: Do not involve yourselves in an Israeli retaliatory attack on Iran. The surprise is not the content of the message, which is entirely predictable, but that it came from the IRGC as opposed to the Iranian Foreign Ministry, which is typically tasked with communicating with foreign missions in the Iranian capital. The real message is that the Iranian Foreign Ministry has been sidelined for all but the most routine diplomatic functions. The IRGC is in charge.

The IRGC are not the only nationalist hawks in Iran

But there was a second group of voices insisting on a reprisal attack against Israel. In a nation where “hardliner” is hardly a specific enough descriptive of political leaning, there is one group that occupies the most extreme right wing: the , or Front for the Stability of the Islamic Revolution. These are uber-extremist Shia who eschew any and all forms of compromise with external or internal groups. It was the Paydari Front that argued for stronger enforcement of hijab laws in Iran in spite of mass uprisings opposing the hijab rule. This extremist organization maintains an almost apocalyptic view of conflict, believing that it will hasten the coming of Imam al-Mahdi, aka Imam al-Zaman, the mystical twelfth imam of Shia Islam. This is the Shia Muslim version of the end of days.

While the Paydari Front occupies only 24 of the Iranian parliament’s 290 seats, their uncompromising views hold considerable sway in a country almost under siege from the West. The organization’s summer camps and youth education programs have trained many of the IRGC’s up-and-coming officers, who share the Paydari Front’s monochromatic view of the world, its intense religious beliefs and its fanatically fearless approach to challenging Israel and America. 

So, to the IRGC voices clamoring for a direct attack against ��������’s “,” we must also add the Paydari Front. In the irrefutable logic of religious zealots, to do anything less would be treasonous and even godless. These are arguments not easily or honestly debated among ��������’s already closeted leadership, who are trapped in an echo chamber of ever-more rash, radical and dangerous ideas.

��������’s growing extremism implies a fraught future

What does this mean for Israel, the West and moderate Middle Eastern governments? The Islamic Republic is reportedly only weeks — or months, depending on which ominous report you consult — from producing the necessary highly enriched (90%) uranium for one or even more bombs. So, the US and its allies cannot disregard the real threat that Iranian extremist hardliners will insist on a mad rush to produce a nuclear bomb and weaponize its delivery by land or by sea. Any such possibility, of course, will likely precipitate a direct Israeli attack against major nuclear sites at Natanz and even Fordow, perhaps with the help of the US. Both US and Israeli leaders have said repeatedly that they will not allow Iran to build a nuclear weapon.

As ��������’s isolated leadership and its IRGC praetorian guard take increasingly hardline stances, the country’s population seeks a more secular, less militarized state and greater ties with the West. The former oppresses the latter, making revolution effectively impossible. So, change from within seems unlikely for the foreseeable future, barring a major uprising on par with the 1979 revolution. The IRGC knows full well how that was done and, therefore, how to shut down any whiff of revolution.

The West and moderate Arab regimes have largely written off regime change in Iran for now. Therefore, they must seek a regional alliance to make it plain to Tehran that any aggression will be met with united and overwhelming force. To be more effective, that alliance must include Israel, whose inclusion can only be possible if its leaders recognize the necessity of working toward a two-state solution with Palestinians. Unfortunately, Israel’s own uncompromising current political trajectory under Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu is undermining the nation’s security against its true existential threat, Iran.

Only a united regional alliance capable of inflicting enormous destruction on Iran could persuade the moderate and conservative hardliners that it’s time to shut down the saber-rattling mob on the far right. These hardliners might do a cost-benefit analysis of their reckless aggression and decide to reopen negotiations on both its nuclear program as well as ��������’s troublemaking activities throughout the Middle East. Such negotiations seem to be the best shot for peace.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post How to Contain ��������’s Dangerous Warmongers appeared first on 51�Թ�.

In November, of course, American voters get to choose which of the two they’d trust with handling ongoing explosive tensions with Tehran across a Middle East now in crisis. The war in Gaza has already intensified the danger of an Iran-Israel conflict — with the recent devastating Israeli on an Iranian consulate in Syria and the Iranian of drones and missiles dispatched against Israel only upping the odds. In addition, ��������’s “axis of resistance” — including Hamas, Lebanon’s Hezbollah, the Houthis in Yemen and militias in Iraq and Syria — has been challenging American hegemony throughout the Middle East, while drawing lethal US counterstrikes in Iraq, Syria and Yemen.

It was President Donald Trump, of course, who condemned the US–Iran agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive of Action (JCPOA) while running in 2016. With his team of fervent anti-Iran hawks, including Secretary of State and National Security Advisor , he took a wrecking ball to relations with Iran. Six years ago, Trump withdrew the US from the JCPOA and, in what he called a campaign of “maximum pressure,” reinstituted, then redoubled political and economic sanctions against Tehran. Characteristically, he maintained a consistently belligerent policy toward the Islamic Republic, its very existence and warning that he could “” Iran.

Joe Biden had been a supporter of the accord, negotiated while he was Obama’s vice president. During his 2020 presidential campaign, he promised to rejoin it. In the end, though, he kept Trump’s onerous sanctions in place and months of negotiations went nowhere. While he put out to Tehran, crises erupting in 2022 and 2023, including the invasion of Israel by Hamas, placed huge obstacles in the way of tangible progress toward rebooting the JCPOA.

Worse yet, still reeling from the collapse of the 2015 agreement and ruled by a hardline government deeply suspicious of Washington, Iran is in no mood to trust another American diplomatic venture. In fact, during the earlier talks, it distinctly its hand, demanding far more than Biden could conceivably offer.

Meanwhile, Iran has accelerated its nuclear research and its potential production facilities, amassing large stockpiles of uranium that, as The Washington Post , “could be converted to weapons-grade fuel for at least three bombs in a time frame ranging from a few days to a few weeks.”

Trump’s anti-Iran jihad

While the US and Iran weren’t exactly at peace when Trump took office in January 2017, the JCPOA had at least created the foundation for what many hoped would be a new era in their relations.

Iran had to drastically limit the scale and scope of its uranium enrichment program, reduce the number of centrifuges it could operate, curtail its production of low-enriched uranium suitable for fueling a power plant and ship nearly all of its enriched uranium stockpile out of the country. It closed and disabled its Arak plutonium reactor while agreeing to a stringent regime in which the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would monitor every aspect of its nuclear program.

In exchange, the US, the EU and the UN agreed to remove an array of economic sanctions, which, until then, had arguably made Iran the sanctioned country in the world.

Free of some of them, its economy began to recover, while its oil exports, its economic lifeblood, nearly . According to How Sanctions Work, a new from Stanford University Press, Iran absorbed a windfall of $11 billion in foreign investment, gained access to $55 billion in assets frozen in Western banks and saw its inflation rate fall from 45% to 8%.

But Trump acted forcefully to undermine it all. In October 2017, he “” ��������’s compliance with the accord, amid false charges that it had violated the agreement. (Both the EU and the IAEA agreed that it .)

Many observers feared that Trump was creating an environment in which Washington could launch an Iraq-style war of aggression. In a New York Times , Larry Wilkerson, chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell at the time of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, suggested that Trump was repeating the pattern of unproven allegations that President George W. Bush had relied on: “The Trump administration is using much the same playbook to create a false impression that war is the only way to address the threats posed by Iran.”

Finally, on May 8, 2018, Trump the JCPOA, and sanctions on Iran were back in place. Relentlessly, he and Secretary of the Treasury Steve Mnuchin piled on ever more of them in what they called a campaign of “.” The administration reactivated old sanctions were reactivated and added hundreds of new ones targeting ��������’s banking and oil industries, its shipping industry, its metal and petrochemical firms and, finally, its construction, mining, manufacturing and textile sectors. The administration also targeted countless individual officials and businessmen, along with dozens of companies worldwide that dealt, however tangentially, with ��������’s sanctioned firms.

It was, Mnuchin Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, “a maximum pressure campaign for sanctions … We will continue to ramp up, more, more, more.” At one point, in a gesture both meaningless and insulting, the Trump administration even sanctioned Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, ��������’s supreme leader, a move moderate President Hassan Rouhani “outrageous and idiotic,” adding that Trump was “afflicted by mental retardation.”

Then, in 2019, Trump took the unprecedented of labeling the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), ��������’s chief military arm, a “foreign terrorist organization.” He put a violent exclamation point on that when he ordered the of ��������’s premier military leader, General , during his visit to Baghdad.

Administration officials made it clear that the goal was the regime and that they hoped the sanctions would provoke an uprising to overthrow the government. Iranians did, in fact, rise up in , including most recently 2023’s “” movement, partly thanks to tougher economic times due to the sanctions. The government’s response, however, was a brutal crackdown. Meanwhile, on the nuclear front, having painstakingly complied with the JCPOA until 2018, instead of being even more conciliatory, Iran its program, enriching far more uranium than was necessary to fuel a power plant. And militarily, it initiated a series of with US naval forces in the Persian Gulf, or foreign-operated oil tankers, a US drone in the Straits of Hormuz and launched drones meant to Saudi Arabia’s huge oil industry.

“The American withdrawal from the JCPOA and the severity of the sanctions that followed were seen by Iran as an attempt to break the back of the Islamic Republic or, worse, to completely destroy it,” , a veteran analyst at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and one of the authors of How Sanctions Work, told me. “So, they circled the wagons. Iran became far more securitized, and it handed more and more power to the IRGC and the security forces.”

Biden’s reign of (unforced) error

Having long supported a deal with Iran —  in , as of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and, in , in a speech to Jewish leaders — Joe Biden Trump’s decision to quit the JCPOA a “self-inflicted disaster.” But on entering the Oval Office, Biden failed to simply rejoin it.

Instead, he let months go by, while in a quest to somehow improve it. Even though the JCPOA had been working quite well, the Biden team insisted it a “longer and stronger agreement” and that Iran first had to return to compliance with the agreement, even though it was the US that had pulled out of the deal.

Consider that an unforced error. “Early in 2021 there was one last chance to restore the agreement,” , an expert on Iran and executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told me. “He could have just come back to the JCPOA by issuing an executive order, but he didn’t do anything for what turned out to be the ten most critical weeks.”

It was critical because the Iranian administration of President Rouhani and Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, responsible for negotiating the original accord, was expiring and new elections were scheduled for June 2021. “One of the major mistakes Biden made is that he delayed the nuclear talks into April,” Seyed Hossein Mousavian, Princeton University scholar and a former top Iranian official who was part of its nuclear negotiating team from 2005 to 2007. “This was a golden opportunity to negotiate with the Rouhani team, but he delayed until a month before the Iranian elections. He could have finished the deal by May.”

When the talks finally did resume in April — “gingerly,” to The New York Times — they were further complicated because, just days earlier, a covert Israeli operation had devastated one of ��������’s top nuclear research facilities with an enormous . Iran responded by pledging to take the purity of its enriched uranium from , which didn’t exactly help the talks, nor did Biden’s unwillingness to condemn Israel for a provocation clearly designed to wreck them.

That June, Iranians a new president, Ebrahim Raisi, a hardline cleric and militant supporter of the “axis of resistance.” He took office in August, spent months assembling his administration and appointed a new team to lead the nuclear talks. By July, according to American officials, those talks on a new version of the JCPOA had “near complete agreement,” only to fall apart when the Iranian side backed out.

It was also clear that the Biden administration didn’t prioritize the Iran talks, being less than eager to deal with bitter opposition from Israel and its allies on Capitol Hill. “Biden’s view was that he’d go along with reviving the JCPOA only if he felt it was absolutely necessary and to do it at the least political cost,” Parsi points out. “And it looked like he’d only do it if it were acceptable to Israel.”

Over the next two years, the US and Iran engaged in an unproductive series of negotiations that seemed to come tantalizingly close to an agreement only to stop short. By the summer of 2022, the nuclear talks once again appeared to be making progress, only to fail yet again.  “After 15 months of intense, constructive negotiations in Vienna and countless interactions with the JCPOA participants and the US, I have concluded that the space for additional significant compromises has been exhausted,” Josep Borrell Fontelles, the foreign policy chief for the EU.

By the end of 2022, Biden declared the Iran deal “dead” and his chief negotiator insisted he wouldn’t “waste time” trying to revive it. As Mousavian told me, ��������’s crackdown on the Woman, Life, Freedom revolt in the wake of its “morality police” torturing and killing a young woman, , arrested on the streets of Tehran without a veil and increased concern about Iranian being delivered to Russia for its war in Ukraine soured Biden on even talking to Iran.

Nonetheless, in 2023, yet another round of talks — helped, perhaps, by a between the US and Iran, including an agreement to $6 billion in Iranian oil revenues – resulted in a tentative, informal accord that Iranian officials as a “political ceasefire.” to The Times of Israel, “the understandings would see Tehran pledge not to enrich uranium beyond its current level of 60 percent purity, to better cooperate with U.N. nuclear inspectors, to stop its proxy terror groups from attacking U.S. contractors in Iraq and Syria, to avoid providing Russia with ballistic missiles and to release three American-Iranians held in the Islamic Republic.”

But even that informal agreement was consigned to the dustbin of history after Hamas’s October 7 doomed any rapprochement between the US and Iran.

The question remains: Could some version of the JCPOA be salvaged in 2025?

Certainly not if, as now seems increasingly possible, a shooting war breaks out involving the US, Iran and Israel, a catastrophic crisis with unforeseeable consequences. And certainly not if Trump is reelected, which would plunge the US and Iran deeper into their cold (if not a devastatingly hot) war.

What do the experts say? Against the possibility of a revived accord, according to Vali Nasr, Iran has concluded that Washington is an utterly untrustworthy negotiating partner whose word is worthless. “Iran has decided that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans and they decided to escalate tensions further in order to gain what they hope is additional leverage ������-à-������ �²����󾱲Բ��ٴDz�.”

“Biden’s intention was to revive the deal,” says Hossein Mousavian. “He did take some practical steps to do so and at least he tried to deescalate the situation.” Iran was, however, less willing to move forward because Biden insisted on maintaining the sanctions Trump had imposed.

The Quincy Institute’s Trita Parsi, however, catches the full pessimism of a moment in which Iran and Israel (backed remarkably fully by Washington) are at the edge of actual war. Given the rising tensions in the region, not to speak of actual clashes, he says gloomily, “The best that we can hope for is that nothing happens. There is no hope for anything more.”

And that’s where hope is today in a Middle East that seems to be heading for hell in a handbasket. 

[ first published this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Can Biden Clean Up Trump’s Iran Nuclear Deal Mess Now? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

plagues the American media. The dramatization of news stories to attract a wider audience and generate revenue is a persistent trend. The media habitually deploy misleading information, propaganda and unverified rumors.

This penchant for sensationalized reporting has become so ingrained that even some formally independent media outlets can be drawn into this vortex. 51�Թ� purports to champion balanced and truthful reporting. However, during the recent coverage of escalating tensions between the United States and Iran, this author noted with surprise the editorial oversight that allowed contributors to refer to Iran’s allies and partners as proxies.

The terms “proxy,” “ally” and “partner” all describe relationships between actors on the international stage, but they are not synonyms. A is an entity acting on behalf of another, often with a degree of subordination. In legal contexts, a proxy typically grants the designated individual general discretion throughout the matter at hand.

An , by contrast, is a party that provides assistance or support in a shared endeavor. Formalized agreements between states for wartime support are what alliances often become in the legal realm. In the context of Iran’s Axis of Resistance, this can include non-state actors as well.

Finally, a refers to an entity associated with another for the joint execution of an activity that offers mutual benefit. In legal terms, a partnership is an agreement between two or more parties to engage in mutually advantageous projects.

Iran’s comprises entities such as the Houthis, Hamas and Hezbollah. These groups should not be categorized as Iranian proxies, but rather as allies or partners. (While their alliances with Iran may lack formal agreements, their actions demonstrate a level of cooperation.) Most importantly, each group retains its own decision-making authority. The Houthis pursue independent governance in Yemen. Similarly, Hamas, a Sunni group, has a history of against Iranian-backed forces in Syria to overthrow Syrian President Assad. Hezbollah receives financial and military aid from Iran, yet it maintains its decision-making capacity.

Iran firmly bases its policy on ethical grounds when it supports the restoration of Palestinian control over Palestine. Analogous to the shared democratic values purportedly uniting the US and the EU, Iran and its allies share a common goal: the cessation of Palestinian occupation and the facilitation of a coexistence of Palestinian Christians, Jews and Muslims without unequal Jewish power.

The era of colonialism has concluded. Should the Western coalition, led by the US, seek to dismantle ��������’s Axis of Resistance, they must stop colonizing Palestine, thereby letting Palestinians to govern their own territory. Failing this, the resistance will grow stronger and force the West to retreat in disgrace, as seen in Vietnam and Afghanistan.

The proxy narrative is a misconception in Middle Eastern politics

The ongoing conflict between Israel, backed by the US, and the Palestinians in Gaza has garnered global attention since the October 7 attacks by Hamas on Israel. While not directly implicated in the October 7 assault, Iran’s allies or partners in Lebanon, Iraq, Palestine, Syria, Yemen and other nations have aligned themselves with Hamas in the aftermath of the incident. The adversarial stance of the United States and its media towards Iran often unjustly characterizes these entities as ��������’s proxies. That is just another lie to instill public anger against Iran. 

In a spanning 20 pages, Michael Knights of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy asserted that Iran typically refrains from imposing its will on groups such as the Houthis, allowing them autonomy in their decision-making processes. Knights contends that the Houthis are neither direct proxies of Iran nor opportunistic wartime allies. They align with Iran based on shared ideological beliefs rather than coercion. Abdul-Malik al-Houthi, the leader of the Houthi movement, himself equal to Iran’s supreme leader.

The Council on Foreign Relations’ study too that mutual consent, not proxy servitude, forms the basis of ��������’s associations, which further debunks the notion of ��������’s dominance over its partners.

The persistence of Palestinian resistance

The Houthis, Zaidi Shia Arabs known for their robust determination and autonomous disposition, remained unsubdued by British dominion over Yemen for 129 years. The are combatants who resist oppression, something evident in their solidarity with the oppressed Palestinians in Gaza. Although, like Iranians, they are Shia Muslims, Iranians are predominantly Twelver Shias. The two sects diverged in the 7th century, and so are separated by more historical distance than Catholics are from Protestants or Orthodox Christians. 

Currently, the Houthis are attracting attention for their strategic of the Bab al-Mandab strait in the Gulf of Aden, aimed at Israel and its allies, including the United States and the United Kingdom. Their actions are underpinned by a principled stance, conditioning the lifting of Israel’s internationally condemned blockade of Gaza as a precondition for de-escalation.

Since 2007, Hamas has effectively governed Gaza following the 2006 parliamentary elections, catalyzed by US President George W. Bush’s of Palestinian electoral processes To the US’ surprise, Hamas won the election in Gaza. Instead of endorsing it, the US to finance and endorse violence against Hamas, instigating internal conflict among Palestinians. Subsequently, Hamas consolidated control over Gaza in 2007.

Despite Israel’s awareness of Hamas as a resistance movement aspiring to reclaim Palestine, it seized upon Hamas’ ascension to perpetuate Palestinian disunity and thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state. Under Benjamin Netanyahu’s leadership, Israel Hamas to prevent the realization of a Palestinian state. In return, Hamas purportedly a Palestinian state alongside the state of Israel, notwithstanding its status as a resistance entity.

Lacking progress on the two-state paradigm, hostilities naturally escalated between Hamas and Israel. Despite agreeing to a ceasefire and lifting the blockade in 2008, Israel broke the agreement, launching a ground invasion and aerial bombardment of Gaza, subsequently reinstating the blockade. Since then, Israel has invaded and bombed Gaza. The October 7 assaults represented Hamas’ desperate bid for liberation from Israeli subjugation. Predictably, Israel’s responses have been disproportionately forceful, seeming even genocidal to observers in many corners of the globe. However, US media persists in hiding the truth, Israel’s customary falsehoods and propaganda.

��������’s allies share a common objective with Iran: the liberation of Palestine from prolonged oppression under Western colonization. This aggression has perpetuated regional instability, engendering numerous casualties and extensive devastation.

A wake-up call for transparency

Israel has committed atrocities that lay bare a disturbing reality: Media conglomerates are complicit in perpetuating a narrative that shields Israel from accountability, serving as an extension of US policy. Chief among these entities is The New York Times, which actively disseminates falsehoods and propaganda to obfuscate the crimes committed by both the United States and Israel.

We must recognize that the deep state influences the US government and its affiliated media conglomerates, making them untrustworthy as information sources. Therefore, individuals should cross-reference information from these sources with independent media outlets and alternative sources to verify their truthfulness.

Independent media like 51�Թ� must vigilantly avoid falling into the deceptive narratives that mainstream conglomerates perpetuate. They must conduct rigorous independent research to maintain the accuracy and integrity of their reporting. Accountability is a moral imperative. And even if we do not hold ourselves accountable in this life, we all will be accountable before God.

[ edited this piece]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post How to Tell Between an Iranian “Proxy” and an Ally appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Iran and Israel have not yet killed each other’s citizens on their own soil with these strikes, but they are coming dangerously close to war. How did we get here?

“Death to Israel”

Conflicts do not just erupt out of the blue. There is always history involved, especially in the Middle East. The State of Israel and the Islamic Republic of Iran have a history of bad blood that dates back to the latter’s very inception in February 1979.

The Islamic Revolution changed everything in Iran, obliterating the legacy of the failed monarchy. The monarchy had followed a foreign policy rooted in Iranian nationalism. In this context, Israel was not an enemy, but rather a very helpful collaborator. ��������’s new leaders, the mullahs, however, adopted an Islamist foreign policy. In their picture of the Middle East Israel was the enemy, the Little Satan, and the regional sub-contractor of the Great Satan, the US.

The mullahs pursued the strategy of proxy war against Israel from the very beginning. The first area of this indirect collision was Lebanon, where already in 1979 the Shia movement called became the nucleus of the pro-Iran forces in Lebanon. Later, after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, Hezbollah took on this role, leading the struggle which finally drove Israel out of Lebanon in 2000. Clearly, this strategy paid them off with Hezbollah becoming the most powerful force in Lebanon. From ��������’s perspective Hezbollah became an unofficial wing of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, tasked both with the gradual weakening of Israel and also supporting the Assad regime in Syria and anti-American Shi’i forces in Iraq. Later, Iran also supported the Shia Houthi insurgency in Yemen. 

Iran has been systematically building up forces around Israel with the aim of using them against the ‘’Zionist Entity’’ when the time comes. Simultaneously, it has relentlessly continued its for an atomic bomb. Such a weapon would play two important roles for Iran. First, it would serve as a deterrence against Israel, the US and their Arab allies. Second, it would be the ace up ��������’s sleeve in case conflict with Israel ever got out of control.

The failed Israeli policy on Iran

The top question emerging from all the above is: Why has Israel allowed this state of affairs to take shape?.How has Iran succeeded in mobilizing all these forces against Israel?

Here is the answer. For the last 15 years, Israel’s leader has been Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. For him, the nuclear threat posed by Iran is the most important challenge to Israel’s security and survival. For Jews who still remember the Holocaust less than a century ago, the annihilation of the Jewish people is a real fear, and it is legitimate and understandable that they connect that fear with an existential threat like Iran.

However, there are three main problems with Netanyahu’s policy. First, he did not offer a viable strategy to deal with the Iran nuclear program, an absence which became dramatic following the signing of the Iran nuclear deal in 2015 and the subsequent US abandonment of the treaty under President Donald Trump. Second, despite all of Netanyahu’s rhetoric about preparing an Israeli military option to deal with the Iranian nuclear project , Israel has to date prepared such alternative. Thirdly, while the Iran nuclear program was the uppermost topic on his agenda, Netanyahu neglected dealing with the gradual strengthening of Hamas and Hezbollah, and under his watch both organizations became full-fledged armies. The results of this development have been in clear display since the October 7, 2023, Hamas assault on Israel.

Yes, Netanyahu did carry out an in Syria with the stated aim of hampering Iranian presence there and arms shipments via Syria to Lebanon, but while this campaign yielded tactical local successes, it failed strategically. Iran has had the upper hand, and it managed to solidify a circle of active, effective enemies around Israel. Most importantly, it has continued the race towards the bomb uninterruptedly.

Interpreting the April strikes

It is in this context that we should look at the current skirmishes between Iran and Israel. Both parties have abandoned long-held policies. Iran, for the first time, attacked Israel directly and not through proxies. Israel directly attacked Iran in a justified retaliation, albeit a muted one — though the still gives a wink towards the nuclear program; Israel destroyed a protecting nuclear facilities near Isfahan. So, the strike was clearly an escalation.

Iran lost tactically, as its attack was mostly thwarted, while Israel proved capabilities which show potential for more. But, that is merely tactical failure and success. What about the strategic results?

Here we are in the guessing game .What are the lessons learnt by the two sides?

I will offer my guesses. Iran will not abandon the policies and goals it has pursued since 1979. The Islamic regime has turned them into a question of its very raison d’etre. They will continue to use proxies and will directly engage at their choosing. In their minds, they have already crossed the Rubicon, and they can thus continue to attack Israel directly.

The onus falls on Israel. The Israeli leadership is still with Netanyahu, but most of them already have their minds on the post-Netanyahu era (after the next elections which I believe, actually hope, will be around the autumn of 2024). They will have to make difficult decisions. Will Israel go all the way against Hezbollah or not? How will Israel finish the job of eliminating Hamas in Gaza? Above all, what will Israel do about the Iranian nuclear program?

With such choices and dilemmas facing the two protagonists, we can unfortunately be certain that the last round of hostilities was not the beginning of the end; maybe not even the end of the beginning. Stay tuned.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Iran and Israel Shift From Proxy War to Direct Conflict appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Additionally, rooted in , Iran’s self-perception as the defender of oppressed Muslims globally is fueled by the anticipation of the twelfth Imam’s messianic return. This often translates into support for proxy groups and regional interventions.

Iranian ideology is deeply rooted in the nation’s historical and cultural identity. Iran sees itself as the inheritor of the longstanding Persian civilization, a proud nation with a rich heritage and a history of resisting foreign domination. This fosters a sense of exceptionalism, a conviction that Iran’s path is unique and its interests paramount, often leading to tension with other regional powers and the West. Furthermore, Anti-Zionism is deeply within the ideology, viewing Israel as an illegitimate entity occupying Palestinian land. This translates into strong support for Palestinian groups. 

In the transition from a unipolar to a multipolar world Iran’s revolutionary ideology presents a destabilizing order and a direct threat to the existence of Israel.

Iran’s pivot and the shifting balance of power

The in Iran, spearheaded by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, marked a watershed moment in the nation’s history. Though predominantly in its initial stages, the revolution involved protests, strikes, and civil disobedience. However, the Shah’s regime responded with harsh repression, leading to a significant rise in casualties among protesters. This ultimately contributed to the gradual disintegration of the Shah’s government.

The revolution culminated in the overthrow of the Pahlavi monarchy and the establishment of an Islamic republic based on the concept of Wilayat al-Faqih. This ideological foundation, enshrined in the 1979 (amended in 1989), emphasizes principles such as justice, independence, self-reliance, resistance, and martyrdom.

Iran’s claim to legitimacy transcends the 1979 revolution, drawing its from millennia-long influential civilizations and empires. This rich history, encompassing the Elamites, the Achaemenids, Parthians, Sassanids, and Safavids, has indelibly shaped Iran’s cultural identity and instilled a profound sense of national pride. As the historical seat of power for empires stretching across the Fertile Crescent and into Central Asia, Iran’s past serves as a cornerstone for its aspirations for regional leadership, both historically and in the contemporary era.

This sense of historical grandeur further shapes Iran’s foreign policy, which has often clashed with that of Western powers and their regional allies. This has led Iran to pursue a strategy, aimed at countering western pressure and sanctions imposed due to its nuclear program and regional activities. This policy gained momentum following the U.S. withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal () and the perceived failure of European signatories to uphold their commitments, leaving Iran economically isolated.

Iran’s deep-seated opposition to in the Middle East stems from a perception that such policies destabilize the region and threaten its security and interests. Consequently, a key objective of the Pivot to the East strategy is to bolster Iran’s regional influence and establish itself as a leading power in the Islamic world, a position it believes reflects its historical legacy and rightful place.

While Iran promotes a transnational Islamist model, its influence is largely confined to Shia communities, which are minorities in most Muslim-majority countries. Nonetheless, Iran’s assertive foreign policy, including its support for specific regional groups, has been a factor in destabilizing the Middle East. Former Iranian foreign minister, M. Javad Zarif this policy ‘sacrificing diplomacy for the military field’ in an interview with Saeed Leylaz. 

The eastward gaze: Iran’s Pivot and the rise of an authoritarian Axis

Recent years have witnessed a growing convergence between Iran and other authoritarian regimes sharing a common opposition to Western influence. It describes what I call the Axis of Totalitarianism: a coalition of authoritarian regimes that challenge the democratic world order, encompassing Iran, China, and Russia. While not constituting a formal alliance, these countries exhibit strategic convergence and a shared desire to challenge the US-led unipolar world order.

This convergence manifests in various forms of cooperation. Notably, Iran and China have a significant 25-year strategic partnership agreement, facilitating substantial economic investment in Iran’s energy, infrastructure, and transportation sectors. This agreement underscores China’s growing economic influence in the region and its potential to provide much-needed economic support to Iran. Similarly, Iran and Russia have their existing 20-year cooperation agreement and engaged in joint military exercises, demonstrating their strategic coordination and willingness to collaborate on security matters. Notably, Iran has supplied Russia with ballistic missiles, further deepening their military cooperation in defiance of international sanctions.

A key driver of this convergence is the shared opposition to U.S. dominance and perceived Western interference in the region and globally. These countries view the current US-led world order as unfair and unjust, advocating for a multipolar world order that would redistribute power and influence. This shared objective fosters cooperation and strengthens their collective stance against perceived Western interventionism.

Beyond the core trio of Iran, China, and Russia, other actors with authoritarian tendencies have displayed varying degrees of alignment with this emerging axis. Notably, an Iranian official recently to the Taliban as part of an axis of resistance, suggesting a potential for cautious rapprochement between the two entities. 

Similarly, Iran has been a staunch supporter of the Assad regime in Syria, providing both military and financial assistance that has been crucial in helping the regime regain control of territory from rebel groups. While not directly involved in the Middle East, North Korea’s aggressive stance towards the West has fostered diplomatic ties with Iran. North Korea maintains close alliances with Russia and China. Pyongyang has vocally supported Russia’s war in Ukraine, the annexed regions and parts of Georgia. In recent years, North Korea has in joint naval exercises with Russia and China in the Indo-Pacific region, suggesting a trilateral partnership aimed against the US and its allies.

Historically, North Korea and Iran have in the military and nuclear fields. This alliance dates back to the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s when North Korea supplied Iran with weapons and technology. Since then, North Korea has aided Iran’s ballistic missile program development. Reports suggest joint missile development projects and technology transfers between the two countries.  

The destabilizing messianic mission

Iran’s foreign policy is heavily influenced by its adherence to Twelver Shi’ism. This branch of Islam anticipates the of the twelfth Imam, the Mahdi, to establish a global Islamic order. This eschatological belief imbues Iran with a sense of responsibility as the custodian of the Shia faith and champion of the oppressed, translating into a perceived mission to propagate Islam, defend the downtrodden, and pave the way for the Mahdi’s emergence. Furthermore, Iran views itself as the rightful successor to the Prophet Muhammad and his , the Prophet’s family, and claims to uphold the authentic interpretation of Islam embodied in their teachings and practices.

One prominent manifestation of Iran’s Islamic ideology in its foreign policy is the concept of against perceived enemies of Islam and Iran. Iran positions itself as the leader of the , a network of state and non-state actors united in their opposition to the United States, Israel, and their regional allies. , sharing Iran’s ideological and strategic objectives of challenging the status quo and defending Shia interests, form a crucial component of this network.

These groups, including Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Palestine, the Houthis in Yemen, and various Shia militias in Iraq and Syria, Iranian support in the form of arms, training, financial aid, and political guidance. In return, they serve as force multipliers and instruments of deterrence for Iran, expanding its influence and leverage in the region. Often wielding significant political and social influence alongside their military capabilities, these groups maintain close ties to Iran’s Supreme Leader. They frequently coordinate their activities with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Quds Force, responsible for the country’s external security affairs.

The activities of Iran’s proxy groups have had a cascading and devastating impact on the stability and well-being of the Middle East. Their presence and involvement in regional conflicts have directly fueled humanitarian crises, such as:

— A 2021 by the International Crisis Group documented how Hezbollah’s growing influence in Lebanon has hampered the formation of a stable government and hindered efforts to address the country’s economic crisis. In Yemen, the Houthi conflict has over 4 million people internally, according to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), and plunged the country into the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.

— OCHA over 306,887 civilian deaths in the Syrian civil war, a conflict fueled in part by Iranian support for the Assad regime. Amnesty International has also various Iran-backed militias in Iraq of extrajudicial killings, torture, and arbitrary detention, further eroding respect for human rights and exacerbating sectarian divisions.

— The Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC) that over 12.4 million people are displaced across the Middle East and North Africa due to ongoing conflicts. The destruction of infrastructure and disruption of essential services, often a consequence of proxy group activity, further compound the humanitarian suffering in the region. OCHA that over 2.4  million children in Yemen lack access to safe water, sanitation, and hygiene due to the ongoing conflict.

The legacy of revolution: how Iran’s anti-Zionism threatens Israel

At the core of Iran’s anti-Zionism the fundamental rejection of Israel’s legitimacy as a Jewish state. This perspective views Israel’s establishment as a colonial project infringing upon Palestinian land and rights. Iran’s with the Palestinian cause, intertwined with both religious and moral imperatives as well as strategic and political interests, fuels its anti-Zionist stance. This manifests in Iran’s support for various Palestinian factions, particularly those advocating armed resistance against Israel, such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad. 

Furthermore, Iran envisions a single, democratic state encompassing historical Palestine, where diverse communities coexist, effectively calling for Israel’s dissolution. This aspiration is further emphasized through Iran’s participation in the annual International , a symbolic display of solidarity with the Palestinian struggle.

Iran’s anti-Zionism translates into tangible security challenges for Israel. Firstly, it underpins the formation of the Axis of Resistance alliance with Syria and Hezbollah. This alliance as a conduit for projecting Iranian power in the Levant region, posing a direct military threat to Israel’s northern border. Iran bolsters this alliance through extensive financial, military, and political support, enabling the development of missile and rocket capabilities, intelligence networks, and military infrastructure. 

Iran’s military presence in Syria, including bases and personnel stationed near the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, further intensifies the potential for confrontation. This alliance has demonstrably materialized in several instances, including the 2006 Lebanon War, the ongoing Syrian Civil War with its spillover effects, and the 2024 Golan Heights incident.

Secondly, Iran’s anti-Zionist ideology drives its efforts to expand its influence and presence in other regional areas, including Iraq, Yemen, and the Gaza Strip. In these regions, Iran and arms various groups who actively attack Israel and its strategic allies. Iran has provided the Houthis in Yemen with missiles and drones used against Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, both considered strategic partners of Israel. Similarly, Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the Gaza Strip receive Iranian assistance in the form of rockets and funding, enabling them to engage in repeated cycles of violence with Israel, as exemplified by the 2024 Gaza War. Furthermore, Iran cultivates ties with various Shia militias and political parties in Iraq, some harboring animosity towards Israel and threatening potential attacks.

Thirdly, Iran’s anti-Zionism is intricately linked to its pursuit of a nuclear and missile program, concerns about the potential development and delivery of nuclear weapons. This program has been a focal point of intense international scrutiny. It led to negotiations, sanctions, and even sabotage attempts. Despite these pressures, Iran uranium enrichment beyond the limits set by the now-abandoned 2015 nuclear deal.

Furthermore, in their missile program, encompassing the testing and development of various ballistic and cruise missiles with the potential to reach Israel and other regional countries, further escalate anxieties. This pursuit of nuclear capabilities, coupled with the possibility of transfer to proxies or allies, fuels fears of regional proliferation and potential military confrontations. Israel, viewing a nuclear-armed Iran as an existential threat, has repeatedly threatened strikes to prevent such an outcome and has reportedly carried out covert and overt attacks on Iran’s nuclear and missile infrastructure.

��������’s Islamic revolution and its ambition to stand against the unipolar order, centering itself as the leader of the Islamic pillar of the multipolar world is a destabilizing order and an existential threat to Israel.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Iran’s Revolutionary Ideology Is the Architect of a Destabilizing Order appeared first on 51�Թ�.

This content fosters an insatiable demand for information, yet the desire for unbiased perspectives often faces a significant obstacle. Much of the readily available alternative content online merely recycles the dominant narratives established by the mainstream media, highlighting the media’s substantial influence on public discourse and the challenge of readily accessing diverse and objective viewpoints.

In relation to Iran, the media has consistently adhered to a particular narrative. It has neglected to critically examine US claims, choosing instead to echo US propaganda. This has resulted in Iran being depicted as a pariah state, ruled by a dictatorship and involved in supporting terrorism. These portrayals are often accepted without the necessary critical scrutiny.

Nonetheless, a discernible shift is occurring. A growing number of Americans are becoming aware of the interconnectedness of their government and media, recognizing the presence of biases and the influence of, often linked to the so-called “deep state.” This newfound consciousness was evident in a recent in which Russian President Vladimir Putin, speaking with Tucker Carlson, described the US “deep state” as the American ‘elite’ with the power to overrule the US president and dictate the country’s policies.

Déjà Vu in the Middle East: is the US destined to repeat history?

The January 3 in Kerman, Iran, targeting a gathering at the burial site of Qasem Soleimani, resulted in a significant loss of life (84 reported dead) and injuries (284). This tragedy raises the specter of another potential conflict in the Middle East, with concerns escalating about Iran’s potential against Israel, given the Islamic State’s of responsibility and the possibility of Israeli involvement.

As a staunch ally of Israel, the United States faces a delicate decision. Historically, US involvement in wars has often resulted in widespread casualties and destruction. Examining interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Vietnam reveals a pattern of initial engagement followed by gradual withdrawal due to unforeseen challenges, potentially eroding US global credibility.

Furthermore, concerns exist regarding the dissemination of misinformation by the US government and media.The echo chamber , where media narratives align with government pronouncements, is particularly concerning. Historical examples, such as the Vietnam War, highlight the devastating consequences of such deceit, costing over lives, including approximately Americans. The media’s complacency in events like the Cambodian Genocide and the Iraq War, where questioning of US actions often lagged behind public opposition, further underscores its role in facilitating government actions.

The post-9/11 invasion of Afghanistan aimed to remove the Taliban, resulting in substantial casualties and destruction. However, the Taliban’s to power after a staggering and human cost exposes the futility of such interventions. Similarly, the Iraq War, based on false claims of weapons of mass destruction and with al-Qaeda, resulted in hundreds of thousands of and immensefinancial . The lack of accountability for those responsible, such as US President George W. Bush and his administration, remains a troubling aspect.

Iraq is not alone in bearing the brunt of US intervention. Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen have all witnessed the repercussions of US involvement in various conflicts. The instigation of regime changes and interventions in democratic governments, exemplified by the overthrowals of Mohammad Mosaddeq in Iran and Salvadore Allende in Chile, have proven to be costly and destabilizing endeavors.

The global cost of war, two decades after the US invasion of Afghanistan, has reached an estimated , with approximately one million lives lost. This contributes to heightened anxiety and poverty, particularly among Americans.

In the case of Israel, media support predates the nation’s inception, marked by the and associated violence. The media’s historical alignment with the US and its recent support for Israeli actions, resulting in nearly Palestinian casualties, raises ethical questions. The International Court of Justice (ICJ)’s examination of South Africa v. Israel has globally exposed the potential crime of genocide in Gaza, implicating Western powers, especially the US. The ICJ’s, acknowledging Israel’s actions as potentially falling under the Genocide Convention, places a moral imperative on the US and its media to critically examine their positions and align with international standards.

Related Reading

South Africa v. Israel: Killer Administration Gets Off Easy

A historical paradigm of misrepresentation

Since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, a recurring motif in US foreign policy has been an inclination towards with Iran. This approach has been driven by a narrative, often amplified by media portrayals, Iran as on the precipice of acquiring nuclear weapons, harboring terrorists and colluding with al-Qaeda. However, this narrative stands in stark contrast to demonstrable evidence: Iran has actively participated in combating terrorism, as evidenced by its crucial role in ISIS in Iraq. Furthermore, while the US and media often label Iran as an authoritarian regime under the Mullahs, a closer examination reveals a system remarkably similar to the US itself and one that actively promotes regional democracy.

While historical timelines do diverge, with Iran’s civilization boasting a legacy exceeding 2,500 years, compared to the US’s 250 years, their differences cannot justify misconstruing realities. Notably, the US has historically engaged in acts of against numerous nations, with the oppression of Native Americans serving as a stark example. Further, the US, alongside Britain and Russia, has participated in suppressing Iranian aspirations for over a century, exemplified by the recently imposed draconian.

In stark contrast to US backing Arab monarchies, Iran’s foreign policy demonstrably favors alignment with the downtrodden. This principle, enshrined in Article 154 of its, directly guides its active support for oppressed nations like Iraq and Syria in their fight against terrorism. While the US actively Israel, whose treatment of Palestinians remains a concern, Iran stands firmly in support of the oppressed Palestinian people. Notably, Iran Hamas as legitimate and raises concerns regarding Israel’s disproportionate retaliatory measures, not only in response to the October 7 incident but also in previous instances.

On the critical issue of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), while significant global powers, led by the US, maintain stockpiles of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons, Iran adheres to a demonstrably higher moral ground. It explicitly prohibits the production of WMDs, citing their indiscriminate and unacceptable impact on human life. Iran’s commitment to this ethical principle is further underlined by its restraint from utilizing chemical weapons in retaliation against Iraqi forces during the 1980–88 Iran–Iraq War, despite facing the of such weapons.

The October 7 Hamas attack on Israeli citizens incited a response from Israel. The US-backed Israeli state, which a UN human rights expert of apartheid policies, has waged a war that has resulted in significant casualties, predominantly among Palestinians. While the US and mainstream media have focused on the objective of neutralizing Hamas, concerns regarding civilian casualties and potential human rights violations have received less attention, potentially reflecting.

Furthermore, media narratives align with the US in attributing the Hamas attack to Iranian training, a claim Iran acknowledges but does not explicitly endorse as pre-planned. This framing could serve to strategically prepare the public for potential US involvement in a broader conflict with Iran. It potentially diverts attention away from concerns regarding Israeli actions in Gaza.

In support of Israel, media often cite a statement by an Iranian Revolutionary Guard official linking the October 7 attack to the assassination of Qasem Soleimani. This suggests a potential retaliatory motive, but the extent of Iranian involvement remains unclear.

A new approach to US–Iran relations

The current state of US–Iran relations is characterized by a pervasive climate of mistrust and hostility. This atmosphere, shaped by governmental pronouncements and media narratives, has profound anxieties and insecurities within the American public. To ensure a more stable and equitable global order, a paradigm shift is required. This necessitates a concerted effort from both the US government and its media apparatus to engage in open and transparent communication with the American people.

Firstly, there is a pressing need for the US to abandon its reliance on demonizing narratives directed towards Iran. The persistent rhetoric of has demonstrably yielded counterproductive outcomes, furthering tensions and fostering animosity. Instead, the US should consider pursuing a diplomatic approach based on mutual respect and understanding.

Some analysts argue that Iran is currently the most influential in the Middle East. Recognizing Iran’s regional influence presents an opportunity for the US to engage in strategic collaboration. A crucial step in this process involves acknowledging and apologizing for the, an event that undeniably shaped the trajectory of US–Iran relations.

A promising avenue for diplomatic progress lies in recognizing and endorsing Iran’s stated to Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs). Collaborative efforts with other WMD-possessing nations, focusing on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, could prove highly beneficial.

Transitioning from belligerent postures to collaborative frameworks is essential for safeguarding US interests. Exploring possibilities for peaceful partnerships with other nations, potentially aligning with Iran on issues of global concern, offers a more sustainable path forward.

However, this transformation cannot be achieved solely by governmental actions. The active participation of the American public is crucial. This necessitates the cultivation of critical thinking skills, demands for transparency from governmental institutions and selective engagement with media sources. By doing so, American citizens can empower themselves to shape a narrative that prioritizes justice, collaboration and global well-being.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Lies the United States and Media Told About Iran appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The attack has prompted strong demands in Washington and elsewhere for a powerful US response. Instead of targeting the various groups in Iraq sponsored to one degree or another by the regime in Tehran, advocates for striking at Iran directly. Such a response might involve disrupting ��������’s petroleum industry by bombarding the relevant facilities.

The demands for a strong kinetic response are countered by warnings about the US being drawn into a wider regional war in the Middle East. The unsuccessful American military effort to stop the Taliban’s control of Afghanistan and a less ambitious but equally unsuccessful intervention in the Lebanese civil war in the mid-1980s provide reasons for caution.

So, the alternatives — at least those discussed in public — are either continued tit-for-tat responses to attacks by Iranian-sponsored bands in Syria and Iraq or direct measures against Tehran with the accompanying danger of an escalatory spiral leading to a large-scale regional war. The latter would lead to a growing number of American military casualties, which would have to be absorbed in a presidential election year.

There is a third way, one well worth consideration by policy-makers and members of the American public.

How the US can exploit ��������’s weaknesses and avoid bloodshed

The Islamic Republic is a formidable adversary. Its political and military leaders, from Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, to President Ebrahim Raisi, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) head Hossein Salami and Quds Force commander Esmail Ghaani, have shown themselves to be quite ruthless and adept in maintaining their grip on power. To this end, they are aided by the IRGC, an organization of some fighters or potential fighters. The IRGC is, in turn, divided into the Quods Force, whose tasks include foreign terrorist operations in the Middle East and beyond, and the Basij an organization devoted to the maintenance of internal security — by all means necessary, including .

Despite a political culture of religious repression and the weapons available to a modern police state, the Islamic Republic is not invulnerable. By many accounts, the regime is highly unpopular, especially among the educated middle classes of Tehran and the other major cities. Also, whether deserved or not, the regime has acquired a reputation for corruption, particularly among leaders of the IRGC.

��������’s population is close to , a significant proportion of whom are young people under the age of 20. At last count, the country’s unemployment rate was around of the workforce. These figures suggest a less than contented population.

Public protests against the Islamic Republic are hardly out of the question. The most spectacular of these manifestations so far was the sustained protests by Iranian women following the death in custody of a young woman, Masha Amini, arrested for not wearing her hijab appropriately. Beginning in September 2022 and continuing into 2023, the forces of repression had to be employed throughout much of the country.

Furthermore, the Iranian population is less than homogenous; aside from the majority Persian ethnicity, there are Azeris, Kurds, Balochis and Arabs. In past decades, leaders of these communities have sought to achieve greater autonomy from Tehran, sometimes by the use of violence, albeit short-lived.

This combination of demographic and political characteristics point to some of the Islamic Republic’s vulnerabilities, ones that might be exploited by the United States, at least in the long-run. Subversion appears to be a sensible means of weakening the regime of the ayatollahs. The Central Intelligence Agency has extensive experience in weakening various hostile regimes in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa, not to mention the successful 1953 coup it promoted against the nationalist regime of Muhammad Mosaddegh that brought the Shah back to power. 

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post How to React to Iranian Provocations Without Overreacting appeared first on 51�Թ�.

On March 10, in Beijing, Iran and Saudi Arabia an agreement restoring their diplomatic relations. This will have ramifications for the : That action was not in line with US policy, which sees China as a competitor and adversary. The Saudi action surprised the US since Saudi Arabia has been a client of the US since 1945. The Saudi move could have only happened in the changing world. 

The US can get clues from Saudi Arabia’s choice and face reality by adjusting its foreign policy. The US could stop interferences, coups and invasions in other countries, particularly Iran. It could give up on “regime change” in Iran and apologize for the 1953 coup that overthrew ��������’s first-ever democratic government. It must stop supporting ethnic cleansing and genocide against other people, especially the native Palestinians. By taking those vital steps, the US would improve relations with Iran and decrease tensions in the world. 

��������’s mullahs, or religious leaders, can also take crucial steps to restore the economy and pacify the country’s young generation. Presently, the mullahs do not walk the talk. The father of the 1979 Iranian revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, purportedly the mullahs: “Clergy, wake up; now, it is not time to talk … think about people’s problems! Discussion by itself is of no use.” Mullahs have a responsibility within the state of Iran: to listen to the people and adjust their policies accordingly.

Mullahs live in a fantasy world

In my recent visit to Iran, I noticed that the mullahs keep ignoring the advice from the Islamic Revolution’s father. They continue competing with one another for high political positions while the country faces serious economic issues. They claim that the main culprit for poverty is the US’ brutal economic sanctions against the nation that violate the UN Charter. Although that is partially true, the real threats to the regime are the mullahs who have failed to do what they say, listen to the people and address domestic issues. 

During my visit, Iranians kept saying that they get paid in local currency, rials, but buy in dollars. At the time, I could not understand their complaints after seeing perishable foods at low prices. 

However, when I returned to the US and looked further into the matter, I recognized the reasons why the youth are protesting in Iran. I that the government privatized most national industries, including refineries, petrochemicals and steel. It is still subsidizing them and providing them with cheap crude oil and other raw materials, expecting the finished products to include reasonable profit for sale in the country. However, those outfits have been exporting their products and selling them in dollar values in a country where the wages are low and labor is very cheap. The companies have no regulatory oversight. Their shareholders are profiting incredibly while contributing immensely to the nation’s inflation and poverty.

Despite the arduous efforts of the new President Ibrahim Raisi, the of Iran is still in shambles with an inflation rate below . Corruption and nepotism are widespread, the country 147 among 180 countries in transparency. Women are still widely discriminated against by the government despite great women’s strides in law, medicine, journalism, engineering and other scientific fields. Ethnic groups such as the Baluchis and Kurds remain among the least educated. Thus, indigenous groups like them are easy prey to terrorist groups like and , armed and financed by the US and allies.

How could ��������’s religious leaders let this issue grow so large? Due to their lack of knowledge of the modern world, the mullahs have entrusted running the government chiefly on their staff, ministers and supporting personnel, mostly educated in the West. The staff have pushed for free enterprise in a laissez-faire way without regulatory oversight. They have pressed to privatize the national industries, particularly oil and steel. Once these industries are , they and their relatives and friends buy large shares, aiming for low production costs and maximal profits. They have formed ��������’s oligarchs. Like in Russia, the oligarchs manipulate the market. Consequently, ��������’s inflation has hit the roof and poverty is fast expanding!

On the surface, Iranians think that the mullahs are ruling the country. In reality, the oligarchs are running the nation. In the 1950s, Mohammad Mosaddegh fought with Britain for Iran’s oil nationalization. For that effort, he lost his power and was forced into exile in his house until his death. Sadly, the mullahs have foolishly given away the national treasures to a selected group who have emerged as ��������’s oligarchs. 

The oligarchs convert much of their profits into gold and foreign currencies. Those actions have further devalued the local currency, causing public panic. With the money made in Iran, they buy properties in Istanbul, London, Montreal, Los Angeles and other popular foreign cities. In those foreign cities, their children whose mere existence and liberal lifestyle are indebted to the mullahs, are often among the instigators against the mullahs. 

The oligarchs own private banks that invest and operate commercial facilities across the country, unavailable for sale or rent, counting on higher profits in the future. This is when millions of families are looking for residence. 

Under the mullahs, it never occurred to the oligarchs that the investments were not earned by them or their parents but entrusted to them by the nation. Thus, they should make their products affordable to buy by Iranians. 

Seven simple steps for mullahs to save Iran

The for Iran’s future is gloomy. Execution and imprisonment are not the answers to domestic issues. For Iran to survive in its present form, drastic actions must be taken. As Mosaddeq brought the oil back to Iran from the British, the mullahs must bring back the economy to Iranians from the oligarchs. To start, they could take these seven steps. 

First, stop vying for power. Clean up corruption and nepotism. Choose qualified personnel who are clean from bribery, embezzlement, peddling, or any other activity financially benefiting them or people close to them. Learn how Singapore corruption under control.

Second, implement effective management, accountability and transparency programs. Train managers on how to use the resources effectively to meet the targets before deadlines. Learn how Switzerland affairs.

Third, address inflation by tightening government spending, overseeing banks and controlling trade. ownership of foreign currency and precious metals like gold. Require the use of only national currency in domestic dealings. Ensure banks are involved in only banking (accepting deposits from the people with a guarantee that the funds will be there when needed and making loans available to them, based on certain reasonable conditions). Learn from Russia on how to manage the inflation rate. Despite facing tough sanctions, Russia managed an inflation rate of , and even Afghanistan under the Taliban controlled an inflation rate of in December 2022. 

Fourth, temporarily take over imports and exports for all essential goods and services. When the products are sold to distributors, define the profit margin clearly. Increase trade with neighboring countries. Implement regulatory oversight on at least all oil and steel industry production. Give to China’s trade regulations.

Fifth, attend to women’s issues and include more in decision-making processes. Remove all barriers that prevent women from rising to power. On , learn from Sweden.

Sixth, help the ethnic groups such as Baluchis and Kurds and address their economic and other issues. Promote ethnic diversity in all workplaces with an objective of ethnic equality. Sweden provides a good .

Seventh, get away from depending on oil revenues for the budget. Promote investments and increase domestic production for exports. Look into the world’s top exporters.

Despite the benefits of these necessary steps, they are merely bandages on wounds. Above all, culture must be changed. Until the 1979 fall of the monarchy, the Shah made law at his will. He was accountable to no one. People adopted sycophancy to get royal attention. Powerful families practiced nepotism to strengthen their hold on power and demanded bribes to keep their living status. People lied to safeguard their lives and honors. Although Iranians finally got a constitution about 100 years ago, the monarch gave that little attention. Naturally, people followed the king, giving little attention to law and order. The long-term solution is to change the thoughts and false beliefs. From an early age in school, pupils must be taught to practice honesty and respect law and order. Overcoming poor habits takes a generation.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post ��������’s Future Lies Heavily in the Hands of its Mullahs appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Iran has multiple political parties. They come together to form factions. Two of them are most . The reformist (Islah-talab) and fundamentalist (Usool-gar) vie for political power. Since 1989, the reformists have controlled the government. After the Iran-Iraq War ended, reformists were largely dominant. In 2021, President unseated the reformists, winning a landslide victory at the polls. Even before Raisi, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was president for eight years from 2005 to 2013. Like Raisi, he is conservative but, unlike Raisi, he did not have the same control over the government.

The rich in Iran support reformists. Like their US counterparts, rich Iranians exercise immense control over the country’s economy. Unlike the narrative in Western media, Iranian oligarchs have more power than the supreme leader, presidents or mullahs. Many Iranians call these oligarchs ��������’s mafia.

The Dirty Secrets About How Reza Shah Destroyed Iran

The US consistently ignores the complexities of Iran. For Washington, Tehran is a convenient whipping boy. American policymakers berate Iran for human rights violations but ignore ’s arbitrary executions, torture and even potential involvement in the 9/11 attacks.

Similarly, the US supports the apartheid state of Israel. The Jewish state was formed after pushing out Palestinians from their ancestral lands, causing nakba — the Palestinian catastrophe in which millions of people fled from their homes. Even today, Israel oppresses and persecutes the native Palestinians. Over two million live in Gaza, which is an open-air prison. In the latest war, Israel has ordered over a million to leave their homes as its tanks and troops move into northern Gaza. Israeli air strikes have killed thousands already.

��������’s reformists look up to the US

��������’s reformists have followed the path of , who was president from 1989 to 1997. His focus was on the economy. said, “Germany and Japan have the strongest economy these days because they were banned from having a military force after World War.” He suggested that Iran should follow Germany and Japan with no military power and depend on the US for protection. He advocated total dependence on the US and its Western allies. 

Like Rafsanjani, the reformists look to the West, especially the US. They openly criticize closer relations with China, Russia and neighboring countries to avoid offending the US. They opposed Iran joining the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and the grouping of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (BRICS).

Reformists ignore the fact that the US pressured Germany and Japan to participate in Syria and Ukraine. Thanks to the US, both economies are now in shambles. Among the reformists are many Western-educated individuals, such as Hassan Rouhani and Mohammad Javad Zarif, the former president and foreign minister respectively. Like Rafsanjani, they look up to the West for answers. In particular, they pushed the country to emulate the US capitalist system. Reformists have privatized major national industries, imports, exports and banks, benefiting themselves, and their relatives, and friends. These have emerged as ��������’s new oligarchs in a system of crony capitalism.

Now, the oligarchs get their free or cheap raw materials from the government and sell their finished products at dollar prices. They manipulate profits and enjoy special privileges. Oligarchs taxes, cheat on profits, bypass regulations, and deposit their huge funds overseas. They own villas in Europe, Canada, and the US. Among them have emerged numerous. One of them charged with embezzlement made in Canada. 

In Tehran, I saw many residential high-rise towers, nearly all of them empty. The rich owned six million empty units as investment properties because they aimed to make money from rising property prices. At the same time, over six million families were searching for residence. 

I was shocked when visiting malls in Tehran. I noticed that nearly all the products on sale were foreign-made. Oligarchs make money off imports. That is why they oppose domestic production and pursue better relations with the US. In Iran, the rich have followed their US counterparts. They keep the poor busy with alcohol, drugs, social media, pop culture and soap operas. 

In Iran, people are poor but educated. Literacy is now . Women have progressed remarkably. Most university students, physicians and academic professors are now women. However, in the country’s poor economy, women are disadvantaged against men who are legally held responsible for their family finances. Jobs are scarce for everyone, especially women, and this causes discontent.

Why Are Young People Protesting in Iran?

Reformists paint a misleading picture of the US. I met people who genuinely think everyone in the US enjoys ample free time, a good life, and sufficient income. Iranians believe that every American owns a nice car and a house. Most young Iranians dream of living in the US. When I tell them that at least of Americans live in poverty and 60% of them “live pay-check-to-paycheck,” they are shocked. Culturally, the young Iranian mind is often colonized and too many Iranians live in fantasy.

��������’s reformists have made many mistakes 

The reformists claim their most notable accomplishment to be the 2015 Iran-US Nuclear Agreement, AKA Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (). Iran fully complied with the JCPOA despite heavy losses but the US, UK and France threw this agreement in the bin. Under pressure from the Israeli lobby in 2018,  Donald Trump it when he was president. 

In hindsight, the JCPOA was a mistake. Zarif and his associates signed off on the agreement without reading it closely or understanding it thoroughly. Reformists used their influence in the majlis, the Iranian Parliament to get MPS to approve the JCPOA in less than 30 minutes without any discussion. In particular, they crossed some redlines set by Khamenei, ��������’s supposedly all-powerful supreme leader.

President Joe Biden has been trying to the JCPOA with little success because the Iranians no longer trust the US. After assassinating ��������’s top general , it is doubtful if Iran would have normal relations with the US in the near future. Many Iranians think of the US as their worst enemy but their worst enemies are Iranian oligarchs, who really are rich reformists.

Raisi is a fundamentalist. Since 2021, fundamentalists have been in power. They inherited an economy in shambles with large debts and an annual inflation rate of around. So far, they have been busy restoring the economy and cleaning up the system. Note that the inflation rate has fallen to below .

Unlike reformists, Raisi wants to be even-handed towards both the West and the East. He has improved relations with the neighboring nations. In particular, Iran has joined the SCO and is supposed to join the BRICS in January 2024. Raisi has also negotiated with the US to release some of ��������’s funds. ��������’s increases in oil exports imply that the US may have eased sanctions on Iran.

Raisi works long hours and is busy meeting with citizens or diplomats nearly every day. In his short time, he has accomplished notably. Unlike reformists, Raisi does not publicize his successes and improve his public relations. Therefore, many Iranians still blame him for a slow economy.

Raisi’s greatest enemies are the rich reformists. These oligarchs are determined to make Raisi fail. Reportedly, reformists have supported protests over to increase their influence. As usual, the Western media is acting as cheerleaders for the reformists.

Today, Iran has the world’s second-largest gas reserves and fourth-largest oil reserves. In the pursuit of cheap energy, the US and the UK want access to those resources. This is not new. In the early 1950s, the UK controlled ��������’s oil production. When Mosaddegh asked for a greater share of oil revenue, the UK and the US launched a coup. Both countries still want a subservient Iran, which they can exploit for cheap energy.

Why Do You Need to Know About Mohammad Mosaddegh?

Note that Iran is still traumatized by the 1953 coup. Then, the MI6 and the were able to bribe, manipulate and coerce unscrupulous Iranians to oust Mosaddegh. That coup remains the postwar of the US in the Middle East. Washington sowed the wind then and the world is reaping the whirlwind today. After the Islamic Revolution, the US and its Western allies have been unable to access ��������’s resources cheaply. Thus, the US continues using tremendous pressure, threats and sanctions against the country. 

Raisi’s big challenge lies not only in taking on the US but also in taming ��������’s oligarchs.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post How Do You See Iran, Dictatorship or Multiparty? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

��������’s digital surveillance regime

Mahsa’s death set off against the mandatory hijab and the so-called “morality police” that made international headlines. The bravery of women, often leading the charge, cannot be overstated. The Iranian regime responded to the protests with . Human rights organizations Equality Now, Femena and the Centre for Supporters of Human Rights, described these inhumane punishments and other human rights abuses in their joint to the UN Human Rights Committee, published in anticipation of the anniversary of Amini’s death.

In order to identify and punish dissidents, it has employed a sophisticated apparatus. The controversial new is an example of both. The 70-article bill prescribes harsher penalties for women as well as severe sanctions against public figures, businesses and service providers who support them. The bill proposes the use of artificial intelligence to enforce dress code violations — a disturbing manifestation of gender-based persecution.

��������’s Mahsa Revolution One Year On

Digital technology has been a two-edged sword for Iranians: the same technology that has the potential to empower voices is being used to silence them. Using advanced facial recognition software and tracking online interactions, the government those who dare to dissent. This technological might is disproportionately used against women, whose demands for equal rights are seen as direct threats to the state’s ideological foundation.

It’s not just about cameras on street corners or drones in the sky. The real Orwellian nightmare lies in the shadows of the internet. The government monitors popular platforms and can intercept traffic on encrypted messaging apps, which protesters often rely on for organizing. , and other ordinary citizens face intimidation, arrest or worse for simply expressing their opinions online.

Perhaps most disturbing is the state’s increasingly invasive eye into private spaces — the cars and walking routes of private citizens. In a chilling testament to this, a spokesman for ��������’s police boasted that over a million text message warnings had been sent to women over the span of just two months, as detailed by a harrowing from Amnesty International. Warnings for what? Being unveiled in their own cars. In over 133,000 cases, police used text messages to order women not to use their vehicles, and they sent over 4,000 “repeat offenders” to court.

From Iran to the world: an international call to action

Digital rights are, at their core, human rights. A society where individuals cannot communicate freely, privately and securely is one where fundamental freedoms are under assault. 

Digital rights are connected to the right to peaceful protests in multiple ways. Encrypted communication tools can offer activists and protesters a way to communicate without the fear of government interception or retribution. When mainstream media is censored or muzzled, social media platforms can allow for the rapid dissemination of information, rallying supporters for a cause. And the digital realm offers an expansive library of resources on peaceful protest tactics, rights awareness and international solidarity efforts.

Iran is far from the only regime restricting digital freedoms while using the same digital technology to suppress dissent or to surveil its citizens. In India, for example, police have made use of an that allows citizens to turn their private CCTV systems over to police use, while in China mass surveillance has been used to gather information about the movements and activities of private individuals in a form of “.” Across all these examples, there is evidence that surveillance and infringement on privacy rights disproportionately target individuals and groups whose make them vulnerable, such as women or minorities, or whose challenge the status quo. 

But here lies the challenge: As governments like these become more adept at quelling online dissent, how can activists stay a step ahead?

The international community can play a crucial role. We can pressure tech companies to safeguard user data and prioritize end-to-end encryption. We can counsel digital rights organizations and civil society on the threats posed by state-led digital surveillance and censorship and the implications of the technology being produced. Most importantly, as a global community, we can consistently spotlight abuses, ensuring governments understand that the world is watching. Regulation of the digital space along human rights principles will ensure that this does not become a new environment in which Iranian women, or any others, are vulnerable to abuse and harm.

While the Iranian government’s tactics are emblematic of a more significant global issue, the world must remember and uplift the unique bravery of ��������’s women, who stand tall even when shadows loom large. For Mahsa and countless others like her, we must persist in our shared fight for digital and human rights. Their courage deserves nothing less. 

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Dissidents And Women Are Targeted By Iran’s High-Tech Surveillance appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The two countries, as well as the other members of the P5+1 (the five permanent UN Security Council members, plus Germany), had reached an in 2015 known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). That agreement called for severe curtailment of ��������’s nuclear weapons program in exchange for gradual suspension of sanctions and the return of billions in funds held in mostly Western financial institutions.

While many in the US hailed the accords as President Barack Obama’s signature foreign policy achievement, others — especially in Congress — characterized it as capitulation and refused to consider it. In 2018, President Donald Trump formally withdrew the US from the agreement, despite ��������’s having all requirements up to that point.

One year later, Iran restarted its centrifuges and stockpiling large amounts of enriched uranium, though stopping short of weapons-grade levels, which would be 90% highly enriched uranium.

No agreement like a non-agreement 

During his presidential campaign and once in office, President Joe Biden the US to either reentering the JCPOA or negotiating an alternative that would halt ��������’s march to production of nuclear weapons. While slow off the mark, the did start, albeit indirectly as Iran refused to meet face-to-face with its American counterparts. However, those talks in August of last year, and the JCPOA was seemingly consigned to the shelf, if not the morgue.

Despite even the president’s own death of the JCPOA as recently as last December, there was still some apparent life in the negotiations. Facilitated by Oman, Qatar and Switzerland, continued between the two sides starting earlier this year for several months as Biden seems determined to curtail the Iran nuclear program. Then, earlier this month, Secretary of State Antony Blinken the impending release of five US citizens from Iranian prison (they have not yet been allowed to leave Iran). Not long afterwards, the Wall Street Journal that Iran was limiting its production of HEU to no more than 60%.

In exchange for the prisoner release, the US has agreed to the gradual release of $6 billion in Iranian funds held under US sanctions in South Korean banks. It has also Iraq to pay back $10 billion in debts owed to Iran for electrical power purchases. Perhaps more importantly, Iranian have begun to creep back up after years of crushing sanctions on such exports. Sanctions, however, have not been lifted.

Why no actual agreement?

There may be more to all of this, but there’s no way of knowing for sure. There is no formal agreement, and for good reason. Congressional Republicans, who control the House of Representatives, have that they want still more aggressive action against Iran, not a deal.

Moreover, the US presidential election campaign has begun. When Obama made his 2015 deal, he was not up for reelection; Biden is. Biden will not jeopardize his chances in the 2024 election, in which he’s likely to face the man who canceled the last agreement, Donald Trump. Introducing the hot-button Iran issue, on which there appears to be no middle ground, would surely distract voters from Biden’s campaign messaging.

On the other hand, there is the promise he made in his 2020 campaign of restarting the JCPOA, one which has encountered repeated frustrations, most (but not all) of ��������’s doing. The non-agreement format would seem to allow him to have it both ways: no official agreement with Iran, but seeming success in curtailing its weapons production program.

For those unfamiliar with the obscure ways of diplomacy, this might all seem like hookah smoke and mirrors. With no officially approved written agreement signed by both sides, how can there be an agreement? How is it enforced and how can each side be held accountable? And how can anyone not involved in the negotiations know what was actually agreed? That uncertainty, doubt, haziness and mysteriousness are probably just what both parties wanted.

Biden can publicly assert, as members of his already have, that there is no agreement. But he can also take credit for having fulfilled (at least so far) his pledge of the 2020 campaign on ��������’s nuclear program. Call it deniability without liability.

The Iranians have their reasons as well. Extremists in an already very conservative government, most especially among the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, have been to any agreement with their sworn enemy, the US. They miss no opportunity to claim that the US cannot be trusted after having already abrogated the 2015 agreement in 2018. And there is little doubt that they would like to elevate the country to nuclear weapons status.

But the Iranian economy is in deep trouble. is running around the 40–50% zone and hovers around 8%, though many suspect it is actually higher, with over 25%. The latter statistic is especially important, given the widespread demonstrations that followed the murder while in official custody of Mahsa Amini for allegedly failing to abide by ��������’s strict dress code for women to cover their hair. With the first anniversary of her death approaching, Iran is anxious to proffer any economic relief it can to the Iranian people.

An agreement by any other name…

So, for the Americans and Iranians alike, there is no agreement, but each side is apparently taking the very actions that would have been included in one. It’s a “non-agreement.”

Diplomats have long used the device of a “non-paper” to communicate unofficially, in writing, their government’s position on any number of issues to another government. It clarifies a position or expectations without necessarily formally committing. It is understood that such a document is for the internal working use of the receiving government, which might in turn respond with its own non-paper. Usually, the objective is getting to a point at which something more official and formal may be exchanged.

It would appear the Americans and Iranians have employed the same concept for their non-agreement. Presumably, either side may walk away at any point that it perceives the other as not complying, or it has everything it wants.

Can all of this take on something perhaps of greater consequence? That would not be a good bet, given the decades of bad blood between the two. Hatred is not too strong a word to describe the feelings of many on both sides toward one another. But one could see a second-term Joe Biden pursuing something more official and long-term. Moreover, there could be — though it’s hardly likely — a more amenable leadership in Iran, making agreement somewhat more possible. 

And the Iranians, too, might hold out hope that, if the non-agreement holds and Biden returns to the White House in January 2025, something more permanent might be in the offing. All of that is aspirational in the extreme. Barring monumental changes in circumstances, especially in the leadership of the Islamic Republic, settling on anything more permanent and formal does not seem to be in the cards for the foreseeable future.

If there is any hope, it may be in the actions of other countries in the Middle East, particularly the Gulf states, which all want to lower the temperature in the region. The slow rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Iran and the between the UAE and Iran all suggest the countries of the Gulf want to move in that direction. Israel will not publicly endorse and may even criticize a non-agreement, but the US administration has surely shared its details with the Israeli leadership. They too want to see ��������’s nuclear activities at least curtailed, if not eliminated. So, success of the non-agreement in the months ahead will give it more staying power over a longer period of time.

Lastly, tensions throughout the world are not propitious for whatever understanding may now be in place between Tehran and Washington. ��������’s into the orbit of the China–Russia alliance will only exacerbate tensions between Iran and the West. ��������’s elsewhere in the Middle East and its overt support for Russia (e.g., with Iranian drones) in the latter’s brutal and unjustified war against Ukraine have increased American and Western enmity toward Iran. And ��������’s ongoing on regime opponents, including on the outrageous hijab law, further poisons prospects for improved Western–Iranian ties.

��������’s status as a pariah seems unalterable. Therefore, it would be virtually impossible that a US administration could seriously negotiate something more permanent and official with the Islamic Republic.

The world will have to content itself with the uncertainty and mystery of a continuing “non” relationship … and the fear of another potentially nuclear-armed state. Like any understanding, agreement or treaty, it’s only as good as the intention, will and good faith of the parties.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Is There a US–Iran “Non-Agreement”? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The Aryans moved into the region of Persis or Parsa, in the southwest of Iran. The region is known in the Western languages as Persia, and its people, Persians. The Persians were united as a nation by the year of 625 BC. A century later, they had conquered the whole of the Iranian plateau.

In time, from its capital of Persepolis, the Persian Empire extended its rule into three continents, covering Eastern Europe, North Africa and Central Asia. At its peak, it was the greatest empire that had yet existed in history, and it remains to this day the largest empire ever as a percentage of world population. It extended from Egypt in the west to India in the east and from much of Ukraine in the north to Yemen in the south.

Cyrus the Great founded the world’s first biggest empire, Persia, stretching from modern-day Syria through Turkey to India’s borders. Cyrus is considered the father of human rights for the “first bill on human rights” after capturing Babylon peacefully. Cyrus instituted freedom of worship and allowed people to return to their ancestral homelands. 

In 550 BC, Cyrus, called (“messiah”) in the Bible, allowed Jews to go back to Israel after 70 years of captivity imposed by the Babylonians. The Jews have never forgotten the Persian generosity for their existence. In the Hebrew Bible, there are over 200 to Persia, Persians, Persian kings, and Persian contributions to humanity. Cyrus alone is mentioned 19 times. Persia is spoken of as a “blessing to mankind”. Whether the Bible is inspired scripture or just historical record, one comes away with the impression that Persia (Iran) will survive the ages and friendship with it is a sure way to be heaven-blessed.  

Persia was later temporarily captured by the Greeks and rivaled the Roman Empire, which failed many attempts to subdue its eastern neighbor. Iran was only finally conquered by the Arabs in the 7th century.

Yet, within a century, the Persians bounced back. They survived numerous invasions by Mongols, Turks, and Afghan rebels but kept their unique multi-ethnic national unity. 

What emerged was quite exhilarating. Iran produced some of the world’s greatest intellectuals, and they changed the world forever. These included (known in the Latin West as Geber, died in 815), (Lat. Algorismus, d. 850), the ), al- (Lat. Alpharabius, d. 870), (Lat. Rhazes, d. 925), (d. 934), (Lat. Azophi, d. 986), (Lat. Avicenna, d. 1037), (d. 1048), (d. 1131), (d. 1274), (d. 1311) and Kamal al-Din (d. 1319).

Each of these great individuals left a on human intellectual progress. Al-Farabi’s influence on the West is well known. Among others, he influenced Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274), the famous theo-philosopher who would come to be the most influential thinker in the Catholic Church.

 Without their ongoing influence, transmitted to Europe over centuries via conduits such as Moorish Spain and Venetian trade, the Renaissance could have looked .

As late as the 17th century, (d. 1636) expanded theo-philosophy by a combination of reasoning, spirituality and meditation.

As for the poets, Iran produced poets like (d. 1273), (d. 1291) and (d. 1389) who deeply influenced world literature and philosophy.

There is substantial evidence that much of the scientific progress credited to the Westerners was earlier developed by the Persians. For instance, a mathematical formulation in astronomy credited to Copernicus is to that of al-Tusi, who preceded him by about 300 years. Umar Khayyam, famous for his Rubaiyat, was also a polymath. Evidence is emerging that Rene Descartes (d. 1650) much of his scientific work from Khayyam who preceded him by over 500 years.

Nevertheless, all that glory vanished In 1747 with the death of Nader Shah. Nader was the last monarch to rule a united Persian Empire and became famous by defeating the in India in 1739 and ransacking Delhi, capturing the incredible . After him, the country fell into a period of anarchy, fracturing into a number of states. Rebels assumed autonomy in Afghanistan and Bahrain. The Ottomans grabbed some territories. Much of the Caucasus regions declared independence, while Nader’s Afsharid dynasty was reduced to a tiny rump state.

From 1796, the Qajar clan took power and initially unified the remnants of the empire. Later under British influence, the Qajar dynasty lost Armenia, Azerbaijan, Dagestan, Georgia and some other notable territories to Russia. When the dust settled, Iran was intact but had lost almost all of its empire in West and Central Asia.

In 1925, with British help, Reza Khan overthrew the Qajars. Under British control, he lost substantial territories to Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey and the Soviet Union. In 1941, the British removed him and installed his son, Mohammad Reza, who gave away Bahrain along with about 50 islands to please Britain and the .

In 1979, foreign influence was removed when the dynasty was overthrown by a revolution. The Islamic Republic replaced it and now rules the country.

Foreign Interests

“I tell you plainly that a dark, dangerous future lies ahead, and that it is your duty to resist and to serve Islam and Muslim people,” Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran. ��������’s independence was too much to bear for the US and British. Ever since the revolution, they found it difficult to come to terms with that reality after years of access to ��������’s resources. They have been determined to “change regime” through hostilities, threats, sanctions and propaganda.

��������’s problem is its immense natural resources. Iran is ranked the in the world in terms of the value of its natural resources. Its resources include chromium, coal, copper, crude oil, iron ore, lead, manganese, natural gas, sulfur and zinc. It has the world’s -largest known gas reserve and oil reserve. It is chiefly for the access to these resources, especially oil and gas, that the US leads Britain and the EU in spending much of their budgets and time to effect “regime change” in Iran. They are all oblivious to the fact that an overwhelming number of Iranians support the regime, as demonstrated in the recent anniversary of the Republic when over million, a quarter of the population, participated in the parades. 

In 1953, it was this desire to access Iranian oil, under the pretext of fear of communist influence in Iran, that caused the US to work with the British to overthrow the first-ever democratically elected government in Iran and install a ruthless puppet, the Shah. At the same time, the US gave little attention to genocide in Cambodia, Darfur, Myanmar and Rwanda, responding only belatedly even to atrocities in Bosnia, in NATO’s backyard. 

Scary CIA-MI6 Coup Destroyed Iran and Damaged the World

The British and the US have not given up intervening in Iran. They have to break up Iran as they balkanized Yugoslavia into numerous hostile countries based on ethnicities by instigating riots. The US has continued having a “covert relationship” with numerous ethnic terrorist groups in Iran. The US support of the terrorist group is well known. So far, the Islamic Republic has deftly resisted the foreign aggression. 

The 2022 unrest has given more opportunity to ��������’s adversaries. The US and its allies, especially and , have intervened in the domestic affairs of Iran. Through BBC, VOA, London-based Persian TV, and social media outlets, the US and its allies continue sensationalizing the protests in Iran in hope of instigating civil war, leading to “regime change.” If human rights were truly their objectives, they would have focused on , one of the world’s worst human rights violators. As for the oppression, attention should have been given to the apartheid state of for brutally oppressing Palestinians for years. Unsurprisingly, Iran has considered the US, Britain, Israel and Saudi Arabia fermenting unrest in the country. 

Change is coming for Iran. After years of contributing to hostility in Iran, Saudi Arabia has decided to break away from the US front and mend relations with the country through China. They have already exchanged ambassadors. Other Arab countries are following suit. That move paid off well. Saudis are now pursuing opening relations with other members of the “Axis of Resistance,” namely Syria and Yemen. 

With the US-led NATO engulfed in the Russo-Ukrainian War, Iran has a great opportunity to live up to its ancient reputation, enhancing global peace.

After years of spending billions of dollars in support of the US plan for the “regime change” in Iran, Saudi Arabia realized that they were wasting their funds. They saw Iran as vital to real progress in the region. Knowing that China had good relations with Iran, they opened up to China, leveraging its growing capabilities to enhance relations with Iran. When they asked China to talk to Iran on their behalf, China gladly cooperated. The result was the 2023 agreement to resume their diplomatic relations. That was welcomed by other Arab countries that are rushing to normalize relations with Iran. Syrian Bashar Assad was welcomed by the Arab League with his powerful speech that the region must be cleared from foreign powers. The message resonated with other leaders. Iranian and Saudi teams are now working together to resolve other issues in the region, such as the Yemen conflict.

If Iranians continue to play their cards right, they could finally bring peace to the troubled region, which has been under foreign influence for over a century. If the US wants to have some voice in the future in that part of the world, it must find a way to collaborate with Iran as the Saudis did.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post What Do You Know About Iran, Formerly Persia? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

When these non-Persian Iranians speak of the need for the entrenchment and recognition of inclusivity in the linguistic, economic, and political spheres of life in Iran as a necessary condition for democratization, they are often accused of being separatists. They are told that Iran is one nation and that its territorial integrity is a red line that is not up for discussion.

Persian identity, Iranian identity

This notion in the debate about ��������’s identity is championed by Reza Pahlavi but is also echoed in made by other Iranian figures like Nazanin Boniadi, Golshifteh Farahani, Shirin Ebadi, and activists Masih Alinejad and Hamed Esmaeilion.

The assertion and emphasis on territorial integrity as a response to demands for inclusivity as a precursor for democratization is a political tactic that is not only anti-democratic but also undermines the very democratic principles that many of these figures claim to be supporting. It is designed to reinforce the Iranian state’s forced assimilation  policy against the Kurds, Baloch, Ahwaz, and Azeri people. 

For over a hundred years, the Iranian state has attempted to assimilate non-Persian nations into a national Iranian identity that is purely Persian. The state has used repressive tactics, from poisoning, imprisonment, extrajudicial killings, capital punishment, and threatening families to militarization, linguicide, and economic impoverishment, as part of its forced assimilation policy. These efforts have been partially successful given the in the use of non-Farsi languages in Iran. However, a sense of distinctiveness, and the political manifestation of this distinctiveness, has only grown stronger among non-Persian peoples, as evidenced by the protests ignited by the death of Jina Amini in September 2022 at the hands of the morality police and past political agitations for change in areas inhabited by non-Persian people.

These demands for inclusivity and autonomy existed under the Pahlavi dynasty and have persisted for decades under the Islamic Republic. This is despite claims by Khomeini and his successors that the Shia government does not discriminate against any ethnicity or religious group. Scholar Sabah Mofidi numerous speeches, interviews and written texts of Persian and Kurdish nationalists and found that the “Persian nationalists use Islamic brotherhood and unity to reinforce Islamic identity over Kurdish identity in order to marginalize the Kurdish nationalist movement, as well as to mobilize ordinary people against the Kurdish forces.” Similarly, secular Persian nationalists use this rhetoric of Iranian brotherhood to delegitimize or negate Kurdish nationalist demands.

“Conversely,” continues Mofidi, “the Kurdish nationalists resist, and demand equality.” For instance, in a recent BBC Persian interview, journalist Ranya Rahamnpour asked the Secretary General of the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan, Mustafa Hijri, whether Kurdish political parties are separatists—an accusation that the Islamic Republic often cites to justify its attacks against Kurds in Iran and members of Kurdish political parties. In response to this question, Hijri that repeatedly asking this question is an insult to all Kurds and to his party, which has been advocating for “democracy for Iran and autonomy for Kurdistan.” He goes on to say that “the separatists are not Kurds or Baloch, but those who have violated the rights of all of the Iranian nationalities, created a difference between the periphery and the center, and used their power to bring nothing but misfortune to these national groups.”

Kurdish Autonomy Can Boost Peace in the Middle East

These skirmishes are part of a deliberation inside and outside Iran on how to achieve a democratic opposition that can help topple the Islamist regime and bring about a democratic Iran. Many of these forces have failed to unite mainly because of the refusal of some parties to acknowledge Iran’s multinational character. 

What has become increasingly clear since the death of Jina Amini and subsequent events is that Iran is a deeply divided society. The failure to find working solutions for managing such diversity and division has allowed the Islamic Republic to rule with impunity and repress dissenting voices, especially among the Kurdish population and other non-Persian populations, such as the Baloch, Ahwaz and Azeris.

Two theories for managing ethnic divides

For many, the number of political forces at play and the diversity of demands and peoples in Iran, as well as in the diaspora, has made it quite difficult to understand what the debate is about in Iran and where the country might or should be headed. There are two theories on how to manage divided societies like Iran and institutionally design an inclusive democratic system given the many social and political cleavages along ethnic, linguistic, and religious lines. These two theories are centripetalism and consociationalism.

Centripetalism and consociationalism are two theories of political engineering for managing social cleavage in ethnically diverse societies. Centripetalism is a theory developed from the ideas of US scholar Donald L. Horowitz, who specializes in the study of ethnic conflict and has worked to help divided societies reduce ethnic conflict through democratic means. According to Benjamin Reilly, centripetalism to promote cooperation, accommodation and integration across ethnic divides, seeking to depoliticize ethnicity and minimize the role of ethnic identities. It emphasizes the importance of institutions that encourage intercommunal moderation, such as multi-ethnic political parties, cross-cutting electoral incentives, and intergroup accommodation.

, however, relies on elite cooperation between leaders of different communities. It recognizes ethnicity as primordially rooted and seeks to protect and maximize the rights of ethnonational groups. Consociationalism promotes mechanisms that maintain interethnic harmony, such as grand coalition cabinets, proportional representation, minority veto powers, and communal autonomy. It aims to achieve a significant degree of autonomy for each ethnic polity and ensure fair representation in governance.

Which of the two theories provides the best prescriptions for democratically governing divided societies is a subject of great debate among scholars. Nevertheless, they all agree that the two theories are crucial in designing a working democracy in ethnically polarized polities.

Embracing pluralism is a prerequisite for democracy

While democracy in Iran has had periods of temporary existence, democratic movements have yet to establish a working democracy in Iran. Given the multinational character and diversity of the Iranian populace, the establishment and future of democracy in Iran require serious discussion, debate, and planning based on centripetalist and consociationalist theories, institutions, and practices.

The arguments of Iranian political parties and personalities that often take the side of the Iranian state in response to demands for inclusive government can be conceived of as a sort of centripetalist prescription of governance. In theory, centripetalism advocates for institutions and governing arrangements that seek to depoliticize ethnicity or ethnic demands and identities. This theory and arrangement of governance may be viewed as preferable or even ideal, given that it seeks to enhance cooperation between groups despite their ethnic, linguistic, or religious differences. However, many of the Iranian political forces as well as the Iranian state, both currently and historically, use centripetalist notions not to depoliticize ethnicity and create a more level playing field between ethnic groups but to deny non-Persian nations in Iran their linguistic, political, economic, and cultural rights.

While centripetalism may seek to depoliticize ethnicity, what has happened in the last hundred years of Iran’s history has been a further politicization of ethnicity and criminalization of ethnicity, particularly for non-ethnically Persian people in Iran. This is clearly illustrated in the inestimable number of Kurdish and activists who are either languishing away in Avin prison or who have been over the years, both under the Pahlavi regime and under the Islamic Republic. The treatment of other non-ethnically-Persian people like the Baloch, Ahwaz, and Azeri has been similarly harsh.

Indigenous People in Bangladesh Suffer as Government Drags Feet

The demise of the Islamic Republic does not begin with some outside power but with the unity of effort and goals among Iran’s ethnonational groups. Iranians need to recognize their diversity not as a threat but as a necessary ingredient for creating a pluralistic and tolerant democratic system that can provide representation and self-governance to each national group.

The lack of vision and clarity for a democratically inclusive governance system for Iran has led to a lack of unity of purpose, both in Iran and among Iranian opposition groups in the diaspora. For democratic forces inside and outside Iran to inflict significant damage on the clerical grip on power, there must be agreement, organization, and coordination among opposition groups, both internal and external. This can only happen when we find a clearly laid-out system of governance that can bring us all together as equals with an equal say and an equal share of power in the system, regardless of our identity, religion, native language, or gender. I believe that consociationalist theory, or a mix of consociationalism and centripetalist prescriptions and institutional arrangements of governance, can provide the necessary vision and model of governance that can allow us to flourish in our distinct communities as well as a part of a broader community that is Iran.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Pluralism Is the Only Way Forward for Iranian Democracy appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The US has consistently brandished its “” policy as a formidable weapon against Iran. Under the Obama administration, it unleashed some of the most stringent and extensive sanctions witnessed since 1980. Continuing its relentless pursuit of regime change, the US has unveiled this April a of sanctions against the Islamic Republic. While for threats of a military nature has failed to resonate, the repercussions of sanctions on Iran’s economy have been profoundly debilitating. The insidious grip of poverty has tightened unabated across the nation, with countless Iranians succumbing to illness and anguish amidst a dire scarcity of vital medications.

Amidst a relentless barrage of western propaganda advocating for a regime change in Iran, the Iranian populace remains resolutely unfazed, displaying a conspicuous choice not to heed these efforts. There are reasons for this optimism. This is not the first time Iran has faced stern international opposition to its regime, and survived. During the 1980 invasion by Iraq, a conflict that saw the involvement of over 80 nations and military backing from 34 countries, including both the US and the Soviet Union, in support of Iraq, Iran found itself pitted against overwhelming odds, with only Libya and Syria extending their sympathies. In the face of this formidable hostile force, Iran valiantly resisted for a grueling eight years, steadfastly preserving its territorial integrity without conceding an inch of its land to the Iraqi aggressors. One of those killed in the pushing back of Iraqis out of  the country was my brother Sayyid Husayn. He was then a 23-year-old seminary student. Even my over 70-year-old father and other brothers volunteered to defend their country.

Despite the barrage of American sanctions, Iran has been able to avoid their suffocating effects, navigating a path towards self-reliance. The Islamic Republic responded to years of relentless US pressure by spearheading the of its oil trade in 2007, setting in motion an international wave of dissent against the American-dominated financial framework. Consequently, the once-dominant petrodollar rapidly ceded its hegemony, with BRICS nations, , and other states eagerly following suit. There are some hints that even Saudi Arabia, a staunch ally of the US, to this paradigm shift. between China and Malaysia in early April concerning the establishment of an “Asian Fund” aimed at diminishing reliance on the US dollar further underscore the momentum of this trend.

Alas, the response from the US to this trend has been disconcerting. Instead of absorbing the lessons and altering its course, the US harbors animosity towards Iran for catalyzing the decline of the almighty dollar. In times to come, impartial historians will undoubtedly highlight Washington’s susceptibility to manipulation by Iran’s diaspora, Israel’s influential lobby, and other anti-Iran factions as contributing factors to the gradual erosion of American hegemony.

Have the BRICs Hit a Wall? The Next Emerging Markets

What You Probably Need to Know About Iran Under the Mullahs

Despite the persistent hostility spearheaded by the US and its western allies, ��������’s mullahs have propelled it forward on several fronts.

Contrary to the portrayal of Iran as a dictatorial regime, the Islamic Republic operates as a , as affirmed by Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini, who stated, “Islam does not permit us to establish a dictatorship. We follow our nation’s votes and act according to their views.”

My visits and observations have convinced me that Iran’s leadership is committed to the democratic process. I have witnessed heated debates in ��������’s Majlis, its parliamentary chamber. They exemplify a passion for the vibrant exchange of ideas. Perusing the newspapers, I have noted that some regularly support the government, while others criticize it. In buses, parks, and other public areas, I have listened to common people expressing their thoughts, for or against the government, without being reprimanded or arrested.

On the other hand, I found it perplexing to note the level of sensitivity of some security personnel to the wearing of the hijab in numerous localities. This stringent enforcement has continued to provoke discontent among many young Iranians, who find themselves increasingly aggrieved by such measures.

Iran’s progress under the leadership of the mullahs has been nothing short of remarkable, catapulting the nation to an impressive position in global intellectual achievements. the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), Iran boasts the second-highest number of engineering graduates per capita on a global scale. ��������’s engineers and scientific researchers are making great strides in areas from autism research, to pharmaceuticals—of which 96% are now produced locally—to cutting-edge .

Quality of life has surged since the revolution. Between 1976 and 2021, the literacy rate experienced a remarkable surge, soaring from a mere 36.5% to an impressive nearly 89%. Likewise, life expectancy witnessed a substantial upswing, climbing from less than 55 years in 1976 to a commendable nearly 77 years in 2021.

Today, over of the population is covered by free health insurance, ensuring access to essential medical services. In rural areas, health houses have been established to cater to the needs of approximately 1,200 residents per facility, bringing healthcare closer to remote communities. Moreover, Iran’s commitment to healthcare extends to , with accessible services provided to these vulnerable populations.

The quality of healthcare in Iran has become so reputable that many people now to benefit from advanced and affordable medical treatment, positioning the country as a destination of choice. Iran has introduced impressive innovations in areas such as addressing autism, offering valuable lessons and insights that can benefit not only the US but also other nations grappling with similar challenges.

Iran is a Beneficial Regional Leader

Iran’s military leaders have left a positive mark on the Islamic world. The revered Qassim Soleimani has left an indelible impression on hearts and minds across the region, and also instills a sense of awe in the hearts of Iran’s adversaries, attesting to the nation’s capacity to nurture exceptional military leaders. Iranian officers are not a gang of thugs, as western propagandists would like to portray them, but competent, professional, and honorable leaders making an impact on the world stage.

In recent memory, General Soleimani, with the help of Russian air power, played a pivotal role in urging Iraqis to liberate their land from the clutches of the terrorist organization ISIS. In Syria, Soleimani’s influence extended to inspiring the local population to push back against ISIS, bolstering the resistance against this extremist group. In Lebanon, he inspired a robust response to Israeli aerial bombings. Furthermore, the Iranian general motivated Yemenis to forge a united front against the Saudi-led coalition’s aggressive actions.

Iran has demonstrated its ability to use diplomacy just as well as warfare to build connections and foster stability in the region. President Ebrahim Raisi’s administration has actively sought to bolster diplomatic ties with key global players, most notably China and Russia, among other nations. Impressively, his efforts have yielded significant progress in normalizing relations with Saudi Arabia and other Arab states. These constructive engagements have the potential to initiate a much-needed environment of peace and stability in this turbulent part of the world.

Why Saudi Arabia and Iran Are Making Out Now

In stark contrast to the US-led western powers, the mullahs of Iran have demonstrated a clear objective of fostering stability and peaceful coexistence among regional countries. Their unwavering commitment to this vision is exemplified by their endeavors to share ��������’s resources and inspire neighboring nations. The influence of the mullahs has been particularly notable in countries such as Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Venezuela, and others, where they have been instrumental in galvanizing these nations to assert their independence and stand united against acts of aggression.

Time for a New US Iran Policy

Iran’s strategic maneuvers in forging key partnerships are poised to reshape regional dynamics, inviting the West to reevaluate its approach towards the nation.

Recently, Iran awarded India a contract to develop the Chabahar Port, in a move that holds immense potential for enhancing connectivity and trade. Complementing this development is the planned construction of a railway network linking Iran’s Shahid Rajaee port on the Persian Gulf to southern Russia. Upon completion, this ambitious infrastructure project will revolutionize transportation between East Asia and Russia, with far-reaching implications.

The significance of these initiatives cannot be overstated. For India, the railway and port development will dramatically reduce transportation time, with the current 45-day journey reduced to a mere 14 days, a savings that will translate into substantial cost reduction, amounting to millions of dollars for the Indian economy. Equally consequential is the impact on Europe, as it stands to benefit from an expeditious and cost-effective cargo route between the continent and East Asia via Iran. This newfound advantage is bound to incentivize European nations to reassess their stance on sanctions and explore collaborative opportunities with Iran.

It is not just economic policy that is giving the West reason to reevaluate. The adopted by Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, against weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) has posed a formidable challenge to world powers. ���󲹳���Ա�’s moral stand categorically forbidding the production of WMDs is informed Iran’s own history during the protracted and devastating eight-year war with Iraq in the 1980s. The repercussions of Iraq’s chemical attacks persist to this day. Tragically, I recently received news of the passing of one of my relatives in Iran, a victim of the chemical injuries sustained during that period, whose years of suffering have finally come to an end. Despite the suffering that thousands of Iranians have likewise endured, the nation’s moral conviction stands as a rebuke to a Western global order predicated on mutually assured nuclear destruction.

Negotiate With Russia and Let Ukraine Have Peace

The Iranian revolution has triggered a profound realignment that continues to shape the contemporary global landscape. By asserting its own distinct worldview and challenging western preeminence, Iran has engendered an ongoing dialogue on the nature and distribution of power in the international arena, posing questions that demand thoughtful consideration. Despite these signals, however, the US persists in its efforts to meddle in the affairs of Iran and other nations. Instead of embracing a more diplomatic approach, the US clings to its reliance on punitive sanctions, invasions, and interventions, which have become all too familiar hallmarks of its foreign policy. The recent Russo-Ukrainian War serves as a stark and regrettable illustration of the US’s propensity for favoring military action over constructive dialogue and negotiation. It is imperative that the US awaken to the realities of our changing world.

Under the leadership of its mullahs, Iran has demonstrated an exceptional ability to forge its own path and shape its own destiny. While the hostility exhibited by the US may prove to be transient, one aspect of Iran’s trajectory endures steadfastly: its commitment to de-dollarization. The US must recognize the significance of this development and disregard the influence of affluent and divisive diaspora groups and anti-Iran factions. Instead, a fresh, astute, and equitable policy towards Iran must be crafted—one that embraces peaceful negotiations marked with wisdom and balance, fostering a constructive and mutually beneficial relationship.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post How Good Is the US Policy on Iran, Really? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Since 1979, Iran has challenged the US-led Western countries across the world. For instance, Iran opposed apartheid in South Africa at a time when the US supported the racist regime. In 1992, Nelson Mandela visited Iran and “the Iranian government and nation for their support in the black people’s struggle against apartheid.″ 

In contrast, the US and its Western allies have supported freedom for white Europeans globally while quietly enslaving or subjugating all others. Popular Congolese leader Patrice Lumumba was eliminated through a 1960 coup supported by Belgium and the US. Washington has historically stood by its European allies when they conducted ethnic cleansing and genocide against Africans. American collaboration with Britain is well known, particularly the British suppression of Kenya’s Mau Mau movement in the 1950s that sought self-determination. 

British Genocide in Kenya: Time for a Reckoning

The destructive meddling in affairs of the other countries by the US was formalized with the founding of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in 1947. In June 1948, the CIA was authorized to carry out covert in “support of US foreign policy.” Its first and most successful operation was jointly with MI6 in 1953 when it masterminded a coup against Mohammad Mosaddegh, ��������’s first-ever democratically elected prime minister. In the years to come, the US used lessons learned from 1953 to overthrow governments in other countries. Vietnam and Chile are perhaps the two most spectacular examples.

A Tale of Neocolonization and Hypocrisy

After World War II, the Americans always the 1941 Atlantic Charter, a joint US and British declaration, to portray themselves as great supporters of freedom. Its most important features included recognizing the right of people to choose their own form of government, removing trade restrictions, improving labor standards, expanding social programs, renouncing use of force, and reducing armament. The Atlantic Charter deeply influenced the UN Charter that followed after the war.

After the devastation of World War II, the UN was in 1945 to save the world from the “scourge of war,” to strengthen “human rights,” to promote “j�ܲ��پ�����,” reinforce “international law” and promote social well-being. Yet the US and Britain have never really honored their commitment to the UN Charter just as they once ignored the Atlantic Charter after the war was over. Just as Britain and the US once promoted the interests of the East India Company and the (UFC) through their foreign policy, they now support today’s big corporations.

Scary CIA-MI6 Coup Destroyed Iran and Damaged the World

The example of the US acting to support the UFC has become infamous in history. Less than 11 months after the 1953 Iran coup, the CIA-sponsored the democratically elected Guatemalan government. Jacobo Árbenz Guzmán was ousted in a June 1954 coup because, like Mosaddegh, he refused to play ball with a foreign corporation exploiting his country. This coup gave birth to a new word in international politics: “.”

The same year the US turned Guatemala into a banana republic, the Vietnamese crushed the French at . This triggered American intervention under the guise of the Cold War. The stated aim was to keep out communism. The real goal was to ensure white domination of another non-white country. The US kept its forces in Vietnam for the next 20 years, brutally causing nearly 4 million . American casualties were a relatively low 58,000 but many veterans who served in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos are still from physical and emotional trauma. The populations of these three countries are still dealing with the consequences of napalm bombing and the use of Agent Orange, which were both forbidden by the Geneva Convention.

Latin America Gets Special Attention

The US has dominated Latin America and treated the region as an informal colony. In 1964, the US and the British a military coup in Brazil that deposed the democratically elected Brazilian president Joao Goulart.

In Chile, the US followed the 1954 Guatemala template. Secretary of State Henry mounted major clandestine operations against Chilean President Salvador Allende. Eventually, the US backed the 1973 coup and Allende was executed. This US conducted this coup for the which was a major donor of the Republican party.

No mercy shown even to Cuba, a small Caribbean country. In the 1960s, the CIA attempted to Fidel Castro numerous times through many means, including the use of organized crime syndicate. The US even tried an invasion at the but it turned out to be a disaster. 

The World This Week: Obama Visits Cuba to Salsa With Castro

The failure of its anti-Castro machinations did not stop US operations in Latin America though. In the 1980s, the US the military junta in El Salvador with $6 billion to annihilate the insurgency and their supporters. That led to a civil war that lasted 12 years, causing many deaths and destruction. In the 1980s, the scandal hit the Reagan administration. Congressional inquiries revealed that the US had illegally sold weapons to Iran and used the profit to fund Contra rebels against Sandinistas in Nicaragua.

The Contras’ story becomes even more interesting. In 1981, the US Manuel Noriega who became the military dictator of Panama. Noriega was a conduit of money and weapons to the Contras. When Noriega was no longer useful, the US cut him off its payroll in 1988 and overthrew him in 1989. 

The US Record Elsewhere

As for Asia, nobody should be surprised that the US supported Pakistan against India in the 1971 India-Pakistan War. covered up the Pakistani mass rape, murders and other atrocities in East Pakistan, which is now Bangladesh. The ruthless American diplomat justified support for Pakistan as essential for better relations with China. He also justified bombing Cambodia and Laos for North Vietnam. Remember Kissinger also caused Allende’s execution. Yet the Nobel Committee gave such a megalomaniac and international criminal the Peace Prize in 1973.

From 1945 to 1990, the CIA backed anti-communists to go on a and kill communists in at least 22 countries. It began in Indonesia in 1965. The military killed a million Indonesians on the mere suspicion of being communists or left-wing. After the , General Suharto emerged as the country’s leader and became president in 1967.

Today, we vividly remember . Yet few question the US role in creating those terrorists. The US wanted Afghanistan to be the Vietnam for the Soviets. In the 1980s, the US backed the most violent Muslims from around the world who flocked to fight a jihad in Afghanistan. They became known as the and delivered a crushing defeat to the Soviets. President Ronald Reagan with them in the Oval Office. Later, these jihadis formed al-Qaeda, al-Nusrat, ISIS, and other terrorist groups who have been causing deaths and destruction since. 

In January 2020, the US killed Iranian General Qassim when he was on his way to meet the Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul Mahdi. Soleimani had helped defeat ISIS and his execution triggered anger in the Middle East. Additionally, it also set a precedent for killing diplomats and has put in danger US diplomats around the world. From the days of the 2003 Iraq War, US actions have often been reckless, endangering peace consistently.

In the case of Iran, the US has acted most unwisely. For decades, it has been trying to initiate “regime change.” The US has imposed draconian sanctions on the country and caused untold suffering. Few Americans realize that over of Iranians voted to create an Islamic republic in 1979.

The US supports Ukraine in the name of freedom and democracy. Yet the key reason for this support to do so is to weaken Russia. The US has imposed sanctions against Russia and supplied weapons to Ukraine to weaken Russian President Vladimir Putin. Yet Putin’s popularity 81% at the end of last year while US President Joe Biden’s approval dropped to 44%.

The US funds that have been spent on regime change and military operations have caused economic pain, violence and suffering around the world. These funds could have been used to eliminate poverty and improve infrastructure at home. 

Negotiate With Russia and Let Ukraine Have Peace

Over the years, these policies have taken a toll on the reputation of the US. Ayatollah Khamenei once to the US as the Great Satan. Many others around the world may not agree with that description but share the ayatollah’s anti-American sentiment. To improve its global standing, the US must stop meddling in other countries or invading them. It could begin with mending relations with Iran and apologizing for the 1953 coup. Instead of acting as a domineering hegemon, the US must work with other nations to enhance freedom and peace for all humanity.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post US Neocolonial Era Began in 1953: Even Now it Continues appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Riyadh seemed to look for opportunities to pass the buck: get its more powerful ally to do the heavy lifting in order to contain the threat from Tehran. But the US did not “cut off the head of the [Iranian] snake” and Saudis were largely alone in their unfriendly business with Iran. Until they decided otherwise in March 2023. The subject of recent Saudi-Iranian détente as well as the likely prospects for their bilateral ties has attracted increasing attention lately. However, most policy experts rarely analyze their earlier rapprochements, why each friendly period in nearly 100 years of their diplomatic history lasted for so long, and when and why things changed. This article addresses this lacuna.

History that projects their trajectory

The in-depth historical account of diplomatic relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia since the 1920s points to a systemic recurrence of friendlier behavior. In my earlier writings on the subject, separate and relatively friendly periods were identified, the first of which evolved in the multipolar world in late 1920s and early 1930s, the second in the bipolar world from 1946 to 1979, and a third which recurred during the unipolar moment – more specifically their détente from 1991 to 1997, and subsequent rapprochement from 1997 to 2007.

In the first friendly phase, Iran and Saudi Arabia were largely associated with a single great power in a multipolar world, the United Kingdom. Their threat environment and corresponding threat perception limited their rivalry. After their initial contacts were established in the mid-1920s two states (at that time, the Kingdom of Persia and the Kingdom of Hejaz, Najd and its Dependencies) concluded and signed the Friendship Treaty in Tehran in 1929. In the aftermath of the treaty, their diplomatic envoys also accorded reciprocal treatment in accordance with the rules of international law. Historians of Saudi-Iranian relations also documented that the Saudi government and city residents warmly welcomed a naval ship from Persia that docked at Jeddah port.  

Throughout this phase, the British regional dominance and common identity of Iran and Saudi Arabia with the British pole reduced the phenomenon of cross-cutting relationships among different axes of conflict that usually exist in the multipolar system. As other great powers played a secondary role in the Persian Gulf, the number of great-great power dyads was reduced, which generally represented a more stable situation for Iran and Saudi Arabia. Any attempt to break this continuity would have resulted in serious trouble. The case of Nazi Germany is illustrative in this regard. Berlin made limited but successful attempts to increase power projection in Iran in the late 1930s and early 1940s. As expected, this gave rise to security tensions, which resulted in the forced abdication of Reza Shah, the swift occupation of Iran by British and Russian troops, and inactive relations with Riyadh.

In the second friendly phase, Iran and Saudi Arabia shared their alliance with a common great power in a bipolar system, the United States, and the tightness of the system made it difficult for them to oppose each other. The in-depth historical account of their diplomatic relations since the 1950s points to a systemic recurrence of friendlier behavior for three subsequent decades. The strength of their collaboration in 1950s was expressed in different arenas, such as converging Saudi-Iranian interests in Egypt after Gamal Abdel Nasser overthrew King Farouk in the socialist-republican coup; joint support for Jordan when revolts threatened the continuity of the Hashemite monarchy; and preventing a socialist coup in Lebanon. 

In the 1960s, Iran supported Saudi Arabia in a proxy war against Egypt in Northern Yemen. Two friendly states also signed the Agreement over the Islands of al-‘Arabiya and Farsi, while in the 1970s, Iran and Saudi Arabia were twin pillars of the US axis and were the closest of allies. That relationship was so close that Iran declared a week of mourning when King Faisal was assassinated in 1975.The dominant structural force that prevailed through the three decades or so of close bilateral ties is the bipolar world order of the time, and the fact that both sides allied themselves with the United States. It also explains why Iran and Saudi Arabia feared other revolutionary states that identified themselves with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). 

This fear was great enough that it not only drew Saudi Arabia, a Wahhabi Islamist state, and Iran, then a nationalist and pro-secular Shia state, together, but also made them more receptive to Islamic political movements, such as the Muslim Brotherhood. Tehran’s departure from the US-led pole in 1979. generated an enormous amount of pressure on both states to significantly alter their behavior. Iran abandoned friendly connections with Saudi Arabia, which maintained an active and strategic relationship with the US, while the Saudis limited friendly connections with Iran because of its messianic refusal to abide by the existing order. New structural realities led to the creation of the Gulf Cooperation Council in January 1981 and Iraq-Iran War in the 1980s.

Shared threat perception from American unipolarity

In the third friendly phase, a sole superpower in a unipolar world was not restrained from the Middle East and Persian Gulf region in the 1990s and early 2000s. Spreading democracy abroad was a high-priority goal for two successive US administrations since the end of the Cold War. In his 1992 campaign Bill Clinton frequently insisted that the promotion of democracy would be a top priority of his foreign policy. His assistant for national security defined the central theme of Clinton foreign policy as the “enlargement of democracy”. President George W. Bush used military might to try to turn Afghanistan and Iraq to begin with, and later even other states across the Middle East into liberal democracies. He said: “By the resolve and purpose of America, and of our friends and allies, we will make this an age of progress and liberty. Free people will set the course of history, and free people will keep the peace of the world.”

However, political elites in Iran and Saudi Arabia generally disliked what John Mearsheimer calls “a liberal unipole” in which the United States pursues a policy of “liberal hegemony” – making Muslim-majority states in the image of liberal elites in the US. Indeed, there is a problem in Iran and Saudi Arabia with accepting the universality and superiority of liberal ideology that is pursued by the political liberal elite in the West. Additional systemic reason for their relatively constructive relations during this period was unrivaled US hegemony. Iran and Saudi Arabia were fearful and resistant to this pressure from the US in different ways. Not surprisingly, they have pursued a policy of détente from 1991 to 1997 and closer diplomatic ties from late 1990s to mid-2000s.

It is not difficult to find historical validation for this argument. Riyadh and Tehran were exceptionally close between 1997 and 2001. This was the most constructive period of Saudi-Iranian rapprochement, during which the Cooperation Agreement and Security Accord were concluded in 1998 and 2001, respectively. At the peak of their collaboration in 2000, the Iranian Minister of Defense, Admiral Ali Shamkhani, new arrangements for collective security in the Persian Gulf that excluded the United States, including the creation of a joint army “for the defense of the Muslim world”. “The sky’s the limit for Iranian–Saudi Arabian relations and co-operation, as the whole of Islamic ��������’s military might is in the service of our Saudi and Muslim brothers,” he said. 

Unsurprisingly, the Saudis balked. They were not ready to sacrifice a long-term security arrangement with the US. Doing so would be akin to Japan entering into a security pact with China while exiting its defense treaty with the US. This also explains why Saudi Arabia signed an agreement with Iran on internal security matters in 2001 that excluded military collaboration. The massive American military presence in the region essentially acted as a stabilizer for Saudi–Iran ties. That it took a scant three weeks for the US to pummel the Iraqi army and overthrow Saddam Hussein’s regime did not go unnoticed in Tehran. 

With one side cowed and the other reassured by American military might, Iran and Saudi Arabia pursued cautious policies and preserved dialogue at a high-level. Ali Larijani alone paid four official visits to Saudi Arabia for consultations with Prince Bandar and King Abdullah. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was accorded red carpet treatment and was greeted by the Saudi King at the airport when he arrived in Riyadh in March 2007. The Saudi press hailed Ahmadinejad’s visit as another sign of deepening ties between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and referred to the two countries as “brotherly nations.”

However, Saudi Arabia was getting more fearful from the new American posture in the Middle East than from its promotion of liberal democracy. With a pending American exit from Iraq by 2011., Tehran was assured of having more space to expand its influence and growing proxy network. Iraq was no longer an occupied, neutral or buffer state between Riyadh and Tehran. Instead, it tilted towards Iran on all major regional issues. Iraqi Shia militia groups also grew bolder, and were free to carry out mortar attacks across the border with Saudi Arabia. 

Hence, the exit of Saudi Arabia’s security blanket left them worried about American commitment to maintaining the regional order. That worry amplified when President Barack Obama announced a new East Asia Strategy—also known as the Asia Pivot—in 2012. With this shift, the central role of the US in the Middle East was additionally marginalized. Iran and Saudi Arabia were left to fill the vacuum. While Saudi Arabia felt more vulnerable with the Arab Spring in Bahrain and Yemen, Iranian interests in Syria were under threat. It was a perfect setting for them to return to hostile relations.

Shared preference of pluralization and multipolarity

With changing international order, two regional rivals found themselves in matching mode again in the 2020s. In addition to what they commonly opposed in late 1990s and early 2000s, there is an alternative order for Iran and Saudi Arabia that better fits their international ambitions today. It is about their shared preference for polarization and multipolarity of the international system where their voices can be heard or where they can move from the “periphery” of international politics to the “center”. 

Iran has decided to pursue more independent foreign policy more than four decades ago. Saudi Arabia has chosen a similar path only recently. Although Riyad has long been a US ally, its neutral stance on the crisis in Ukraine, strategic partnership with China, close relations with Russia, exposure to BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, underlines an important shift to new balancing behavior in a new world order where Russia—and China—are equally important. 

Moreover, beyond a neutral stance on the war in Ukraine or a closer partnership with Beijing and Moscow, there emerge other assertive foreign policy paradigms with broader regional implications. Among others, Saudi special relations with the US have grown colder. ��������’s long-held official view that collaboration with Saudi Arabia is subject to new arrangements in the Persian Gulf that exclude the US or reduce Saudi dependency on Washington have not changed. This gives Tehran a reason to engage with Riyadh. Given their newly born mutual preference for multipolarity, including their common objection to liberal international order in previous phases, conditions for a Saudi-Iran rapprochement were already set.

Their matching polarity with great power(s) has accurately foreshadowed the friendly course of Iran–Saudi ties over the past 100 years. The nature of this relationship is likely to follow the same pattern in the future as well.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Saudi-Iranian Rapprochements Are Not New: Here’s a History appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Nevertheless, my brilliant students also informed me that cosmetic surgery in general and nose jobs in particular were the rage in Iran. Like and , Iran is one of the great centers of cosmetic surgery. Rhinoplasty, the technical term for nasal surgery or “nose job,” is extremely popular in Iran. In fact, so fixated are many Iranians with this surgery that the has entered the surgical lexicon.

A culture obsessed with beauty

Iran, also known as Persia in the past, is a culture that has long prized sophistication, courtesy and beauty. In fact, tells us that Iran literally means the “Land of the Aryans” and the country adopted this name in 1935. This ideal of Aryan beauty—large eyes, symmetrical faces and beautifully shaped noses—runs strong in the culture.

Even though Iran is ruled by puritanical mullahs who do not allow women to reveal even their hair, the Iranian veneration for beauty continues. Those of us who grow up in India are sometimes indoctrinated from an early age about the legendary beauty of Iranian women. Shah Jahan, the Mughal emperor who ruled India from 1628 to 1658, built the Taj Mahal for Mumtaz Mahal. 

Like many high fliers in the Mughal court, Mumtaz came from a family of Iranian/Persian origins. Note that Persian (Farsi) was the official language of North India from 1192 to 1858 when the British finally replaced it with English. In the heyday of Mughal rule, the icons of beauty were Persians like Nur Jahan and Mumtaz Mahal. Unsurprisingly, the Taj Mahal has been “a marble tribute to a Persian princess.” 

The Taj Mahal may be a thing of the past but Iranians still prize beauty. In 2013, on ��������’s beauty obsession that feeds its voracious cosmetic surgery industry. Apparently, “a desire to gain a husband, western looks, or even clients are a few reasons why Iran has the world’s highest nose surgery rate.” Even men are getting nose jobs and plastic surgery now.

In a nutshell, nose jobs and cosmetic surgery thrives in Iran because people want it. In Keynesian terms, there is demand for this sort of surgery.

A track record of surgical intervention

I grew up in India as the son of an eminent plastic and reconstructive surgeon. My father was in the Indian Army. His patients were often soldiers who had been shot or injured by shrapnel. He did the whole gamut of reconstructive work. He often told me that the sort of surgery he did was born on the battlefield.

Iran is no exception. The 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War kicked off the cosmetic surgery industry. Thousands of soldiers were wounded in those eight years of war. Iranian plastic and reconstructive surgeons stitched them up on a regular basis. With so much practice, many of them became stunningly good at their jobs.

When the war ended, many of these military surgeons transitioned to cosmetic work. Two pioneers are remembered to this day. Dr. Mohammad Esmail Akbari and Dr. Hamid Karimi blazed new paths that others follow to this day. Akbari developed new techniques in rhinoplasty (nose jobs) while Karimi focused on facial cosmetic surgery, including facelifts, eyelid surgery and brow lifts. Along with other military surgeons, they triggered the boom in cosmetic surgery that lasts to this day.

Since 1988, the Iranian cosmetic surgery industry has grown rapidly. In fact, Iran is one of the leading destinations for cosmetic surgery. Patients can get top-level surgical procedures at a fraction of the cost in richer economies like the US, the UK or Switzerland.

In a nutshell, Iran has the supply of skilled cosmetic surgeons to satisfy both internal and international demand. Say’s law—the law of the markets that holds that supply creates its own demand à la iPhone—applies as well.

Some key problems

Cosmetic surgery in Iran is not without its problems. There have been reports of botched surgeries. Some people have suffered from complications and even died. Some blame this on the lack of regulation. ��������’s mullahs are keen to regulate what their women wear but have largely turned a Nelson’s eye to their decisions to go under the scalpel.

When foreigners who get their treatment in Iran suffer complications, they find themselves up a shit creek without a paddle. A simple cosmetic procedure leads to a lifetime of trouble. They cannot exactly sue for damages or go back to their surgeons for redressal.

Apart from these tangible issues, there is the deeper question about a cultural fixation with beauty and the social standardization of beauty. Just as the mullahs have imposed religious conformity on the country, so have arbitrary standards of beauty. Why is one type of nose superior to all others? Why is it so important to look a certain way? Are there racial prejudices that underpin Iranian ideals of beauty? Are women and, now even men, objectified in modern society? Is cosmetic surgery yet another rebellion against repressive mullah rule?

Iran and other modern societies will have to wrestle with questions like these. In 1820, the young British poet John Keats penned, “Beauty is truth, truth (is) beauty. that is all ye know on earth and all ye need to know.” Perhaps the time has come to think again as to what exactly is beauty itself.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Why Iranians Love Nose Jobs and Cosmetic Surgery appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Between September 17, 2022, and January 23, 2023, Iranian security forces 525 protesters during the nationwide protests in response to the murder of Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old woman who was taken into custody by ��������’s religious morality police in September last year. Sham trials and unjust executions have begun, and, according to the most recent figures, at least 100 of those who have been arrested are in imminent danger of . Yet the protests have not stopped.

The new wave of protests poses a serious challenge to the Islamic Republic of ��������’s security apparatus. The distinctive unity that has emerged among Iranians is unparalleled. In fact, Iran is experiencing a unity that has not been seen since the 1979 revolution. Simultaneous protests in more than 200 cities have exhausted security forces. 

A Spontaneous Uprising, Not a Minority Movement

This new uprising has not been organized by any party or organization from abroad. It has occurred organically and is led by Iranians who reside in the country. The regime falsely lays the blame on Kurdish “” who receive aid from foreign services and on opposition groups outlawed by the Islamic Republic of Iran. Other non-Persian groups often blamed include Arabs and the Baluch.

Scapegoating non-Persians in Iran is not a new strategy. The establishment has done this for more than four decades in response to any sort of protest against injustice, corruption, or incompetence in the government. This strategy of scapegoating minorities has failed this time. The majority of Iranians do not believe in the phony claims of the Islamic Republic strategists. In fact, the nationwide solidarity is so strong that Persians have been chanting . For example, Jin, Jian, Azadi is translated into Farsi as Zan, Zendegi, Azadi, and it is translated into English as the now-familiar “Woman, Life, Freedom.” In addition, Azeris have been slogans supporting Kurdistan, and protests have taken place in in solidarity with Kurdistan and vice versa. 

As protests intensify, the Islamic Republic of Iran accuses the Kurds of separatism. The myth that Kurds are responsible for ��������’s woes has been partially successful for more than four decades. Persians, domestic or those in exile, do not accept the idea of a Kurdish state. Therefore, it has been relatively easy for the Islamic Republic to crack down on Kurds in the name of “fighting separatists” without facing any criticism from the Persian opposition groups in or outside the country.

A History of Kurdish Persecution

Iranian Kurds are mainly concentrated in the four northwestern and western provinces of Kurdistan, Kermanshah, West Azerbaijan, and Ilam. A group of Kurds have also settled around Quchan in the northeastern province of Khorasan. They have a history of rebelling against Tehran. 

The previous Iranian regime, led by Reza Shah and then his son Mohammad Reza Shah persecuted Iranian Kurds as well. In 1967, the Iranian military crushed a Kurdish uprising and six of the movement’s leaders, five of whom were executed in Sanandaj, the capital of the Kurdistan province, one of ��������’s majority-Kurdish provinces. 

It is important to note that the Shah’s Iran supported Kurds in Iraq to weaken their western neighbor. It even sent two military units into Iraqi territories to help Mustafa Barzani, one of the prominent Iraqi Kurds who led numerous insurgencies against Baghdad, in the 1960s and 1970s for an independent Kurdistan. Iran changed this policy when Mohammad Reza Pahlavi struck the 1975 with Iraq. 

This ended their dispute over the Shatt-al-Arab (Arvand Rud) border and Iran withdrew its support for Iraqi Kurds. After this, both countries turned on the Kurds. Because of the Shah’s betrayal, Iranian Kurds took an active part in the 1979 revolution. They hoped for autonomy and a Kurdish parliament after the revolution.

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini did not grant the Kurds any autonomy or self-rule. In fact, he crushed the Kurdish resistance brutally. Khomeini appointed Sadeq Khalkhali as the chief justice of Iran and sent him to the Kurdish areas along with a convoy of executioners. He also sent the military and the IRGC to crack down on the Kurds. Khalkhali hundreds of Kurds to death by firing squad in sham trials. The Kurdish Democratic Party of Iran (KDP-I) and Komele, a Marxist party in Iranian Kurdistan, were both outlawed. However, resistance continued in Kurdistan’s mountains. 

Injustice, Especially Economic, Fuels Minority Resentment

Generally, separatist movements among minorities are a result of injustice by the majority. In Iran, both before the 1979 revolution and after, minorities have been treated as second-class citizens. They have been deprived of fundamental rights and basic resources. Despite being known for its rich diversity of different ethnicities such as Kurds, the Baluch, Arabs and Azeris, ��������’s only official language is Persian. This means that children in Kurdistan or Ahwaz are deprived of studying in their mother tongue. 

This one-language policy leads to intense disregard of scholars with minority backgrounds. When the only official language is the language of the rulers, it leads to a bitter atmosphere among the minorities. Other acts of persecution lead to further resentment and many of ��������’s minorities desperately want autonomy if not freedom from the iron grip of Tehran’s mullahs.

As is well known, economic grievances often cause protests and revolutions. In Iran, poverty and unemployment are running high. Minorities are suffering the most. According to the of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the national gross product of provinces of Sistan and Baluchistan, Kurdistan, and Ilam are among the lowest in Iran. 

Poverty and a high unemployment rate have forced many Iranian Kurds into the minacious path of becoming a kolbar, a uniquely Kurdish word that literally translates as a porter who carries goods on his shoulders. These men risk their lives by carrying heavy loads of more than 60 kilograms of goods via mountainous donkey paths from Iraq into Iran while dodging bullets from the Iranian border patrols for a pittance. The mortality rate of the kolbar is very high. In 2022, 290 were .

Other ethnic groups are suffering enormously as well. The Baluch who live in the Sistan and Baluchistan province on the borders of Pakistan and Afghanistan lack economic opportunities, suffer from high unemployment rates and have low access to education. Discriminatory policies have forced many into becoming soukhtbars, which is Farsi for fuel porters. During one day alone on February 22, 2021, Iranian security forces at least 10 soukhtbars, including a 17-year-old boy. 

It is obvious that there is a great unity among Kurds, other ethnicities and the Persians during the current protests. However, Kurds, Baluchs and Arabs have only had bitter experiences with the central government in Tehran. Two Iranian regimes in a row have failed to treat non-majority ethnic groups with dignity and respect. Neither the Shahs nor the Ayatollahs have delivered a fair share of the pie to other ethnicities who live far away from Tehran. This raises the very important question: What might a third Iranian regime do to minorities? Will it continue the despotic and discriminatory policies of the previous regimes? Or will minorities finally get the autonomy, justice and respect they deserve?

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Iran Has History of Persecuting Minorities: Might This Change Now? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

So far, the US has counted on its position of domination in the Middle East. Its military bases dot the region and oil is still denominated in dollars. Money from this region has long flowed into American stock markets, startups, universities and foundations. In particular, the US-Saudi relationship has been special. This deal signals that this relationship has soured. China might just have seduced the Saudis from US arms.

The US-Saudi Back Story

Appropriately, the US-Saudi romance began on Valentine’s Day (February 14) in 1945. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt King Abdul Aziz Al Saud on the battleship USS Quincy and the rest is history. Since then, Americans have provided the Saudi royal family with protection in return for access to their oil.

The fabled US-Saudi romance has been fading in recent years. The US is now and the Middle Kingdom has Uncle Sam as the biggest importer of Saudi oil. It is only natural that the economic center of gravity for the Saudis has moved east. Note that Chinese President Xi Jinping in Saudi Arabia on a historic visit three months ago. For the Saudis, is now their “number one trade partner, a major tech supplier, a long-term energy customer, and a comprehensive strategic partner with a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council.” Both economically and geopolitically, Saudi Arabia no longer finds the US reliable.

Since 2018, a number of Americans have turned against Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) when his operatives allegedly killed journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018. To add insult to injury, this killing took place in the Saudi Arabian consulate in Istanbul, scandalizing international opinion. On his campaign trail, US President Joe Biden promised to make Saudi Arabia a “” state. This infuriated MBS. When Russian President Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine and sent oil prices skyrocketing, Biden humiliatingly ate his words and visited Saudi Arabia for a famous fist bump. MBS turned a deaf ear to the president’s requests to increase oil production. Instead, he cut production, much to Biden’s chagrin.

There were earlier pinpricks that irked MBS. He did not like Barack Obama’s 2016 Iran Deal—Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—or the president’s support for the so-called 2010 Arab Spring (it kicked off in December). For MBS, the US could no longer be relied upon to protect the House of Saud (meaning, he himself) any longer. As it would to many an absolute monarch or all-controlling autocrat, Biden’s also sounds dangerous to MBS’s ears.

The Saudi-Iran Back Story

Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shia Iran have a checkered past. They have both jockeyed for influence in the Islamic world. The Saudis are the custodian of the holy sites of Mecca and Medina. They have used their oil money to fund Wahhabi Islam around the world from Bosnia to Indonesia.  In contrast, Iran is a revolutionary power run by mullahs. They have won brownie points for standing up to imperial Uncle Sam and remained steadfast in their support of the Palestinian cause. Israel’s constant fist-shaking at Iran boosts their street cred among Muslims around the world.

As long as Iran was a monarchy, both Saudi Arabia and Iran were American allies. They exported oil to the West and made vast fortunes. In 1979, revolution erupted in Iran. Few remember that that same year gunmen took over the Grand Mosque at Mecca in Saudi Arabia, an event that has come to be known as “the siege of Mecca.” Several hundred armed —Arabs as well as American and Canadian converts—overpowered the guards, shut down the gates, took 100,000 hostage and proclaimed that the savior Mahdi had arrived to cleanse the Muslim world from the corruption of the West. Troops overpowered the jihadis but the specter of an Iran-style Islamic revolution has haunted the House of Saud since.

Saudi Arabia backed the Sunni-ruled Iraq under Saddam Hussein against Iran in their 1980-88 war. Relations remained tense until 1998. The reformist Mohammad Khatami became president.  Both countries signed a general cooperation agreement in 1998 and a security cooperation agreement in 2001.

Al Jazeera us that Saudi security chief Ali Shamkhani signed a significant agreement with Iran. In 2001, he was defense minister and played a major role in bringing Iran and Saudi Arabia closer. The Saudis awarded him “the Order of Abdulaziz medal, the highest award offered by the kingdom, in the early 2000s.”

In 2016, all these efforts were washed away. Saudi-Iran relations were already strained because of a that killed thousands. Then, the Saudis executed Ayatollah Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr, a towering Shia leader. Mobs attacked Saudi diplomatic missions. In response, Saudi Arabia broke off relations with Iran.

Note that Saudi-Iran interests clash in many theaters. Both countries have been at loggerheads in Yemen, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq for many years. There is also visceral mutual dislike. With its memory of an empire, Iran sneers at the Saudis as uncouth upstarts. With its suspicion of revolution, the Saudis see Iranian mullahs as scheming plotters. 

Economically, Saudi-Iran interests clash as well. Saudi oil giant Aramco a record profits of $161.1 billion for 2022. Iran has the world’s fourth-largest oil reserves but sanctions prevent it from selling on the global market. If sanctions ended, Iranian oil would depress prices and reduce earnings for Saudi Arabia. No Saudi leader would like that to happen, especially MBS.

Enter the Dragon

Yet heightened tensions are not in the interests of either country, so the Saudis and Iranians have made up for now. They are both increasingly aligned to China, which relies on its energy on the Persian Gulf. In case of any war, the US will be fine but Xi’s “ of steel” would rust quite quickly. With no energy resources, the Chinese military might simply not have the fuel to sustain a major war. Hence, China is keen to calm the waters in this part of the world.

Under Xi, China is keen to play a bigger role in the world. It sees the US-led postwar order as unjust and against its interests. Therefore, it has the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), the Global Development Initiative (GDI) and the Global Security Initiative (GSI). Unlike the US postwar order, Chinese ideas are inchoate. Beijing relies on cliches far too much but they are certainly playing the realpolitik game.

The Russia-Ukraine War has demonstrated that US interests are not aligned with either Saudi or Iranian interests. The Saudis want to keep the price of oil high and are nervous about Biden’s talk of democracy. The Iranians feel scorned after Donald Trump scuppered JCPOA and Biden’s lack of ability to reinstate it. They are supplying drones to the Russians and rumors persist that some of these flying machines are really made in China but smuggled through Iran. Both the Saudis and Iranians now need the Chinese, giving them leverage. Xi’s diplomats have exercised that leverage and emerged as the biggest winners from the Saudi-Iran deal. The US is still top dog by a long way, but there is a new dog in the Persian Gulf and it is likely to stay.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Why Saudi Arabia and Iran Are Making Out Now appeared first on 51�Թ�.

During these protests, some have chanted slogans in favor of the Pahlavi dynasty. Sadly, these protesters do not realize that both father Reza Shah and son Mohammad Reza Shah would have shot them dead or arrested and tortured if they were in power.

Why are Young People Protesting in Iran?

In our previous article, we analyzed Mohammad Mosaddegh and the golden age of Iranian democracy. For a 12-year spell from 1941 to 1953, Iran experienced freedom, reforms and the exercise of popular sovereignty. Mosaddegh cleaned up corruption and improved the economy. He invested in health, unemployment insurance and infrastructure. Mosaddegh also initiated programs to address women’s rights. However, this Iranian statesman is most noted for leading the nationalization of the oil industry.

The British Strike Back

The British had a monopoly over ��������’s oil since its discovery in 1908. Nationalization of the oil industry made Mosaddegh their worst enemy and British agents began working to oust him. They used every possible means to undermine his policies and question his competence. They resorted to disinformation, bribery, blackmail, murder and riots.

In June 1953, the British succeeded in winning over American support by painting Mosaddegh to be a socialist. By now, the US was about the spread of communism. The British also promised Americans a share of the oil. Nationalization was also a bad for other countries and went against the interests of American oil companies. The US was also disappointed that Mosaddegh did not show any in the formation of the Baghdad Pact, yet another anti-Soviet military alliance of the Cold War.

Hence, the US agreed with the British to launch “.” Its goal: remove Mosaddegh from power. Now, the CIA dispatched one of its stars to Tehran. This swashbuckler was and he worked with close coordination with MI6 for regime change in Iran. 

Together, the Americans and the British bribed politicians, military officers, government officials, warlords, and reporters. They also hired mobsters and hoodlums to pretend to be communists. These fake communists attacked people, broke into stores, torched buildings and used profanity as part of their shock and awe tactics to discredit Mosaddegh.

These tactics did not quite work. Mosaddegh remained wildly popular. When this Iranian statesman called for a referendum to dissolve the Majles (the Iranian parliament), he got of the vote. However, the British and the Americans were infiltrating many powerful interest groups in Iran. The plot against Mosaddegh was thickening. In August 1953, even as Mosaddegh remained popular, he was unaware that many of his , including some in his own party, were conspiring with the British and the Americans to oust him. 

Revolution Erupted in Iran Because of Mohammad Reza Shah

One Coup Fails but the Second Succeeds

On August 16, 1953, the Shah dismissed Mosaddegh. He appointed General Fazlollah Zahedi, a , as prime minister. Some close associates of the Shah have the view that this was unnecessary. Mosaddegh would have resigned had the Shah asked him to do so.

Zahedi and his cronies began arresting Mosaddegh’s top aides. Mosaddegh saw Zahedi’s appointment as a military coup and refused to step down. The prime minister summoned loyal military officers to his defense. They arrested the party Zahedi had sent to capture Mosaddegh.

The Shah fled the country and Zahedi took refuge with the CIA. The CIA-led, MI6 first attempt miserably failed. Mosaddegh felt so confident that he did not take the opportunity to to the nation about the coup. This turned out to be a historic blunder.

The CIA and MI6 did not give up. They carried on their anti-government activities and instigated violence in the streets. Fearing communist attacks, Iranians withdrew to their homes. After three days of rioting, Ayatollah Abul-Qasem Kashani reportedly Mosaddegh about a coup attempt to oust him.  Mosaddegh dismissed the warning with his aloof reply, “I am supported by the Iranian nation.”

The very next day, large crowds suddenly appeared in the streets in support of the Shah. On this historic day of August 19, 1953, Mosaddegh was caught unawares. The second coup attempt succeeded. Zahedi came out of hiding and arrested Mosaddegh. On hearing about Mosaddegh’s fall, the then British prime minister said that after a long time he finally slept well.

After the coup, Mosaddegh was put on as a traitor in a military court. Fearing popular reaction, Mosaddegh’s statements in his defense were all censored. Mosaddegh was sentenced to solitary confinement to begin with and then house arrest for the remainder of his life. At the age of 84, he died in 1967 while still in house arrest. 

In the , he said, “Yes, my sin – my greater sin – and even my greatest sin is that I nationalized ��������’s oil industry and discarded the system of political and economic exploitation by the world’s greatest empire…. This at the cost to myself, my ; and the risk of losing my life, my honor, and my property.” Then, he continued, “I am well aware that my fate must serve as an example in the future throughout the Middle East in breaking the chain of slavery and servitude to colonial interests.”

After the coup, the weak, narcissist and debauched Shah returned to Iran. From now on, he wielded absolute power. Tutored by US advisers, he became a cruel despot just like his father. He crushed all political movements. The opposition went underground, discontent simmered and eventually led to the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Personal Memories and Consequences of the Coup

One of the co-authors still remembers the day of the coup. He was with his father running errands in central Tehran. At midday, everything seemed peaceful. Suddenly, all hell broke loose. People appeared in trucks chanting, “Death to Mosaddegh, long live the Shah.” The co-author’s father instinctively cursed the British for engineering this ruckus. The very next day, Iranians such as the co-author’s father, friends and family knew that the CIA and MI6 had engineered the coup because Zahedi thanked the US for its support.

In the US and in Britain, the people did not realize the role the CIA and MI6 had played for years. They assumed that organic street protests led to Mosaddegh’s fall. One co-author has been in the US since 1965. He is married to an American. He has had numerous discussions with fellow Americans who resolutely believed that the US could never do as dastardly a deed as overthrow a democratically elected government through a coup.

The US mass media took the same line as uninformed American citizens. In 2003, The New York Times supported the Iraq War. In 1953, this venerable publication supported the coup against Mosaddegh. went further and claimed that “this was no military coup, but a spontaneous popular uprising.” 

In 2013, such claims were proved patently false. The CIA that it carried out the 1953 coup with the approval of the highest levels of the US government. The British have yet to issue a mea culpa but numerous retired MI6 and CIA officers have remarked to the other co-author that this coup turned out to be a historic blunder. These officers maintain that this 1953 coup had unintended consequences and led directly to the 1979 revolution.

It turns out that the coup was planned, coordinated and directed by Cyprus-based MI6 agent . The CIA’s Roosevelt merely executed Darbyshire’s plans. The 1953 coup was the CIA’s first exposure to covert operations that caused regime change. Since then, the has replicated it in numerous other countries.

The dissolute Shah rewarded the US generously for installing him on the throne. In October 1954, Iran signed the , giving the “US, British, and French oil companies” 40% ownership of its nationalized oil industry. The management of the consortium was led by American oil companies for 25 years and many consider it to be “the ever put together.”

Surprisingly, the took over the country in February 1979 about 7 months before the agreement was due to expire. In January 1979, one of the major concerns of the world leaders at the summit was the flow of oil from Iran as revolution erupted in the country. The US and Britain had profited handsomely from the 1953 coup and the 1979 revolution was an unnecessary headache.

Why MI6 and the CIA Succeeded

Given Mosaddegh’s popularity, a question recurs repeatedly: why did the coup succeed?

Mosaddegh was unlucky. The communist Tudeh Party was at least as powerful as Mosaddegh’s National Front. Tudeh could have come out on the streets to prevent the unrest and the coup. However, Joseph Stalin’s death in March 1953 left Tudeh in . Just as the Shah was the lackey of the West, the Tudeh Party was controlled directly by Stalin. With the Soviet strongman dead, Tudeh was rudderless and useless.

In addition to bad fortune, Mosaddegh himself was to blame. He was an idealist who could be exceedingly naïve when it came to realpolitik. Mosaddegh believed deeply in democracy but failed to realize that many of his enemies did not. When he was informed about legislators, officials and military officers plotting a coup, Mosaddegh’s reaction was to ask for proof. Naturally, such proof was hard to come, which lulled this venerable Iranian statesman into a false sense of complacency.

Mosaddegh’s championing of freedom of religion annoyed many conservatives. In particular, it strained relations with his most powerful religious and patriotic supporter . This support was crucial for Mosaddegh because Kashani commanded a powerful base that could have countered those plotting a coup. To make matters worse, Mosaddegh ignored Kashani’s warning a day before the coup.

Mosaddegh lost some of his secular supporters because they feared communism. Furthermore, some parliamentarians were upset with the prime minister for dissolving the Majles. A few switched sides and supported the coup.

Mosaddegh fatally did not seize the moment after the first coup. This attempt was reported on the radio but the prime minister did not give a public address disclosing all the facts. He did not summon the masses to his defense. Mosaddegh was a sick man during much of his premiership and, particularly, at the time of the coup. He had lost touch with the masses, key interest groups and many members of his own party. Mosaddegh also failed to realize that success today gives no guarantee of success tomorrow.

Mosaddegh was a touch too credulous in trusting the US. He expected Uncle Sam to be an honest broker between Iran and Britain. During his visit to the US, the then president Harry Truman arranged for Mosaddegh’s medical care. Relations between the US and Iran continued to be even when Dwight D. Eisenhower became president. 

As fear of communism rose in the US, Eisenhower turned against Iran. The sweet prospects of access to Iranian oil also facilitated this change of heart. Given the US stress on capitalism and securing oil for its energy-hungry economy, it was inevitable that Washington would look extremely unfavorably upon nationalization of the oil industry. Mosaddegh did not realize the stakes on the geopolitical chessboard and was unprepared to counter the foreign powers.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Scary CIA-MI6 Coup Destroyed Iran and Damaged the World appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The campaign grabbed the attention and endorsement of some Iranian celebrities and athletes like Ali Karimi but drew silence from well-known anti-regime Iranian diaspora activists Nazanin Boniadi, journalist and activist Masih Alinejad, actress Golshifteh Farahani and activist Hamed Esmaeilion.

However, many ethnic peoples and political representatives with other democratic forces in the opposition were alarmed by this unilateral and unseemly campaign. Many took to social media to reject Reza Pahlavi, and his supporter’s attempt to hijack the revolution and assume leadership. 

Revolution Erupted in Iran Because of Mohammad Reza Shah

In Balochistan, many protesters held stating, “No to Mullah and Shah, no IRGC terrorists, Yes to freedom.” Another well-known revolutionary slogan chanted on city streets across Iran is “Death to the oppressor, whether he is the shah or the supreme leader.” If Reza Pahlavi and his supporters truly cared about democracy and human rights, they surely could not have missed the voices of the people facing guns and bullets on the streets in Iran. 

show protesters chanting other common slogans that reject the objectives of the Pahlavi campaign like “no monarchy, no leader (supreme leader), democracy and equality.” Even more direct was a held up by protesters in Zahedan, Balochistan that reads, “Reza Pahlavi is not our representative, understand that we have our representatives.” 

It would be incorrect to say that Reza Pahlavi does not have supporters. Nevertheless, most Iranians do not want to sacrifice their lives in a revolution to overthrow the theocratic state of the ayatollahs only to have it replaced by the son of a previous dictator overthrown by a revolution in 1979. The Ayatollahs and Pahlavi have had decades to govern Iran but both have been impediments to democratic movements throughout ��������’s history. This among many other factors demonstrates the absurdity of the Pahlavi campaign.

Why the campaign does more harm than good

Anyone advocating for Reza Pahlavi’s leadership through this campaign is truly not in touch with reality and knows little about the law or how political processes work. The titled, “Prince Reza Pahlavi is my representative,” states, “Considering the revolution that is going on in Iran and considering that Reza Pahlavi asked the people of Iran to give him power of attorney to lead this movement.” There is no legal basis under domestic or international law to give someone such power. The entire premise of the campaign has no grounds in democratic processes or legal code. The campaign illustrates that Reza Pahlavi and his supporters are zealous to monopolize the revolution and secure power for themselves. 

The Dirty Secrets About How Reza Shah Destroyed Iran

Having the Shah’s son serve as interim leader in a transitional government if the revolution successfully overthrows the Islamic Republic sends the wrong signal to people inside and outside of Iran because the people do not want to go back to the days of the monarchy. They are also firmly against the theocratic system of the Ayatollahs. The people in Iran have learned from the last revolution that getting behind a self-declared messiah (Khomeini) may lead to another authoritarian system.

If Reza Pahlavi supports women’s rights then he should step aside and let a woman lead. If monarchists want to establish the monarchy on the backs of the women and men who have died or are being tortured and imprisoned in this globally recognized women’s revolution, then I propose that one of Pahlavi’s sisters campaign for leadership. It would be quite progressive but the Pahlavi monarchy is gender biased.   

Having a campaign for leadership at a time when the revolution has not succeeded in overthrowing the theocracy illustrates the immaturity of the prince and his supporters. They claim to be for democracy yet attempt to arbitrarily impose upon the people an exiled Pahlavi seeking to continue a family legacy of assimilation, forced homogenization, and authoritarianism under the guise of freedom and modernity. 

Reza Pahlavi is not a unifier but a divider

In a recent interview with Manoto TV, Reza Pahlavi makes it clear that he has no democratic solution for Iran’s multitude of problems nor does he propose any governing structure that can guarantee the rights of Kurds, Baloch, Azeri and Ahwazi Arabs. 

Why Do You Need to Know About Mohammad Mosaddegh?

The journalist asks Pahlavi about how he views the demand by ethnic groups in Iran who say that they are ready to be a part of the coalition and an exile government if Pahlavi and others recognize them as distinct nations in a multinational Iran. His response, applauded by his supporters, shocked many others.

Pahlavi responds, “Any democratic force that believes in democratic institutions and political transparency can be a part of the political coalition that we are demanding but they must believe that the territorial integrity of Iran is a red line. Anyone who does not believe in the unity of ��������’s territory cannot be a part of the political coalition and this is our clear message for all parties.”

His dismissal of the rights of such nations as mere demands of separatism and a threat to Iran’s territorial integrity indicates that he does not believe in democracy. He seeks to hijack the Jina Revolution like Khomeini did with the 1979 Revolution and impose homogenization and assimilation much like the Islamic republic has been doing and his father before them. 

Despite living in the West and having connections with many western governments, he has done little to investigate the power-sharing institutions and principles that maintain social and political cohesion in democratic countries that could serve as plausible solutions to the demands of the different nations in Iran. He resorts to the Khomenian tactics of appealing to fears and accusations instead of diplomacy and cooperation.

Is the separatist label fact or fiction? 

In his recent Manoto TV Pahlavi goes on to say, “Tell me what Iranian would want his country to be divided into pieces? Those who talk about separatism need to know that the chants inside Iran are nationalistic and not local or specific to any ethnic or religious group. The people want one Iran.”

None of what Reza Pahlavi says is true or helps to unite the diverse peoples who inhabit Iran. When Jina Amini died, the revolution for women, life, and freedom began in Kurdistan in her hometown and spread all over Iran. The Islamic Republic of Iran blamed the Kurds, bombed Kurdish opposition parties across the border in the KRG and even came out with statements accusing the Kurds of orchestrating the revolution with the help of Israel. This is because the revolution sparked by the death of a Kurdish girl in a Kurdish town and by a Kurdish slogan started in Kurdistan before spreading to the rest of Iran. 

What the people want in Iran is freedom but that means different things to different people. This is a fact that Pahlavi and other Iranian leaders have not thought about or perhaps have chosen to ignore in favor of a more absolutist governing structure that fundamentally changes little for non-Persian nations or the establishment of a working democracy in Iran.

In the 1940s, Qazi Muhammad, president of the Kurdistan Republic, made efforts to peacefully resolve the Kurdish question through the establishment of pluralistic and democratic Iran. With the help of the Brits and Americans, the last Shah of Iran hanged Qazi for establishing an autonomous Kurdistan government and advocating for democracy in Iran. 

In the 1980s, the Kurdish leader Abdul Rehman, who once said that “we will not allow anyone to claim that they are more Iranian than us Kurds,” and who made famous the slogan: Democracy for Iran, Autonomy for Kurdistan, was assassinated in Vienna by regime agents while negotiating with the Iranian state. 

Similarly, his successor Dr. Sadiq Sharafkandi was assassinated in Mykonos while meeting with Iranian opposition leaders to unify opposition against the Islamic Republic. The Islamic Republic of Iran justifies the murder of the Kurdish leaders with the same argument that Reza Pahlavi makes, that they were separatists or a threat to the territorial integrity of Iran. 

In addition, The of Nationalities for a Federal Iran have articulated similar demands. The of Nationalities for a Federal Iran which is an alliance of political parties and advocacy groups campaigning to replace the current Islamist government system in Iran with a secular, democratic, federal government has also rejected these allegations of separatism. 

None of these nations demand independence or separation from Iran, yet, monarchists like Pahlavi and the Islamic Republic both continue this rhetoric of separatism and territorial integrity because they do not want to share power and build a tolerant and pluralistic democracy in Iran that recognizes the fundamental rights of all nations in Iran. 

It has been 72 years since the establishment of the Iranian nation-state. The Kurds and others continue to struggle for their rights as nations yet Iranian leaders like Reza Pahlavi and the Ayatollahs continue to label them as threats to territorial integrity. 

The separatism accusation illustrates that Iranian leaders in the monarchist and Islamist camps continue to hold outdated views about demands for self-determination and democracy that make them unfit to lead Iran.

If Iran fragments into separate states like the former Yugoslavia did in the 1990s, It will not be because the non-Persian nations did not try to resolve their issues peacefully and democratically. It will be because the Iranian state forced upon the various peoples a policy of assimilation and homogenization to erase the identity of marginalized nations in Iran.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Iran: Theocracy Must Make Way for Democracy, Not Dynasty appeared first on 51�Թ�.

1. The 1979 Revolution – Islamic or Popular?

One common misconception is that the1979 was simply an Islamic one. In reality, the revolution was as much a popular one as it was Islamic. It involved a broad spectrum of groups and interests, some of whom were previously in conflict, now sharing a keen desire for radical change – Islamists, intellectuals, socialists, Marxists, nationalists, democrats, bazaaris, workers, technocrats, students.

Why Do You Need to Know About Mohammad Mosaddegh?

In addition to ending the corruption of the Shah’s era, many of the protesters were expecting the formation of a secular parliamentary democracy with pluralistic representation, and an end to US domination. Certainly, it was the Islamic Revolutionary Party, led by Ayatollah Khomeini after his return from exile in February 1979, which eventually took control as the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI). However, they achieved this only after ruthlessly removing during 1979 and 1980 all other political parties deemed as threats. Popular hopes and expectations for democracy and an end to corruption were soon to be dashed. Professor Ali Ansari (,) provides details.

2. Female Emancipation – Non-Existent?

Females have taken a prominent role in the anti-regime movement that took off in September 2022. On the streets, they chant: “Zahn, Zendeghi, Azadi” (or in Kurdish, “Jin, Zen, Azadi”) – Woman, Life, Freedom. 

Glaring and hard-to-defend gender do exist. Nevertheless, women surprisingly possess a level of human rights and equality far greater than in many countries of the region.

An industrialized oil economy for over a century, ��������’s population has a strong work ethic. Women go out to work and occupy many posts at all levels in government, the majlis (parliament), financial institutions, public services, and companies. Across ��������’s 236 universities,female student numbers are equal to males. Women have had the vote since before the IRI was formed. They drive cars without restriction.

Revolution Erupted in Iran Because of Mohammad Reza Shah

So, what has provoked the recent explosion of anger among Iranian women and girls? At one level, it is the daily exposure to petty and banal indignities arising from the authoritarian edicts of the IRI leadership. These edicts are enforced down to every level of society by a hierarchy of loyal apparatchiks, typically the ‘Morality Police’, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) (also known as Sepah Pasdaran), and the lower level baseeji enforcers.

For example, the highly restrictive IRI dress code forbids women and girls to wear clothing in public that does not fully cover their body, arms, and legs; they must wear a hejab or scarf to cover their head; and they must not wear ‘excessive’ make-up, sunglasses or ‘ostentatious’ jewelry.

Other restrictions, affecting both women and men, limit freedom of expression in the arts, journalism, and social media, among others.  There is no press freedom. Any active support for any political parties that have not been approved by the IRI regime is also forbidden. Many individuals have been jailed or have gone into exile for transgressions. Many others have simply emigrated.

Female resentment, frustration, and anger against all such overbearing, intrusive, and patronizing micro-management have been bubbling for years. Women have become emboldened to demonstrate against what they perceive as state repression led by a bunch of finger-wagging, po-faced, grisly old men (boz-ha-ye pir or ‘old goats’). These leaders are seen as authoritarian misogynist hypocrites masquerading as benign paragons of pious rectitude.

Such a context was a slow-burning fuse looking for an accelerant, an accident waiting to happen. One was supplied in September 2022 by the death in custody of a young female protester,, under suspicious circumstances, as detailed in a later section.

The Dirty Secrets About How Reza Shah Destroyed Iran

3. Iranians Hate the West – Or Do They?

Over the past 40 years, TV news clips exist of street crowds in Tehran chanting in unison ‘marg bar Amrika’ (death to America) and ‘marg bar Shetan-e Bozorg’ (death to the Great Satan i.e. the USA), and the burning of American and British flags, which has created an impression that the people hate the West. However, this venting by small groups of faithful supporters of the IRI bears no relation to the views of the mass population of over 86 million.

The author has personally observed in Iran that there continues to be no evidence of any popular hatred in Iran towards either the British or the American people. Iranians like and admire many aspects of the West. Many Iranians value a Western higher education and even pursue professional and business careers in the West. Even thechildren of the leadership and its elite supporters do this on a grand scale. Anti-regime protesters have accused them of flagrant self-righteous hypocrisy by allowing their children to flout dress codes and live excessively self-indulgent lifestyles incountries that the IRI publicly .

Protests have rocked Iran continuously since last year and have spread through many cities. Thousands have taken to the streets. For once, the regime has appeared to backtrack slightly. In December, ��������’s attorney general said that the country had the morality police and was even considering changing its repressive hejab law for women. However, the protesters dismissed this move as cosmetic cynicism, since the IRGC and other forces are still enforcing the hejab law  The question arises: what has triggered such an extraordinary popular upheaval?

Why are Young People Protesting in Iran?

Corruption and Plunder 

Most Iranians old enough to remember the 1979 revolution have shown an ‘adapt and survive’ stoicism, a reluctance to see Iran embroiled once again in internal violence. They learned how to play the system so as to avoid being ensnared by the IRI’s repressive micro-management diktats. Indeed, a significant number simply pretended to support the IRI regime, as a cynical means to obtain favored status, privileges, access to political elites, insider commercial intelligence, and award of government contracts. 

The past 40-odd years have seen a new elite of mega-wealthy , who enjoy a luxurious existence in their palatial houses in the exclusive Niavaran, Elahiyeh, and Tajrish districts of north Tehran, alongside many IRI leaders and elite functionaries and supporters.

The personal finances of the IRI leaders, and the senior commanders of their IRGC ‘security organization’, are not made public, although research suggests that may have amassed a US$ 200 billionpersonal . Nonetheless, in the imaginations of ordinary Iranians, the country is run by , who have plundered the country’s oil revenues and other public assets for their own benefit. Their lifestyle, visible assets, and suspected millions in offshore accounts have shaped an image of duplicity and greed among the elite. 

The Iran Nuclear Deal is Dead: R.I.P. JCPOA?

Allegedly the, originally established as an elite internal national security body, has also evolved into a de facto organized crime group authorized by Ayatollah Khamenei. The IRGC has been allowed tooperate with minimal . With little impunity, the IRGC can exercise brutality against protesters, dissidents andanyone deemed to the IRI status quo as well as opportunistic abuse of state-funded activities (e.g. the bonyad charities; numerous infrastructure contractors) for personal gain. They also allegedly masterminddrug . Whatever the reality, the mass population believes the allegations.

Poverty, Neglect and Incompetence

Short periods of noisy but usually non-violent public unrest in Iran have occurred sporadically over thepast . Typically, they have had specific economic causes, such as the removal of cost-of-living subsidies or fuel price subsidies, or massive overnight price-rises for staple foodstuffs. By 2017, some street protests became violent. While disorganized and uncoordinated, these protests for the first time involved overwhelmingly working-class people who, until then, were core supporters of the regime. Open calls for regime change were made. Further street protests and strikes by bazaari shopkeepers (traditionally IRI regime supporters) occurred in June and July 2018, against austerity, water shortages, and the near collapse of the currency.

On top of a national trend of increasing anger with day-to-day hardships, regional unrest has also risen. This has resulted from decades of neglect by the central authorities in Tehran. Two provinces remote from Tehran are especially affected: oil-rich Khuzestan, on the southwest border with Iraq, and Sistan-Baluchistan, on the southeast border with Pakistan.

Derecognize Mullahs, Forge New Government in Exile for Iran

In addition to producing more than 80% of ��������’s oil, Khuzestan sustained much damage, privation, and loss of life during the Iran-Iraq War. The port city of Khorramshahr in particular bore the brunt of 8 years of vicious close-quarters fighting and came to symbolize for Iranians the nation’s heroic struggle against foreign aggression and impossible odds. Yet, despite national recognition of such huge sacrifices, Khuzestan has been sorely neglected. While Tehran has thrived, expanded, and modernized, little has been done to regenerate cities such as Khorramshahr. shortages and power cuts add to the misery of unemployment, poverty, and decay, contrasted with the affluent elitist environment of Tehran. Little wonder that noisy, and increasingly violent, sporadic public protests against the authorities in cities since 2018 became more sustained in 2022, and have been typically suppressed by armed IRGC forces.

Sistan-Baluchistan has also suffered from the ‘out of sight, out of mind’ neglect by the IRI authorities in Tehran. In addition, the neglect has aggravated a grumbling grievance over alleged discrimination by the Shia Muslim IRI regime against the local Baluchi population. The Baluchi’s are predominantly Sunni Muslims, among whom a separatist movement has emerged.

The western Iranian province of Kurdistan is also a focus of regional unrest, although centered more on and ethno-suppression by the IRI than economic and infrastructure neglect or religious discrimination.

Brutality of State Enforcers

The major provocation that ignited the current uprising occurred on September 16, 2022, when a young hejab protester Mahsa Amini, visiting Tehran from her hometown of Saqqez in Kurdistan Province, was arrested by police for not wearing her hejab ‘correctly’ during a street protest. A short time after, police alleged that she collapsed. She was taken to hospital where she was pronounced dead. A���ǰ��DzԱ��’s concluded she died of natural causes related to a childhood illness, but her family and mass protesters insist that she was beaten by police. 

Whatever the truth, public anger against the regime boiled over, with mass protests in Kurdistan province. When these were put down brutally by the IRGC, street protests rapidly spread across Iran. By late November, over 150 cities and towns were involved in demonstrations. Unprecedented mass chants of ‘death to Khamenei’ and ‘death to the dictator’ continue to echo across the nation.

Why Does the Islamic Republic of Iran Fear its Kurdish Population?

The regime further inflamed matters by instructing the IRGC, baseeji, and local police to applyincreasing. Four days after Mahsa’s death in custody, a 16-year-old protester was found dead on a building site after detention by police. The police claimed that she had been released unharmed and they had no knowledge of her death. Other young protesters killed by regime forces included Sarina Esmailzadeh, aged 16, and Hadis Najafi, aged 22. An increasing number of detained female protesters, and even males, have reportedrape and sexual at the hands of law enforcement and prison officials. According to the UN, by late November at least 400 protesters including a number of children had been killed by state forces. Over 15,000 had been arrested, and an increasing number were being tried, and convicted, sentenced to , and .

Public protest in Iran has now escalated to incandescent levels of rage. A quantum leap has occurred, involving unrestrained violence against any and all symbols of the regime. Smartphone video clips spread like wildfire on social media of armed police, baseeji, and IRGC personnel being attacked by unarmed mobs on a daily basis across the country. Unconfirmed reports suggest that at least four IRGC colonels have been killed so far in separate incidents. When a seminary for trainee mullahs was attacked by an enraged mob, terrified students were filmed being beaten and stripped of their robes and turbans.

The savagery and amoral conduct of the regime’s forces,  on by an unrepentant Ayatollah Khamenei, President Raisi, and other IRI leaders (e.g. Chief Justice Gholam-Mohseni Eje’i, his adviser Hossein Ali Nayyeri, Prosecutor General Mohammad Jafar Montazeri, and IRGC Commander-in-Chief Major General Hossein Salami), has provoked a new resolve among protesters to match their level of violence. 

The failure of IRI leaders to stop the sexual abuse of detained protesters, including children, or even to publicly condemn it, is now taken as a clear sign that the regime is using rape as a terror weapon against its citizens. Since the regime has remained silent on such accusations and has failed to arrest and prosecute the state’s agents involved,  it is likely that all the IRI leaders and their subordinates down to the local perpetrators would be prosecuted for these offenses by an incoming regime.

Police officers, baseeji, IRGC, and prison officers are likely to be targeted by enraged citizens, and this may well be extended to judges, the judiciary, and court officials if harsh sentences are meted out to accused protesters. High on the vengeance list will be Mohammad Mehdi Haj Mohammadi, head of the national prisons service, Gholamreza Ziaei, Director of the notorious Evin prison, and Hedayat Farzadi, Chief Warden of Evin prison. In the escalating cycle of violence, representatives of the state, their families, and property, are unlikely to receive mercy from vengeful mobs.

New Proto-Revolutionary Signs

The decades of overbearing, misogynistic IRI rule, plus the general corruption orchestrated and nurtured by the regime against the mass population, as well as hyperinflation, perpetually falling standard of living, high unemployment, US and UN sanctions, have together built up into a nationwide coalescence of different protesting sectors of society. For every protestor, there is one common enemy: the IRI regime. This coalescence mirrors that of the 1979 revolutionary build-up.

The public mood has changed strikingly in recent years. A poll by Pew Research in indicated that more than 80% of the population wanted to retain an Islamic state in some form. By, polls showed that a similar proportion now want the opposite, a secular or non-religious state. This clearly indicates that the IRI had lost its moral authority and public trust. The current unrest reflects that mood change, but how does it differ from previous unrest?

The new characteristics include:

Unprecedented perseverance, severity, scale, and geographical spread of public protests: As of  January 24, 2023, protests have lasted 130 days without a break and spread to over 150 cities and towns across all provinces, with crowd numbers ranging from tens to thousands.

Populist character, involving males and females of all sectors and age groups, including schoolchildren and bazaari support. High-profile Iranians (e.g. former President, Ayatollah���󲹳���Ա�’s , TV personalities, film stars, sports champions) publicly backing the protesters. Sympathy strikes across many sectors (e.g. higher education and schools, oil & gas, petrochemicals, bazaaris and shopkeepers, and manufacturing). An effective 3-day national retail strike occurred in early December.

Demand for regime change. The spectrum of grievances has coalesced into a single overall demand that the IRI regime must go. Nothing less will do. Negotiation and compromise are no longer possible, especially given the regime’s increasingly murderous crackdown.

Lack of fear among protesters, especially the young and females, despite a high risk of injury, imprisonment, or death. Despite the lack of firearms or other weapons among protesters, they exhibit few qualms or reluctance to resist the regime’s armed enforcers.

Protesters use the internet and social media as communication and propaganda weapons against the regime, despite its attempts to block access or interfere with such use. Internet-savvy protesters are switching to VPN (virtual private networks) to thwart regime interference. Protesters have totally won a global and social media war against the regime, as well as public and political opinion globally including official UN position statements.

Violence against the regime’s suppression forces, and a preparedness of protesters to match or exceed their level of violence. Pitched battles by unarmed protesters against armed state agents. Protestors with a preparedness to kill are targeting more senior regime individuals. Attacking and taking over government offices and. Tearing down of IRI signs, notices, and displays.

Police siding with protesters. In Orumiyeh, videos show police fraternizing with protesters. Although such instances are limited in number so far, many officers are unhappy with the crackdown and moral pressure from their own families to disavow the regime. They are also exhausted by months of trying to quell street confrontations.

Armed resistance, but on a small scale. Public access to firearms in Iran is limited by strict gun control. However, after the Mahsa Amini killing, someIranian are now reportedly receiving arms and military training across the border in north-east Iraq. Elsewhere, the potential for protesters to steal or capture weaponry from local regime sources may become more salient.

Hindrances to a New Revolution

Despite the sustained eruption of Iranian public anger and bravery against the incumbent regime and a highly sympathetic global reaction, serious hindrances exist for those citizens aiming for a quick victory. These include:

No identifiable national leadership among protesters. Few credible national leaders inside Iran have emerged. One potential leader, Molavi Abdolhamid, a leading Sunni cleric from Sistan-Baluchistan, is a popular reformist moderate in the IRI regime. Since September 2022 and the brutal IRGC crackdown, he has openly backed radical change, including an internationally-monitored national referendum on whether the regime should be retained or not, and called for regime agents who have sexually abused protesters to be prosecuted.

Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, exiled eldest son of the last Shah, may desire a return of the monarchy, but there is little enthusiasm inside Iran, especially among all those born since the mid-1970s. Another putative leader in exile is Hamed Ismaeilion in Canada, whose wife and child were killed in 2020 when the IRGC shot down (apparently in error) a civilian airliner leaving Tehran.  Although a charismatic orator, he has neither political nor state administrative experience.

Ansari (2022) suggests that potential are many but remain hidden, awaiting pivotal cues before emerging publicly.

No identifiable organization to organize protests. Thus far, street protests have been largely local spontaneous outbursts of anger and rage. They have lacked any ostensible plan, organization, and objectives. These emotionally-driven ad hoc reactions and lack of discipline and focus render the protesters vulnerable to the dispersal and suppression tactics of the IRGC and baseeji.

No identifiable regime replacement or “government in waiting,” an extension of a lack so far of national leaders among protesters. To avoid economic and social chaos, an industrialized nation of 86 million people requires a credible and competent government continuously, with no lengthy hiatus during transfer of power.

Unequal firepower. Protesters lack (a) firearms, heavy weapons, ammunition, vehicles and other logistical supplies and (b) military training. Both are needed for effectively combating well-resourced and armed IRI forces.

Unequal finances. Whereas the regime has almost limitless finances, the disorganized protesters have very little and so are unable to create and sustain a credible national organization or to acquire weaponry or training.

Nevertheless, the momentum of the demand for regime change now appears unstoppable. Whether the regime’s survival capacity degrades fast or slowly, may depend on many volatile factors on the ground. Strikes, including a successful 3-day national retail strike in early December, have received wide sympathy among workers but frequently they are too poor to sustain even a temporary loss of income or too scared of losing their job. Unconfirmed reports suggest that state-owned companies are with wage increases and other incentives to deter them from supporting regime-change strikes.

Another pivotal factor is the position and attitude of ��������’s regular armed forces (Artesh). Thus far, they have not been deployed to crush the protesters. However, they harbor a long-standing mistrust and resentment towards the IRGC and its baseeji enforcers on three main counts: (1) although the IRGC reports directly to Khamenei, it has become a de facto independent force only weakly controlled by him while also being independent of the professional regular armed forces, (2) the IRGC enjoys disproportionately high state to fund weaponry and resources far beyond that of the regular armed forces, a source of deep Artesh resentment, (3) Artesh officers are reportedly contemptuous of the lax morality, organized criminal activity, and thuggish conduct of the IRGC and baseeji – observers have noted a parallel with the Wehrmacht’s contempt for Hitler’s SS.

For Khamenei and Raisi to deploy Artesh units to quell or crush the protests runs a heightened risk. Disgruntled units might refuse or even join the protesters against the IRGC, thereby potentially accelerating the IRI’s downfall. This fear may explain why, thus far, the regime has declined to deploy regular forces.

Potential Prognosis

Having recklessly brought their regime to the brink of disaster, what happens next? Iran has long proven to be very unpredictable. However, it is reasonable to posit a number of rough potential scenarios, for example:

Scenario 1: Protests subside over the next few weeks.

The increasingly brutal crackdown by the regime finally subdues the nationwide protests, as the protesters grow exhausted and terrified of dire consequences for them if they continue. Thus far, after some four months, there is scant evidence that the protesters are weakening. Estimated probability: (1=certainty; 0=impossibility): 0.2.

Scenario 2: Protests perpetuate but no early outright victory.

The protests continue unabated and even escalate in frequency, scale, spread, and ferocity. This projection becomes more likely the more that the protesters are supported by public figures and by multiple sector workers inside Iran, as well as globally by the media, governments, public protests, and UN bodies. Deployed IRI forces may be increasingly exhausted and unnerved and only barely managing to ‘hold the line’. Estimated probability: (1=certainty; 0=impossibility): 0.7.

Scenario 3: Protesters win outright victory within months, either by IRI capitulation or by elimination.

The protests escalate in frequency, scale, and ferocity, supported by a mass popular uprising and the emergence of a national leadership. Protesters with firearms appear on the streets, and some exhibit organization and military training. Protesters take over provincial government offices and utilities and take IRI officials prisoner. The regime’s repression agents are outnumbered, exhausted, and increasingly terrified of savage retribution by enraged citizens. Some refuse orders or even join the protesters, and the regular armed forces refuse to impose martial law. Without protection, the IRI regime is forced to quit. While a negotiated transfer of power to an interim government is plausible, it is unlikely the IRI Supreme Leader and fellow zealots (the akhundha-ye bozorg or ‘big hats’) could stomach such humiliation. They would also be at high risk of vengeful attacks and assassination, not to mention criminal charges. Therefore, fleeing the country would be their likely choice. Estimated probability (1=certainty; 0=impossibility): 0.5.

In a hybrid scenario, Scenario 3 evolves into Scenario 4, but at this stage whether, or how fast, that might occur is impossible to judge. If this scenario unfolds, by then the estimated probability of regime collapse rises to 0.8.

The regime’s fear of losing both legitimacy and control of law and order should not be underestimated, given that savage retribution by aggrieved citizens is highly likely. Moreover, an incoming regime is likely to prosecute many of the IRI regime (who escape mob justice) for waging war on its own citizens, crimes against humanity, destruction of property, and not to mentionwholesale of state finances and assets for their own personal gain.

With such a horrifying prospect, an early sign that the IRI regime may be on the skids are reports of oligarchs, IRGC senior officers, and IRI ‘big hats’ organizing their exile early rather than risk getting caught. appears to be their popular choice. A further sign will be the sudden unexplained absence of prominent individuals from public life. Apart from Venezuela, there are few countries that would be willing to offer sanctuary to such pariahs. Even in Venezuela, where may be hired cheaply, their safety may be illusory.

The IRI regime’s leaders and nomenklatura have finally lost any claim to legitimacy and moral authority. Thus far, they have managed to cling to power through ruthless repression. However, the legendary stoicism of the Iranian people has evaporated. Nothing less than regime change and secular governance will now be acceptable. It is no longer whether but when this transition occurs. The regime could have heeded public dissatisfaction with its governance, and chosen to moderate its authoritarian excesses. Instead,  they have brought about their own likely demise.

A final caveat. Although desperate for secular democracy, and having an admiration for many things Western, the mass population will not welcome a return to foreign, particularly US, domination of their government, economy, and oil, as in the Shah’s era. A new realpolitik between the West and Iran would be essential.[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Will Popular Protests Destroy Iran’s Islamic Regime? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

In March 2021, the Kamal Khan Dam finally after years of setback on the lower Helmand. Naturally, it was met with animus in Iran. In 1973, the two signed the . The agreement guaranteed Iran with a monthly allocation of water from the river. But Tehran insists that its neighbor has consistently failed to hold its end of the deal.

According to Kabul, the dam was built to solve many of the region’s vast infrastructural and agricultural challenges, such as providing in the Nimruz Province with a steady supply of water and electricity. However, Tehran has attempted to halt its construction for years, maintaining that it would interrupt the water supply that feeds the Hamoun wetlands. 

The Destiny of Pakistan’s Totalitarian Proxy Regime in Afghanistan

At the inauguration, former President Ashraf Gani , “Afghanistan would no longer give free water to anyone, so Iran should provide fuel to Afghans in exchange for water.” Not long after, the country came under the control of the Taliban. 

In late , Iran’s Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian warned his counterpart, Afghanistan’s Amir Khan Muttaqi, that prohibiting Tehran from its rightful access to the Helmand River will only cause further strain to an already splintered relationship. President Ebrahim Raisi, too, urged serious action. 

This article will attempt to address the following question: Is Afghanistan legally permitted to divert the natural course of the Helmand River? Before we begin, let’s underscore the key elements of this bilateral accord.

An Overview of the Helmand River Treaty

According to the Helmand River Treaty of 1973, Afghanistan must deliver water from the Helmand River to Iran at a rate of 22 cubic meters per second per annum (normal water year) with an additional four cubic meters per second for “goodwill and brotherly relations.” This would supply Iran with an annual average of 556,000 acre-feet or 820 million cubic meters under normal conditions. 

But although the treaty guarantees ��������’s access to the Helmand River, Article V gives Afghanistan full rights to the remaining water supply. Article V begins by stipulating ��������’s rightful allocation as specified in the previous articles. However, it continues by stating that Afghanistan, “shall retain all rights to the balance of the water of the Helmand River and may make such use or disposition of the water as it chooses.” 

Afghanistan Is Losing Faith in the Taliban

The final paragraph of the article emphasizes that Iran is only entitled to the specified amount of water agreed upon, irrespective if  “additional amounts of water may be available” and “be put to beneficial use.” 

Thus, Afghanistan unequivocally has unilateral rights over the remaining water supply of the Helmand River. This means that it has the power to implement agricultural, hydroelectric, and reservoir projects as it sees fit. 

Afghanistan’s sole responsibility is not to pollute the water or take any action that will deprive Iran of its water right entirely or partially. Article V must be read along with Article II (Iran water rights), III (monthly distribution), and IV (i.e., climate change). An argument based on the first paragraph of Article V without considering the context of the treaty and its other provisions will end in unreasonable conclusions.

No Harm, No Foul

That the Helmand River Treaty permits Afghanistan the right to pursue developmental projects over the remaining waters is incontrovertible. However, the question remains whether the development of dams or canals is permissible under customary international law. 

Under the Taliban, Afghanistan’s Madrassas Increase and Harbor Terrorists

The Helmand River is considered to be an international or transboundary watercourse. The two neighbors are therefore legally obligated to share the river’s waters. The principle of equitable and reasonable utilization and the no-harm rule is regarded as the cornerstones of international water law and were included in the UN Watercourse Convention in . 

According to the principle of equitable and reasonable utilization, all states are obligated to “use an international watercourse in a manner that is equitable and reasonable vis-a-vis other states sharing the watercourse.” The no-harm requires states not to cause significant harm to other states. More precisely, “ countries should not use their territorial waters in ways that cause damage and undesirable impact to downstream co-riparian countries.”

Indeed, states have an equal right to an equitable share of a shared river. But the term “equitable” must not be confused with “equal.” Every state has the right to use water equitably but is not entitled to an equal share of the water. Therefore, under customary international law, it is permissible for Afghanistan to develop projects on the Helmand River, so long as they do not cause significant environmental damage to its neighbor. 

It should be stated that without clearly understanding the principle of equitable and reasonable utilization, any activity will be deemed a violation. Such astrict is neither supported by state practice nor by case law.

Appeal to the UN to Protect Hazaras in Afghanistan

To conclude, neither the Helmand River Treaty nor customary international law denies Afghanistan the right to construct Kamal Khan Dam. It is not a violation of the two aforementioned components of international law. Instead, the Helmand river treaty gives Afghanistan an absolute right to use the remaining water of the Helmand River as it chooses.

What Needs to be Done?

Clearly, the passage of the Helmand River Treaty in 1973, has not led to any peaceful resolution between Iran and Afghanistan. The terms of the agreement have repeatedly been violated, according to Tehran. But Kabul has always insisted that these claims are baseless. 

Iran has complained before that the proper allocation of water was not delivered to them. But these complaints were made at a time when the Helmand River Basin was under drought which severely reduced the river’s water flow. Nonetheless, this must be addressed.

Before, the construction of Kamal Khan Dam, Iran wasn’t ready at all to build these three joint hydrometric stations. It was only agreed upon in the 21st meeting of commissioners (October 2019) when Afghanistan was about to inaugurate Kamal Khan Dam. Kamal Khan Dam is a regulatory dam that diverts/regulate the water of the Helmand river. Before the construction of the Kamal Khan Dam, the water of the Helmand river was flowing to Iran uninterrupted.

To solve this impasse, Afghanistan and Iran must: jointly determine places of delivery and construct joint hydrometric stations as defined under Article III of the treaty. Joint hydrometric stations will settle the issue of the amount of water that is required to be delivered to Iran. Each issue has been addressed by the Helmand River Commissioners who’ve convened at least twenty-five times in the past 20 years. 

Iran has always been against the building of joint hydrometric stations. The reason is that Iran had been receiving more water during normal and above-normal water years. The construction of joint hydrometric stations would regulate their water share more strictly.

An agreement was reached to build joint hydrometric stations in the 21st meeting of the Joint Committee of Commissioners of Helmand River. However, it remains only on paper. Similarly, in August 2022, Afghanistan and Iran again agreed to a timeline for the construction of joint hydrometric stations. But experience shows that it will take years to complete.

In the meantime, Iran should stop digging wells and installing heavy-duty water pumps along the river. Iran has expanded its irrigation and installed pumps through which it diverts 26 million cubic water annually to Zahedan. Such projects will only increase Iran’s water demand. Furthermore, Afghanistan should register the Gowd-e-Zera lake as an international wetland as it is considered to be a part of the Hamouns. [Naveed Ahsan edited this article.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Iran-Afghanistan Tensions Now Rising Over Water appeared first on 51�Թ�.

From 1941 to 1953, Iran experienced a golden period of freedom. During this era, seven political parties emerged in the Iranian parliament Majles. Mohammad Mosaddegh emerged as the most important leader during this period. He became prime minister in 1951 and initiated significant reforms.

The Dirty Secrets About How Reza Shah Destroyed Iran

Before 1941, Reza Shah ruled Iran with an iron hand. If people dared to protest, they were shot on the spot or tortured to death or whisked away to a brutal prison. From 1941 to 1953, free speech, democracy and rule of law emerged in Iran. Mosaddegh was a key figure in democratizing Iran. 

The Brief Story of Iranian Democracy

Educated in France and Switzerland, Mosaddegh came from a patrician family. However, he was a reformer who believed in democracy. In 1925, Mosaddegh voted against Reza Khan taking over as the Shah. Once in power as Reza Shah, the monarch exiled him from public office. With Reza Shah out of power in 1941, Mosaddegh emerged from the shadows to play a key role in Iranian history.

In 1944, Mosaddegh was re-elected to the Iranian parliament, the Majles. As a patriot, he wanted a strong Iran. Mosaddegh aimed to build an Iran with rule of law, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, parliamentary democracy and a strong economy. Above all, this Iranian leader opposed foreign interference in the internal affairs of Iran. In particular, he did not want the British to exploit Iranian oil for London’s imperial benefit. He was also against concessions to the Soviets in northern Iran.

Mohammad Reza, the new Shah, and ��������’s comprador elite were beholden to the British for their hold on power. So, they did not take kindly to the rise of Mosaddegh. This corrupt and absolutist elite was also against democracy because they would have lost power. They tried the age old trick of rigging elections.

As a result, protests erupted in 1949. People came out into the streets to rally against voter fraud. led a group of delegates to the Shah’s to protest the “lack of free elections.” That forced Mohammad Reza to promise “fair and honest” elections. Mosaddegh and some other leaders founded a party named Jebhe Melli, which literally translates to , to contest the elections.

Once the Majles convened after the elections, Mossadegh emerged as the most powerful parliamentarian. As leader of Jebhe Melli, Mossadegh pushed for major reforms. The Majles approved a development plan with agricultural and industrial reforms. The plan required financing, which was only possible through oil revenues. Sadly for Iran, most of these revenues were going to Britain.

Oil Catches Fire

Unsurprisingly, oil revenues were a hot button issue in the 1949 elections. Once the Majles assembled, many of its members were duty bound to renegotiate the patently unfair agreement imperial Britain had forced a subservient Iran to conclude. In the words of the fictional character Michael Corleone, made famous by the 1972 movie The Godfather, the British had made the Iranians an offer they couldn’t refuse. Led by Mosaddegh, Iranians now mustered the gumption to reject that British offer.

promised to end the British control of ��������’s oil industry. He demanded renegotiation with the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), the British oil giant now known as BP. Note that the AIOC was supposed to pay a mere 17.5% of oil revenues to Iran. In contrast, its American counterpart was paying Saudi Arabia of oil revenues in 1950. To rub salt in Iranian wounds, AIOC practiced creative accounting and did not even pay the it owed Iran. In fact, they paid more in taxes to London on their profits from Iranian oil than to Tehran. Led by Mosaddegh, Iranian patriots resolved to get ��������’s fair share from AIOC.

Iranian pressure made the British offer slightly better terms in 1950. Mosaddegh was key in rejecting this unfair offer and demanded a 50-50 split, the same enjoyed by Saudi Arabia. Naturally, the British opposed Mosaddegh tooth and nail. They claimed that revision of their agreement with Iran would amount to a breach of contract. The British very conveniently ignored their own common law idea of duress as grounds for invalidating a contract. Simply put: if Winston puts a gun to Rumi’s head to get his signature on a contract, that legal document is null and void. Such legal principles were moot for AIOC, which tried every trick in the book to safeguard its extortionate illegitimate profits.

British intransigence fueled Iranian patriotism on oil revenues. The public swung behind nationalization of AIOC. By the time the British belatedly agreed to a 50-50 split in February 1951, the ship for renegotiation had sailed. In March, the Majles passed legislation to the oil industry. True to form, the Shah did not sign this bill. This British lackey stayed loyal to his imperial masters, not the Iranian people.

By not signing the nationalization bill, the Shah frustrated the Majles and the Iranian people. In April, the Majles made Mosaddegh prime minister, with around voting for him. A few months earlier, Mosaddegh had turned down the prime ministerial position. This time, he took charge with a single-point agenda: foreign powers from ��������’s oil industry. 

With Mosaddegh in-charge, the Shah reluctantly signed the nationalization bill. This dramatically changed Britain-Iran dynamics. The AIOC left Iran, dismantling even the massive Abadan Refinery and associated facilities. For the first time in two centuries, Britain was on the backfoot. Unsurprisingly, this mighty imperial power fought back. It went to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to appeal against Iranian nationalization. Mosaddegh cannily disputed the court’s jurisdiction. Months later, the ICJ decided in favor of Iran.

The Empire Strikes Back

The British did not just resort to legal measures though. Their fabled intelligence agencies started conspiring to oust Mosaddegh through hook or crook. The British courted American support to do so. Their task was not easy. After World War II, the US had been siding with Iran on the oil issue. It had its own strategic interest to break into the Iranian oil market. Mosaddegh was well aware of the importance of the US. In November 1951, the Iranian prime minister visited Washington to meet . Mosaddegh had a good reception and returned to Iran positive that the US would act as an honest mediator between Iran and Britain.

Mosaddegh’s successful US trip and rising international popularity unsettled the Shah. Vainglorious and insecure, the Shah resented Mosaddegh. When the prime minister appointed a minister of war, the Shah vetoed him. In response, Mosaddegh resigned.

This act in July 1952 led countrywide protests. People poured into the streets, “Give me death or give me Mosaddegh.” , a leading Iranian newspaper, published the headline: “Salaam to Hero Mosaddegh, We Swear That We Stand by You to Our Death.” In keeping with the tradition established by his brutal father, the Shah ordered a crackdown. On July 21 — 30 Tir in the Iranian calendar — the Shah’s forces killed hundreds of people. This bloody day in 1952 is still remembered as the 30 Tir Uprising.

The very next day, on July 22, the ICJ in favor of Iran. This fueled popular support for Mosaddegh. Despite his brutal actions, the Shah was unable to establish control over Iran. He was forced to recall Mosaddegh. The Majles now firmly backed the prime minister. Iranians were euphoric. They believed that they could now move forward towards a new future.

The British had other plans. They refused to accept the ICJ decision. They saw Iranian insubordination as a danger to the British Empire and imposed a worldwide embargo against Iranian oil. They froze Iranian assets and banned exports of all goods to Iran. Britain acted against Iran in much the same way as the US is today. Like the US today, Britain planned a regime change in Tehran: Mosaddegh had to go.

British covert operations against Mosaddegh were savage and sophisticated. Misinformation, bribery, blackmail, murder and riots were all part of the toolkit. On April 20, 1953, news broke out that General Mahmood Afshar Tus, Mosaddegh’s chief of police, had been kidnapped and . Investigations revealed that generals sidelined by Mosaddegh were responsible for this brutal killing.

By now, the British had Americans on their side. The zeitgeist in the US had changed. Dwight D. Eisenhower was president, Richard Nixon was vice president and Joseph McCarthy was the most powerful voice on Capitol Hill. McCarthy saw a communist under every bush and feared the Soviet Union would take over the world. The British found US paranoia against communism fertile ground to sow seeds of doubt about Mosaddegh. Bit by bit, they convinced Washington to join them in their conspiracy to overthrow Mosaddegh.

British and American efforts in weaning support away from Mosaddegh in the Majles forced the prime minister’s hand. Mosaddegh the Shah to dissolve the Majles. Now both a British and an American lackey, this weak ruler declined. Mosaddegh called for a referendum on the dissolution of the Majles. Over 99% of Iranian voters supported him. On August 15, 1953, Mossadegh dissolved the Majles. 

This proved to be the highpoint of Mossadegh’s power. Events would soon overwhelm him. His political were now with the British and the Americans to get rid of him. Yet Mosaddegh had changed history. He had challenged autocratic rule at home and deepened democracy. At the same time, he had taken on imperial powers and won back Iranian sovereignty.

Why Mosaddegh Matters

Mosaddegh was a great statesman. He was honest, hardworking, idealistic and resolute. He made immense personal sacrifices in his political life. Mosaddegh steered Iran in a new direction despite the odds. In 27 months as prime minister, he achieved more than any other Iranian leader in the last two centuries.

In the land of absolutist Shahs, Mosaddegh rule of law, creating an independent judiciary to check the powers of the executive. Mosaddegh also supported freedom of expression, freedom of the press and freedom of religion. An ardent democrat, he tried to increase political participation and organize free elections.

Revolution Erupted in Iran Because of Mohammad Reza Shah

Mosaddegh’s economic reforms were significant and are often overlooked. A frugal man, he balanced the budget and focused on increasing ��������’s economic output. The tiff with the British was as much about economics as politics. Mosaddegh in health, unemployment insurance and infrastructure. Unlike the Shah who believed in ostentatious consumption, Mosaddegh was a believer in long term investments that would have a major multiplier effect.

Mosaddegh the culture of corruption fostered by the Shahs. He corrupt ministers and appointed honest ones. He got rid of generals who served British interests. He redistributed lands illegally seized by Reza Shah. 

One of Mosaddegh’s last attempts in power was to give the right to vote in municipal councils. He also wanted to provide women maternity leaves and give them the same rights as men in social insurance, benefit, and disability allowances. He had little but that was not for lack of trying.

In 1952, Mosaddegh was Time Magazine’s Man of the Year. As American media often does, they painted this unfamiliar foreign figure as a villain. In contrast, Mosaddegh was in colonies and newly independent colonies. In Yugoslavia, Egypt and India, he was hailed as a liberating hero. Remember, this was a time when almost all of Africa was still under European rule and the US still practiced race segregation. In his far-sighted reforms, Mosaddegh was far ahead of his time. Noted American diplomat Henry F. Grady Mosaddegh “a man of great intelligence, wit and education—a cultured Persian gentleman.”  To Grady, the Iranian leader reminded him “of the late Mahatma Gandhi.”

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Why Do You Need to Know About Mohammad Mosaddegh? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi became the Shah of Iran after the Allies invaded the country in August 1941 and removed his father Reza Shah due to his leanings towards Nazi Germany. The Shah ruled Iran with an iron fist and because of his strong anti-communist stance, became the most prized ally of the West in the Middle East during the Cold War. However, his unpopularity led to the revolution of 1979 that brought the Islamists to power in Iran. His son and heir apparent Reza Pahlavi has since been living in exile in the United States.

The principal aim of the Pahlavists, whose ranks include the former prince and the ultranationalist, right-wing organizations like and that have recently sprouted around him, is to revive the toppled Pahlavi monarchy. To do this, they have presented themselves as an ally to the United States in their animus towards communism. 

Paranoia in the USA

The period after the Second World War saw the demise of fascism coincide with the emergence of communism and the Soviet Union on the global stage, which posed a grave threat to the national security of the United States. In the 1950s, the US was seized with paranoia of Soviet infiltration; so much so that fear-mongering, denunciation, and highly publicized probes became common. The period is now known as the Red Scare and Senator Joseph McCarthy was one of its main architects.

��������’s Regime Survives on a Well-Maintained Myth

In 1954, Congress passed the “” that outlawed the US Communist Party and criminalized membership and support for all communist organizations across the nation. The Red Scare continued in stride until the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. 

In recent years, the world has seen another upsurge of far-right movements. Like their predecessors, these movements, too, have resorted to nativism and xenophobia. Furthermore, some have shown a penchant for branding their enemies as communists. Such was the case of QAnon, a fringe internet movement that eventually found mainstream attention thanks to the many outlandish conspiracies they touted. 

Among them was the claim that the United States is run by a cabal of “Jews, pedophiles, and communists.” Many of President Donald Trump’s supporters who participated in the attack on the U.S. Capitol were also QAnon followers. Like the protestors that stormed the Capitol, there is footage that shows supporters of Reza Shah violently anti-regime demonstrators abroad. 

Out with the Old, in with the New?

The Pahlavists have gained some genuine support among conservatives in the United States and the Middle East, but it looks like their most significant advocates hail from Moscow and Tehran. As I haveexplained , for the past decade, Tehran has been faced with mounting domestic and international pressure regarding Islamism. This may induce the Kremlin and pro-Russian elements within the Revolutionary Guards to orchestrate a “controlled regime change” with the aim of keeping their hold on Iran.

Reza Pahlavi has repeatedly made overtures to the IRGC, the Basij, the army, and the regime’s security apparatus. He has called to join him in “the future government of Iran.” He’s even about his relationship with the Revolulutionary Guards, the chief defenders of the ruling system. In 2019, President Trump designated the IRGC as a foreign terrorist organization, the first time a state entity was added to the list. 

The Dirty Secrets About How Reza Shah Destroyed Iran

Even if Pahlavi succeeds with his inveigling concerning the military and security apparatuses of the Islamic Republic, the foundations of the old regime will stay intact. Like its Islamist predecessor, the new regime will still remain resolutely anti-American, anti-Arab, and antisemitic. The new regime will exercise strategic continuity, like the Russian state after the of the Communist Bloc.

The Past is Never Dead

In , a Korean War veteran was revealed to be an unwitting instrument of an international communist conspiracy. Similarly, the Pahlavists could be inadvertently advancing the Kremlin’s two-pronged agenda in Washington: maligning Iranian liberal democracy activists on one hand and promoting far-right politics on the other. As such, those in the West who have a stake in the future of Iran must tread with caution.

In the end, we mustn’t forget the inconvenient truth. The rise of ��������’s theocratic regime followed over thirty years of Western-supported Pahlavi autocracy in Iran. Rather than pushing for democracy, the West financed a dictator in the form of an absolutist monarch. This was a fatal error. Not heeding history’s lessons will mean repeating the same terrible mistake. 

It is in the long-term security interests of the United States and her allies to help Iran move towards a multiparty liberal democracy with a representative government. An Iran that embraces the foundations of Western Civilization and befriends the United States, Europe, the Arab world, and Israel will prove a much more trustworthy ally than a seemingly pro-Western dictatorship.

[Naveed Ahsan edited this article.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Are the Pahlavists Following Moscow’s Lead in Washington? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

In July of 1994, a man drove an explosive-laden van into the headquarters of the Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina (AMIA) killing 85 and injuring more than 300 people. The bombing is the deadliest terrorist incident on Argentine soil to date.

In 2006, the Argentine federal prosecutor Alberto Nisman accused ��������’s paramilitary force, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) of designing the AMIA attack, and its Lebanese proxy force Hezbollah of executing it. However, there have been members within Argentina’s political leadership who have consistently sought to stall any investigation into the case.

More Twists and Turns

Among them was Argentina’s former president  Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, now serving a six-year prison sentence for corruption. When Fernández came to power in 2007, the country signed a memorandum of understanding  withIran.  Together with Interpol, the two governments agreed to form a truth commission.

Why are Young People Protesting in Iran?

READ MORE

Multiple  Jewish community groups in Argentina, including the AMIA, filed a petition denouncing the memorandum as unconstitutional. Their  contention was that the evidence of ��������’s involvement in the bombing  was undeniable, and that it offered no benefit to the victims of the attack or Argentina. .

Nisman also opposed the memorandum, calling it a “wrongful interference of the executive branch” , and accused President Fernández and her government of trying to cover up ��������’s involvement.. 

Nisman  even a 300-page dossier on the Kirchner government’s efforts to cover up the AMIA incident. Butt in January of 2015, before he had a chance to present his findings to  Congress, he was shot dead. Hismurder as well as that of the AMIA bombing are still open.

After Mauricio Macri succeeded Fernández later that same year , his justice ministry immediatelyoided the memorandum. Israel’s former and most likely next prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised the move as a “welcome change of direction” for  Argentina and expressed hope that relations with Tel Aviv  would improve.

However, the seizure  of an Iranian-Venezuelan Boeing 747 in Buenos Aires lastJune added  another  twist to an unfolding drama . The plan had a crew of 19 people, 5 were Iranians. Some had clear ties to the IRGC and the Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro’s . It was also discovered that  such flights to Argentina have been a regular occurrence for some time. 

This has raised many questions regarding the extent of ��������’s security and military presence as well as political influence in Argentina. For example, the pilot of the seized plane, Gholamreza Ghasemi, is aranking of the Quds Force, the same security wing  that plotted the AMIA bombing.

Just An Argentine Cover Up?

The opposition and members of the judiciary have accused Macri’s  government of orchestrating a of these  flights of the regime-affiliated Iranian-Venezuelan aircraft to Argentina. Many of the current Argentine government officials are the same people who signed the AMIA memorandum under Fernández.

Last July, a group of US Senate Republicans sent a letter to the Biden administration demanding a rationale for their delay in delivering key information of the Iranian suspects in the Boeing case to Argentine law enforcement officials. e. They believed the administration was aware of the extent of the IRGC’s association in South America but were withholding information in order to not undermine efforts to revive the JCPOA.

Derecognize Mullahs, Forge New Government in Exile for Iran

READ MORE

Last August, Argentina arrested four Iranians with fake French passports with possible links to the  Revolutionary Guards. They were arrested at Ezeiza International Airport in Buenos Aires, intending to  fly to Amsterdam. 

The arrest for the four was issued by the Federal Judge Federico Villena, who is also in charge of investigating the Boeing case.

In October, a month after protests in Iran began, Argentina released the Boeing 747 cargo plane and the 5 crew members still detained. The federal judge Federico Villena determined that there was no basis to prosecute the crew. However, the judicial investigation will still remain .

Although the case seems closed at this point, the IRGC’s active presence in South America can be still used to  scuttle the JCPOA for good.  Flight records even show that the same Boeing plane made a brief stop in Moscow before heading to . 

In light of all of these events, Washington should find no reason to appease the theocrats of Tehran with a revised nuclear deal. Hopefully, the JCPOA will finally enter the archives of failed deals with dictators.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post How is the AMIA Bombing Linked to the IRGC Aircraft in Argentina? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

In a widely shared of Jina’s funeral, her father cries out, “This is the daughter of Kurdistan, the child of those who demand freedom. She is the symbol of resistance. Today, the women of Kurdistan are a symbol of resistance for the whole world.”

Her death and the words of her grieving father ignited a women and youth-led protest movement in Kurdistan that swept all of Iran and initiated a global solidarity movement for women, life and freedom. The violent response of Iran to the protests has resulted in the death of over 248 protesters and the arrest of more than 12,575 others, reported human rights group on October 23.

Iran Attacks Kurds Yet Again

A few days after the protests began, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) took military action across the border by launching missiles and drone attacks against camps. The strikes wounded 58 people and killed 13 others, including children, an infant, and a pregnant mother.

Derecognize Mullahs, Forge New Government in Exile for Iran

READ MORE

According to , Iranian officials and state media have justified the brazen attack on the grounds that Kurdish opposition groups are using Amini’s case as an excuse to separate Kurdistan from Iran.

The continued militarization and economic impoverishment of Kurdish cities by Iran and its imprisonment and execution of Kurds are rationalized based on this accusation of separatism.

Many analysts were surprised that Iran was blaming the Kurds and resorting to unjustified military force against them. However, to Kurds, this attack was expected, as it has been their ill-fate to be the target and scapegoat of the Iranian state: a state that continues its onslaught on Kurdish lives through unjustified imprisonment, execution and assassination.

The story of the Kurds in Iran is similar to that of their brethren in Iraq, Turkey, and Syria. Being Kurdish in Iran is tantamount to being a criminal. Standing for your identity and advocating for your linguistic, political or economic rights can get you imprisoned and often executed. With few rights and little economic opportunity, the Kurds have few options but to stand defiant against the regime at the risk of death.

A Brave Story of Resistance

The crimes of the Islamic Republic of Iran against the Kurds in Iran are extensive because the Kurds have always been the most outspoken critics of the establishment in Tehran. They have paid heavily with their lives for their stance against the tyrannical rulers in Tehran. They even engaged in a full-scale rebellion against the Khomeini regime after his fatwa against the Kurds in 1979.

Revolution Erupted in Iran Because of Mohammad Reza Shah

READ MORE

The Kurds defied the regime and stood against Khomeini’s government from the inception of the Republic. In 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini feared the Kurds so much that in his first week as supreme leader of Iran he offered them over $75 million in to buy their loyalty and ward off a Kurdish rebellion. When the Kurds refused to join his so-called Islamic Republic, he declared a fatwa against them and went to war with Kurdistan.

The shocking part of this tragedy is that this phobia of Kurds that informed Khomeini’s fatwa and war against Kurdistan is a significant part of the Persian psyche today.

Outside of Iran, and even many protesters who struggle for human rights and an end to the regime, share this fear of the Kurds. They often attempt to intimidate and strong-arm Kurds into taking down their , and when Kurds insist on talking about their rights, they are told not to speak of this and to stand in unity. This attempt to silence Kurds even in the diaspora, where freedom of expression and other democratic rights are guaranteed and protected by law, illustrates how irrational but deeply rooted this phobia is in the Persian psyche.

This irrational phobia of Kurds and Kurdistan is very much what governs the Persian perspective on the Kurds in Iran. It is a phobia that oppressors across the Middle East share and use as justification for denying Kurdish rights and identity. This phobia informs the forced assimilation, extrajudicial killings, unlawful detention and increased securitization of Kurdistan.

It is thus, fundamentally important to deconstruct and debunk this phenomenon in order to end the intentional, irrational and unjustified persecution of the Kurdish people. It is only through overcoming this phobia and ending the negative connotations of the label of separatism that Iran’s Persian population can build lasting unity and understanding with Kurds, Baloch and other ethnic communities in Iran. This unity is essential in overthrowing the theocratic state of the ayatollahs and establishing an inclusive and truly democratic Iran.

[ published a version of this piece earlier.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Why Does the Islamic Republic of Iran Fear its Kurdish Population? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Crimes Against Humanity

The Islamic regime repeatedly continues to perpetrate crimes against humanity. Social diversity and individual and group agency are not taken into account in ��������’s political structure. This has led to a small group of power holders in a government that does not respect international law or human rights. Sadly, the international community, including the UN and EU, give legitimacy to this oppressive government.

The Dirty Secrets About How Reza Shah Destroyed Iran

READ MORE

The international community has not been listening to the plurality of voices that make up the diverse fabric of Iran. The history of widespread and bloody uprisings continues to be ignored. The voice of the people of Iran does not matter. The rights of the diverse groups are neglected.

The recent uprising, with its new multidimensional and transnational characteristics and the widespread support for Iranians abroad, has finally caught global attention. It is now time for EU countries to show that they truly support democracy, and do not just act out of pure self-interest.

In the streets, Iranians are chanting: “We don’t want an Islamic Republic,” “Down with the dictator”, “Death to the tyrant, whether king or leader.” The message is clear: people don’t want an undemocratic government. The Islamic regime now has no legitimacy. The EU and UN need to be talking not to the regime but to the people of Iran. And these people don’t just include Shiite Fars men.

International Community Must Act

After the 1979 revolution, the international community — instead of recognizing the people’s resistance — recognized the mullahs instead. It cannot repeat that mistake. Until there exists  a truly democratic system, ��������’s government should not be considered  the representatives of all people. The international community must engage with  representatives from various groups that comprise Iran. Together, these groups are shouting slogans that originated from Kurdish society: “Jin, Jiyan, Azadi,” (woman, life, freedom). 

Revolution Erupted in Iran Because of Mohammad Reza Shah

READ MORE

Unlike the slogans of previous protests, Jin, Jiyan, Azadi has united all oppressed social groups and became their rallying cry. While women and sexual minorities are the most oppressed segments of Iranian society, Iran has become a prison for all its people. All except for the tiny ruling elite, people now see that only by dismantling dictatorial systems, both patriarchal and Islamic, will they form a democratic regime.

The international community must target the Islamic regime itself, especially its representatives abroad. It must isolate the Iranian government, withdraw recognition to the regime and work towards its downfall.

The EU should support the Iranian opposition, especially parties of ethno-national and religious minorities. Non-Fars ethno-nations, when combined in fact constitute the majority of people in Iran. While  some dissident groups such as have a significant  presence in Europe and the United States, they need support to improve their ground game in Iran.

Unlike Fars opposition groups, these minority parties hare no common interests with the Iranian regime. For example, there have been several times that Kurds in Rojhelat (Eastern Kurdistan in Iran) have gone on strike. They heed the call of Kurdish parties that are illegal in Iran. The strikes show that Kurdish parties are the true representatives of their people, not Fars representatives of the Iranian state. The same is true for other ethno-nations as well.

The EU should forge together an opposition that is a coalition of minorities. Diverse democratic forces represented by organizations such as the of Nationalities for a Federal Iran, a coalition of parties that include the Democratic Party of Iran, the Balochistan People’s Party, the Federal Democratic Movement of Azerbaijan, the Turkmen National Democratic Movement and the Democratic Solidarity Party of (Arabistan) among others.

Democracy is the best way forward for the freedom of the people of Iran. Therefore, the best way forward is the establishment of a government-in-exile that helps the people overthrow the oppressive Islamic regime and institute a truly free, democratic state.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Derecognize Mullahs, Forge New Government in Exile for Iran appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Currently, Iran is ruled by mullahs. ��������’s theocratic regime is disliked, if not despised, by the US and its allies. Many, including prominent Iranians, blame the mullahs for all of ��������’s ills. However, few are aware of an inconvenient truth. It was the British who paved the path to power for the mullahs with the Americans constructing the mile.

Over the years, the mullahs have faced many protests. In the current wave, protesters have government officials such as the police, ambulance attendants  and bank officials. They have also targeted mosques, clerics and religious people. Many protesters chant “marq bar dictaator,” a phrase that literally translates as “death to the dictator.” Some of them have a soft spot for Mohammad Reza Shah whom we will subsequently refer to as the Shah.

Sadly, the Shah so beloved by some Iranians was an oppressive dictator. His secret police SAVAK kept an eye on the people. Hence, a famous proverb was born: divar mush dare, musham gush dare — the wall has a mouse, the mouse has ears. Under the Shah, Iran was a surveillance state much like the Soviet Union and East Germany. If you said the wrong thing to the wrong people, SAVAK would throw you into prisons like Evin and Qasr. You also faced the risk of torture and murder. After all, the US had taught SAVAK the tricks of the trade.

Young women who wish for a return to the halcyon days of absolute monarchical rule do not know that the Shah was deeply sexist. He believed that were less intelligent than men. In his interview with Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci, the remarked, “You may be equal in the eyes of the law, but not, I beg your pardon for saying so, in ability.” Hence, it is unsurprising that the Shah objectified women and saw them purely through the lens of sexual pleasure.

A Classic Comprador

When the Portuguese pioneered European colonization of the colored peoples, a term came into being. A comprador or compradore came to signify a “person who acts as an agent for foreign organizations engaged in investment, trade, or economic or political exploitation.” The Shah was a comprador who ruled Iran first as a British vassal and then as an American one.

The circumstances of the Shah’s accession to the throne are most instructive. The British deposed Reza Shah for cozying up with the Germans in 1941. After sending the father packing, they placed the weak, callow 22-year-old son on the throne. They chose the young Shah precisely because they were convinced that he would do their bidding.

The Shah proved to be a good pick. The British and the Soviets occupied Iran. The British ��������’s north-south railroad to supply the Soviets against Germany. In 1942, both promised that they would withdraw their forces within six months of the end of the war. This promise was intended to appease Iranian nationalists. In 1943, American troops arrived in Iran too. When the war ended, the Soviets troops failed to leave the country as per their promise. Only American pressure made them leave by May 1946. Iranians were appreciative of American commitment to the integrity of Iran and its right to self-determination.

Foreign occupation fuelled national pride and democratic discourse in Iran. Once foreign troops left, this continued. While foreign troops left, foreign influence did not stop. The British continued to extract and export oil from Iran for a pittance. They treated Iran as a de facto colony and the Shah acted as their comprador.

Naturally, dissent emerged. Mohammad Mosaddegh emerged as the key leader. Reza Shah had put him under house arrest. Once the bloodthirsty ruler was deposed in 1941, Mosaddegh returned to public life and was elected to parliament. Protests in 1949 against fake elections led to the founding of Jebhe Melli, which literally translates as . As its leader, Mosaddegh promised to end the British control of ��������’s oil industry. He demanded that the British share profits equally with Iran. At the time, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) was paying more money to Britain as taxes than to Iran as a share of the proceeds.

The British opposed Mosaddegh tooth and nail. They refused to share profits equally with the Iranians, claiming it would be a breach of contract. The very British idea of duress invalidating a contract did not apply to Iran. The Iranians had signed a deal that gave them 17.5% of AIOC’s profits when the British held a gun to their head. The AIOC cooked its books and Iran never really got the promised 17.5% either.

The Dirty Secrets About How Reza Shah Destroyed Iran

READ MORE

In late December 1950, the American-owned Arabian American Oil Company (Aramco) agreed to share profits with Saudi Arabia on a 50-50 basis. The British rejected the idea of any similar agreement for AIOC with Iran. This left the Iranian parliament with no choice but to pass a bill nationalizing the oil industry in March 1951. The Shah did not sign the bill. Mosaddegh was elected prime minister in April and the Shah was now forced to sign the nationalization bill.

The British responded by manipulating the Americans to conduct a military coup in 1953. The Cold War was on and the Americans were turning paranoid about communism. Nationalization allowed the British to paint Mosaddegh as a potential Soviet ally. Like a wily old uncle manipulating a sinewy nephew, the British got the Americans to do their dirty work for them. Mosaddegh was packed off to prison and the Shah emerged as an absolute ruler just like his father.

Until the 1953 coup, the Shah had one master: the British. From now on, he had two masters: the British and the US. As the American star rose, they came to dominate Iran. The British debacle in the 1956 Suez Crisis strengthened the American hand. As part of the Cold War, the US began beefing up the Shah’s regime. Washington provided the regime with military advisers, intelligence agents, and arms and ammunition worth millions of dollars. The Iranian taxpayer paid for such help most generously. American oil companies got a share of the Iranian oil pie.

The Shah’s Oppressive Police State

After 1953, life in Iran deteriorated. For Washington, the Shah was a key Cold War ally. Iran was a frontline state against the Soviet Union. So, in 1957, CIA and FBI helped the Shah’s regime to set up the dreaded Sazman-e Etelaat Va Amniat Keshvar (), a secret police to cow his people into submission. The US and, later, Israel coached Iranian military, police and intelligence officials in the arts of surveillance, coercion and torture.

By 1960, the Shah had a vise-like grip on the country. He had eliminated, imprisoned, and silenced the opposition. Nobody dared to protest. SAVAK routinely scrutinized students, civil service employees and industrial workers. It censored and controlled all forms of media and professional associations. SAVAK also monitored Iranian communities abroad. It had over 5,000 full-time employees and many part-time agents around the world.  SAVAK used all forms of torture necessary to extract information and punish dissenters. Nobody felt safe in Iran.

Such was the brutality of SAVAK that American public opinion began to turn. The US put pressure on the Shah to reform. In 1963, the Shah announced a plebiscite for an ambitious program of social, political and economic reform that has come to be known as the . The most important element of this revolution was . He broke down large land holdings to give away land to poor cultivators. In theory, this sounds like a good egalitarian measure. In reality, it led to disaster.

Poor cultivators did not have money to run their small farms. The government gave them land but did not give them farming implements, seeds, fertilizers, irrigation and funds. Unsurprisingly, they abandoned their farms to become landless laborers in cities, particularly Tehran. The urban population and, in due course, so did discontent.

It was in 1963 that the then relatively obscure Ruhollah Musavi spoke out against the White Revolution. Khomeini was teaching at the prestigious Fayẕiyyeh Madrasah in Qom. He was already a prominent ayatollah. The Shah arrested Khomeini and killed many students at Fayẕiyyeh. Luckily for Khomeini, the Shah did not kill him or confine him to an Iranian prison. In 1964, Khomeini publicly criticized the Shah for awarding the US capitulation and called him a lackey of US and Israel. The Shah first arrested Khomeini but, after 19 days in Qasr and a another few days in a military base, packed off the ayatollah into who ended up living in Turkey, Iraq, and, eventually, France.

Extravagant Opulence by Foreign Lackey

When the Shah was not oppressing his people, torturing dissidents or locking up his opponents, he was lavishly blowing up Iranian tax money on obscenely extravagant events. In 1967, the Shah himself in an occasion that still lives on in Iranian memory. This American lackey assumed the resonant but meaningless title, “His Imperial Majesty The Shāhanshāh of Iran,” and wore a crown that was studded with a mere 3,380 diamonds. He gave his wife Farah the title, “the Empress of Iran,” an unprecedented act in Iranian 2,500-year history. 

In most monarchies, coronation is held soon after the king or queen ascends to the throne, as the coronation of Charles II in the UK demonstrates. In the case of Iran, the coronation ceremony was a reflection of the Shah’s perverted narcissism. He wanted the world to see him as a secular reformer, a great modernizer, a savior of an ancient civilization, the resuscitator of ancient Persia and a historic emperor beloved by his people. Four years later, he threw what has come to be known as “the world’s greatest party” to celebrate 2,500 years of Iranian monarchy.

In 1971, the Shah held this party in the ancient ruins of Persepolis, which now lies in the middle of a desert. An airport, a highway and an entire tent city were built for the occasion. This “billion-dollar party” has come to be known as “the Devil’s Feast.” As his people toiled in poverty, the Shah and his foreign guests were quaffing the fanciest of champagnes and gorging on caviar. 

Many kings and queens, presidents and prime ministers were impressed by this ostentatious desert party. However, canny observers were not entirely convinced. The most memorable of these was US diplomat who attended this party and saw the spectacle of the crowning of the “Sun of the Aryans.” His words sum up this 1971 incongruous big bash: 

“What an absurd, bathetic spectacle! The son of a colonel in a Persian Cossack regiment play-acting as the emperor of a country with an average per capita income of $250 per year, proclaiming his achievements in modernizing his nation while accoutred in the raiment and symbols of ancient despotism.”

While the Shah was good at throwing lavish parties, he was not as savvy at retaining Iranian territory. Bahrain had been overwhelmingly Shia and was under Iranian suzerainty before the British took over. The British were supposed to return this island to Iran. Instead, the British pressured the Shah to let become an independent state in 1970. They had installed a comprador Wahhabi Sunni dynasty just as they had installed the Pahlavis in Iran. This Wahhabi dynasty still rules over Bahraini Shias with an iron hand.

While the Shah projected himself as a mighty emperor, in reality, he was the of the Persian Gulf for Uncle Sam. The US relied on Iran as its leading security partner in the Gulf. Iranian oil revenues were spent to protect American interests in the region. The Shah also the US in the Vietnam War.

A Sordid and Dissolute Despot

Today, many Iranians see the Shah as a liberator of women. During his time, glamorous women in elegant dresses sashayed down his red carpets. This is in stark contrast to the current regime of mullahs that imposes draconian dress codes on women. The nostalgia for the more permissive pre-1979 era obscures the fact that the Shah did not really see women as equals. He made his wife regent but did not think she would be able to rule as well as him.

The Shah led a famously dissolute life, visiting nightclubs across Europe and chasing beautiful actresses. One of them was who became the Princess Grace of Monaco in 1956. The Shah spent millions on Kelly. He gifted her “three pieces of Van Cleef & Arpels jewelry: a gold birdcage housing a diamond and sapphire bird, all fashioned into a perfect pin; a gold vanity case with a clasp set with thirty-two diamonds; and a gold bracelet with an intricate pearl and diamond face.” He gifted others ancient jewelry from the treasury. Tragically, the poor, toiling Iranian taxpayers funded this libertine lifestyle. They also paid for the Shah’s gambling . This magnificent emperor often lost about 50 million tomans ($42 million) in a single night as peasants went hungry in his homeland.

More importantly, the Shah was the Harvey Weinstein of his day. In fact, he was much worse than Weinstein. Not only pimps but also government officials were supposed to procure beautiful women for the Shah. Some of these women were underaged. The Shah was a serial sexual offender who preyed on vulnerable women and got away with it.

Given the Shah’s lack of loyalty to his nation, his excessive ostentation, brutal oppression and moral turpitude, a revolution was inevitable. Monarchs cannot eat cakes forever when their people struggle for bread. Even though SAVAK had imprisoned, tortured or killed opposition leaders like Mosaddegh, the Iranian people were seething in rage against their “.” Iranians revolted in 1979, exactly 190 years after the 1789 French Revolution. Once the dust settled, the mullahs led by Khomeini took charge.

Today, the Shah’s eldest son Reza lives in the US and continues the family tradition. Reza dreams of the restoration of the Pahlavi dynasty and a return to good times for his family. He has been financed not only by the but also the . Like his grandfather and father, Reza is also a lackey. The apple has not fallen far from the tree.

Today, people are out on the streets protesting against the mullahs who run a theological state. Most of them are very young with some barely 15. Some of them are vulnerable to myths about a glorious past and look favorably upon the Shah. Even in 2022, there are Iranians who glorify and glamorize the Shah. They must remember that he was a corrupt tyrant who stole from his people, gave territories away, helped foreigners destroy Iranian democracy, killed innocents and sexually abused innumerable women. The Shah belongs to the dustbin of history. ��������’s future has to be about liberty, equality, human rights, freedom and democracy.

[The authors corrected and updated this article on November 9, 2022.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Revolution Erupted in Iran Because of Mohammad Reza Shah appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The BBC tells us that women around the world are now their hair to show their solidarity with their Iranian counterparts. Abir Al-Sahlani, a Swedish Member of the European Parliament, cut her hair in the midst of her speech, giving a rallying cry: “women, life, freedom.”

Why are women protesting?

Since 1979, Shia clerics have ruled Iran. They have imposed strict moral codes and restrictive rules on society. Women are supposed to dress modestly and cover their hair in accordance with clerics’ strict interpretations of Islam. As education levels increase, Iranian women are increasingly unwilling to play by such rules.

Irshad can stop and intimidate any woman for the most arbitrary of reasons. Over the years, Iranian women have become highly educated. The percentage of females in higher education from 3% in 1978 to 59% in 2018. Women have entered almost all professions now. Their expectations have risen similarly. Even when there have been no protests, there is a simmering discontent among women about the restrictions they face on a daily basis. Many women hate the morality police. 

So unpopular is irshad that conservative president Mahmoud proposed to parliament to get rid of this morality police but he was shot down by those far more conservative than him, led by Parliament’s members Mutahari and Pizishkiyan. He explained that the police are also young people and they cannot make a correct diagnosis. Overall, Ahmadinejad forcing people to observe the hijab rule. He held that people had rights to choose and they must be given choices so he was accused by ultra-conservatives of supporting indecency. 

While women may have done well in gaining an education, jobs have been hard to find. Glass ceilings remain thick and strong. Few women make it to top positions. They also find it difficult to get married because educated men with good jobs are in short supply. Furthermore, strict rules make it difficult for women and men to socialize. Like women elsewhere, Iranian women want some choice when it comes to their life partners.

Last year, Ebrahim Raisi was elected president. He is a conservative cleric who has to reinvigorate the old cultural revolution. Irshad have stepped up patrols and taken women away for “re-education” because of their supposedly improper dress. A hijab-and-chastity decree bans women without headscarves from posting pictures of themselves on social media. Naturally, women are dissatisfied with the tightening of restrictions and Amini’s death has set off a powder keg.

Why are men protesting?

Not only women but also men have taken to the streets. If Iranian women are dissatisfied, so are the men. They are really frustrated with the lack of opportunities. Many have lost hope in the future. In particular, educated men are most discontented. They are unable to get decent well-paying jobs. This restricts their marriage opportunities.

Young people are increasingly influenced by western media. They think of the US as a land of milk and honey. Alumni of the elite Sharif University of Technology leave the country in the search of a better life. Those who remain behind are frustrated by the lack of jobs in Iran. They access western media and want similar lifestyles to what they see on screen. This exacerbates their discontent.

American sanctions have taken their toll on the Iranian economy. Since 2012, per capita income has stagnated. After the Russia-Ukraine War, inflation has further soared. To make matters worse, Iran is facing an environmental crisis. Rivers have run dry, groundwater is falling, lakes are drying up and farmland is parched. A growing population has led to wanton felling of forests. In turn, deforestation has exacerbated desertification. As in India and China, pollution is choking cities. Young men find it very difficult to be hopeful about the future.

Over 60% of ��������’s 84 million population is under 30. Historically, young single men have been a source of instability in any society. Iran has millions of discontented young men. During the recent protests, unknown assailants have banks, police, ambulances, other government officials, mosques, clerics and religious people. The 1979 revolution may not yet be at risk but Iranian society is volatile and could erupt in a volcanic eruption given the slightest provocation.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Why Are Young People Protesting in Iran? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The indirect talks – Iranian negotiators refuse to meet face-to-face with their American counterparts, forcing the two sides to work through EU intermediators – ceased back in August after 16 months of fitful, inconclusive meetings. The Iranians have claimed their willingness to return to the table once the US side adopts “reasonable” positions. For its part, the US has stated the Iranians need to accept a “realistic approach.”

Obstacles in the Road

The ostensible reasons for the hiatus, however, appear more rooted in a couple of sticky issues for which no compromise may be possible. First, Iran has sought a binding commitment from the US side that the US will not abrogate a new accord, as then President Donald Trump did in 2018. US negotiators have responded clearly and unambiguously that no such guarantee can be extended beyond the administration of current President Joe Biden. In fact, the closest offer that could be made would be to submit a new JCPOA to the US Senate for ratification. The Biden administration has no such intention. And with good reason. There is precisely zero chance that it would secure the two-thirds majority necessary for approval. Even Senators from the president’s own party might vote against it. Senate ratification of the JCPOA will not happen and the administration would be beyond foolish to even contemplate submitting it.

The second issue holding up an accords renewal is the matter of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards investigation of past Iranian nuclear activities. These investigations date back to ��������’s alleged early work on, and development of a nuclear weapons program starting in 2002. As part of a JCPOA renewal, Iran is insisting that the investigations be closed. The US, unlike in the 2015 agreement, asserts it has no authority to order the IAEA to halt the investigations. In 2015, when the IAEA was under different leadership, the US and other parties to the JCPOA prevailed upon the IAEA to close the investigations file. 

Following the US departure from the JCPOA and the change of leadership in the international organization, investigations resumed and still remain uncompleted. IAEA’s new Director General, Rafael Grossi, who assumed his position in December 2019, has made clear his intention to fulfill his organization’s mandate to complete the investigations and file a final report. It is very likely that his report will detail Iranian perfidy during the early 2000s to cover up its nuclear weapons development program, which would be a violation of the Nonproliferation Treaty to which Iran is a signatory.

So, these are the known gaps that remain before any new accord, or accord renewal, may be concluded. But there are also political concerns over a renewal on both the American and Iranian sides.

Procrastination Is Their Friend, for Now

The Iranians most certainly know that the Biden administration and its negotiators cannot agree to a forever agreement that binds future US administrations. Moreover, the Iranians also know that the administration would not send a newly negotiated accord to the US Senate where it would encounter certain defeat. Nor would such a move  would serve Iranian interests. What the Iranians would like to have, however, is some certainty that the new JCPOA would last long enough that key economic benefits accruing to them – for example, lifting of financial sanctions and resumption of oil exports – would last long enough to jump start an inescapably deteriorating Iranian economy. A renewed agreement would likely boost the government’s standing among the Iranian people whose incomes and standard of living have been declining steadily since 2012.

Enter American politics. The Iranians know full well that Mr. Biden’s Democratic Party faces a key test next month in America’s midterm elections, whose outcome will determine control of the US House of Representatives and Senate. Current polls indicate a slim Republican advantage in the House elections and a too-close-to-call result in the Senate. Of late, however, Democrats’ fortunes seem to be improving.

Therefore, the Iranian reasoning may be that continued Democratic control of the Congress could be an indicator – albeit a far from conclusive one – of Democratic fortunes in the 2024 elections. The prospect of a Democrat in the White House through 2028 might just represent enough time to persuade the Iranians that a five-six year window is enough to risk signing a renewed JCPOA, without a clause binding future administrations. Therefore, waiting until after the early November elections may appear to serve Iranian interests.

The suspension also serves the interests of the US administration. With signs that voters’ sympathies may be tipping his and his party’s way, Joe Biden would be foolish to insert what would inevitably become an at-best highly controversial national security issue into the elections debate. Had he done so, Democratic party candidates and serving members of Congress would run for the exits, ducking any possibility of having to defend it, whatever its contents. Republican candidates would revel in its inadequacies and browbeat Democratic opponents. So, tabling the discussions for now is plain common political sense.

And After America’s Congressional Elections?

What then becomes of the talks after the November 8 elections? The administration’s desire to conclude the talks and reach an agreement remains real. US positions on the forever binding pledge and IAEA investigations aren’t going to change. It’ll still be “take it or leave it;” that is, the current text as it read back in August.

But pressures on the Iranian regime are increasing daily. Witness the demonstrations gaining momentum across Iran following the regime’s killing of Mahsa Amini. Iranian women, and Iranian men, too, seek greater liberty under the current theocratic regime’s oppressive control. Many demonstrators also seek greater economic opportunity and an improved standard of living. A renewed JCPOA could potentially raise hopes for the latter aspirations and, in the minds of the mullahs, assuage demonstrators. But no JCPOA, whatever its guise, is going to induce the regime to relax political control.

So, domestic politics is undoubtedly playing an outsize role in the fortunes of the JCPOA. For now, that plays into the hands of both sides. Nevertheless, after November 8, the JCPOA faces a very uncertain future that even life support may not be able to sustain.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Iran Nuclear Deal is Dead: R.I.P. JCPOA? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The time has come to ask the following questions: Can this deal play a successful role in curbing regional insecurities? Could it prove to be an economic panacea for Europe? And would it reinvent the animus between Iran and the United States?

The Iran Nuclear Deal 2015

The nuclear accord between Iran and the European Union (EU) alongside the – a strategic coalition of five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany – was a pragmatic arrangement. It crafted a nexus of economic pressure and diplomatic coercion that weaved a balance of power aiming at ensuring a binding commitment. Also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (), the plan was signed in 2015 after years of deliberations. It waived sanctions on Iran in exchange for a framework that placed curbs on its nuclear program and gave tentative access to  ��������’s declared nuclear sites for international inspections. The deal symbolized a landmark victory for the Democrats and Barack Obama’s administration, despite critical opposition within and without. 

Things went awry when Donald Trump, a rightist Republican, became president and nixed the nuclear deal in . While his legacy is still heavily debated, marked by domestic political and social turmoil and his attempt to isolate American interests in an increasingly globalized world, the unilateral exit from the Iran deal stands as one of his least rational foreign policies. Nicholas Burns, an American Diplomat and US Ambassador to China, the decision of withdrawal “reckless and one of the most serious mistakes of his presidency.” According to the Pew Research Center, a centrist American think tank, of US international relations scholars opposed the US departure from the deal. Their prescient fears materialized the very next year.

By 2019, Iran had enriched its Uranium stockpile to concentration, up from around before the US withdrawal. This meant it was mere weeks away from developing a nuclear weapon. While the economic sanctions further deteriorated the social fabric of Iranian society, the nation’s impressive adaptability in the face of financial hardship continues to this day. In fact, it is a case study often employed as a testament to the failure of sanctions without appropriate complementary diplomatic policies. 

The absence of economic relief, despite adhering to the nuclear deal, shifted power from moderates under former Iranian President Hassan Rouhani to hardline theocrats under the current leadership of President Ebrahim Raisi. Now after a dismal exit from Afghanistan and rapidly alienating allies in the Persian Gulf, Biden is determined to reshape the deal amidst fierce criticism from the Republicans. From the suspension of talks to heated between American forces and Iranian proxies in Syria, the indirect negotiations have continued, inching closer to a resolution. But the questions asked in 2018 are still unanswered!

A Middle Eastern Resolve?

When Donald Trump reneged on the agreement, the Gulf states voiced overwhelming support for the decision. The UAE Foreign Ministry the international community “to respond positively to President Trump’s position.” Saudi Arabia the move that severed economic gains and prevented Iran from “developing ballistic missiles and supporting terrorist groups in the region.” 

Four years later, the UAE recently revived diplomatic relations with Tehran, reinstating its to Iran after a six year hiatus. Saudi Arabia has visibly distanced itself from American influence and appears to be gradually moving towards a diplomatic connection with Iran. The reasons are manifold. From Biden’s aversion to supporting the Saudi offensive in Yemen to ��������’s continued support to Houthi rebels despite harsh sanctions, the Arab states have become disenchanted. The on Saudi oil facilities against a backdrop of receding American military support have disillusioned the monarchy from the supposed effectiveness of a strategy that consists of cornering Iran and trusting US policies amid a patent polity divide in America.

The regional concerns regarding the deal that shaped Trump’s rhetoric to withdraw are still elusive. While Iran has backed away from its demand to remove the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps () from US State Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organisation (), its contentious ballistic missile program remains problematic  in the final phase of negotiations. 

Moreover, Tehran has further developed its intelligence wing since the of its IRGC Divisional Commander Qasem Soleimani in 2020. Its proxy militia forces have exponentially grown in Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen. And its grip on the Syrian heartland, thanks toRussian support, is nothing short of strategic leverage against its bordering arch-nemesis: the state of Israel. The core opposition from both the Republican fraction in the US Congress and the Israeli government has aligned on a singular premise. They claim that a loose nuclear deal that ignores ��������’s militaristic capabilities and its allegedly extremist presence in the region would be a strategic blunder. It would eventually allow Iran to cash in on oil revenue and streamline support to its proxies threatening regional stability.

In August, Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid underscored his opposition to any deal with Iran that leads to windfall profits for ��������’s hardline leadership. While planning closed-door discussions with the P5+1 nations to rethink the elements of negotiations, he Israel’s Mossad spy agency in order to “prepare for any scenario” if the deal is revived. Israeli leadership has maintained throughout the negotiations over the past year that promises made to Iran would not prevent Israel from launching its covert operations against the Islamic Republic. 

Traditionally, Israel has focused its shadow policies on disrupting the military infrastructure of Iran, ranging from acts of against its nuclear facilities to its nuclear scientists. Hence, there is no reason to believe that a successful nuclear deal would lead to a prosperous Middle Eastern landscape. Even if Iran returns to compliance and normalizes relations with the Arab states, the eternal strife over Palestine would likely have a spillover effect sooner or later through indirect confrontation, whether with Hezbollah in Lebanon or with Hamas in Gaza. Thus, framing this deal as a prelude to regional harmony is unrealistically ambitious. And highly unlikely!

Economic Advantage to Europe?

In 2018, when Trump’s sanctions kicked in, Iran reduced its oil production to a third of its capacity. However, despite bearing a of over $200 billion in lost oil revenue, Iran managed to curb production while minimizing damage to its oil fields. Currently, Iran exports about barrels per day with a capacity to rapidly scale up to around barrels per day, according to shipping estimates compiled by Bloomberg. Since 2018, Iranian output has predominantly poured into China. A nuclear deal, however, could allow Iran to supply twice what it exports now. And according to energy analysts, Iran could even reach its 2017 production of 3.8 million barrels per day in just a few months. 

Nevertheless, contrary to mainstream beliefs, waivers on Iranian crude exports would not ease the energy crisis in Europe. Admittedly, the flow of Iranian oil would mitigate pressure on global oil prices. It could even alleviate the pains of inflation for oil importing countries in Asia. Yet we need to understand the basis of the soaring energy costs in Europe. It is not oil; it is natural gas. Electricity in Britain, the chemical plants in Germany, and the industries in all of Europe thrive on natural gas piped in from Russia. Disruption of the gas supply that arrives via the Nord Stream 1 () pipeline has debilitated the commercial and domestic equilibrium in European countries. While oil transit is seaborne, gas supply relies on a complex pipeline network. Europe is dependent on the Russian grid, which is impossible to replace in the short term. Even alternatives like coal would not be enough, as most systems run on natural gas while compatible substitutes like LNG are limited in supply. Thus, while normalizing oil prices may fetch some relief to transportation costs and consumer prices, it would not quell fears of a chilly winter ahead.

Even if we assume that the nuclear deal with Iran allows roughly two million barrels per day into the global oil market, we should also consider that sanctions would not disappear overnight. Instead, sanctions would be phased away gradually over a set time frame. Moreover, many countries would be reluctant to trade with Iran even after the sanctions are completely relieved. There are no US sanctions against Russian grains, fertilizers, and energy supplies. Still, many countries have scaled back imports from Russia to avoid retaliation from the United States. 

Given the historical context of tensions between Iran and the US, investors and neighboring countries would likely be wary of the consequences of engagement with Iran. After all, the US administration has offered no guarantees of an ironclad deal beyond Biden’s presidential term, which ends in . The deal clearly does not enjoy bipartisan support. Thus, while I can foresee ebbing pressure on the global oil market, I am also aware that the alliance would likely cut production to accommodate the Iranian oil supply and maintain elevated oil prices in the international market. Therefore, in the short run, oil supply from Iran could ease the burden on neighboring oil-importing countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan. But the bane of energy costs in Europe would still largely depend on the stage of the conflict with Russia.

A Thaw in US-Iran Relations?

Since the Iranian in 1979, with the exception of the George W. Bush administration, every US government has tried to engage with Iran and failed. Bush launched the Iraq war in , which (ironically) proved to be a pivot to Iranian theocracy, spreading through militias in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. Trump tried an unorthodox approach by pressuring Iran via sanctions, assassinations, and diplomatic isolation. Instead of a weakened Iran, however, those policies made Iran more hard-skinned with newfangled nuclear facilities and a sophisticated Combat Drone . 

The American policies in the face of a resilient Iran offer insights that many commentators have overlooked. Iran is an Islamist theocracy that promotes hardline governance, draconian and conservative policies, and a political system embedded in a religious hierarchy. Its Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is a vocal critic of American imperialism and has held tightly to the revolutionary ideology of his predecessor, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Anti-Americanism is central to Iranian orthodox identity, which is continually apparent in its narrative concerningforeign policy issues ranging from the Russian invasion of Ukraine to the Chinese intimidation of Taiwan.

The recent visit of Russian President Vladimir Putin to Iran offered another example of ��������’s characteristic opposition to American incentives. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei the “Mafia Regime” of the US for the war in Ukraine, alleging that NATO would have eventually started the war. Successive American administrations have consistently failed to reach a balance of diplomacy and coercion that is pivotal to engaging Iran. 

William J. Burns – Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) – recently that the 2015 Nuclear Deal was a product of “tough-minded diplomacy, economic and military leverage, and International consensus.” Today, US diplomacy has become a mockery of statesmanship, whether in Ukraine, the Asia-Pacific, or the Middle East. American economic sway is becoming subtly diluted with the emergence of global duality due to China’s ascendency. And the traditional international cohesion, that the US once knew how to rally, has now become a visible chasm that has compromised the effectiveness of the Western offensive against Russia and China. India’s deviantly neutral foreign policy is one of the myriad examples and a throwback to the era of non-alignment.

Ultimately, the US should acknowledge its blunders and recalibrate the scale of its diplomacy. Over the years, it should have learned that Iran is hawkishly lethal, resilient to sabotage, diplomatically adept, and thrives under isolation. It is now high time that the US establishes a base of mutual trust by either holding firmly onto the agreement or scrapping the deal entirely before it’s agreed upon. Because any sane mind would realize that a repeat of Trump’s escapade would be even more catastrophic this time around. My colleague Karim Sadjadpour aptly sums up my in his opinion piece for The New York Times: “The Iranian regime has shown it’s too influential to ignore, too dogmatic to reform, too brutal to overthrow, and too large to [fully] contain.” Hence, either make a deal for the right reasons or maintain the status quo. The third option is too inimical to even put into words.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Is the US-Iran Nuclear Deal Worth the Hassle? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The Taliban Use Violence Against Women as a Bargaining Chip

READ MORE

The theme for the 2022 International Day of Zero Tolerance for Female Genital Mutilation, which took place on February 6, was accelerating investment to end FGM. With the COVID-19 pandemic seriously impacting efforts to eliminate this harmful practice, it is crucial for governments, international actors and donors to scale up investments in global efforts. 

What Is FGM?

FGM involves the partial or complete removal of external female genitalia for non-medical reasons. It is not recommended in any religious texts, has no health benefits and can cause serious lifelong physical and psychological harm. 

With an increase in investment to end this harmful practice, it is important to ensure that sufficient resources are allocated to the Middle East and Asia, which have not been traditionally prioritized, partly due to the absence of official data on the practice. The impact of low investment is felt by women’s rights activists, whose work in both regions is woefully underfunded and lacks sufficient international support.

Globally, an 200 million women and girls have experienced some form of FGM, which is a human rights violation and form of violence against women and girls. However, this data is based only on 31 countries from which national prevalence data is available and does not reflect the true scale of the problem. This has been documented in various reports, including by the US End FGM/C Network, the End FGM European Network and Equality Now. This report found that FGM occurs in more countries around the world than widely acknowledged and that the number of women and girls who are affected is being woefully underestimated.

FGM in Iran

In Iran, the lack of sufficient resources and international assistance has impacted the work of organizations such as . This organization, in particular, does not have big statistical studies to provide reliable data on the scale and nature of FGM in Iran. It also faces challenges due to little support and limited media coverage.

FGM has been documented in Iran for almost a century. In 1928, a travel by pediatrician Dr. Rastegar, writing about Lorestan, a province in Western Iran, was published in the magazine Nahid:

“Another important point that is common among women living in tents is the circumcision of girls, which must be done from the age of five to nine; for until a girl is circumcised, she is not a Muslim and no one will take bread from her. As it was heard from the Lors, the method of circumcising girls is that they put the girl to sleep and cut the outer part of the clitoris, which is out of the small lips, with a sharp razor. Due to the weather and other environmental qualities, the genitals of the nomadic girls are different from urban girls. As is understood, this practice is also common among the Arabs and the tribes of Khuzestan also believe in this practice. To stop the bleeding, the girl has to sit in the river up to her waist, and if she bleeds again, she has to move in the water for a while.”

Despite such early reports, the Iranian press has been reluctant to report on FGM. Homa Sarshar, a pre-revolutionary journalist, said in an that she noticed the spread of FGM 50 years ago during a trip to southern Iran. In a report, she tried to make the news public. However, she says, the media outlet’s editor did not publish her piece as he had been instructed by authorities that the government was aware of the situation and was deciding what to do about it.

Although FGM continues to be practiced in western and southern Iran, the lack of news coverage has been a challenge. For over a decade, activists were unable to convince Iranian news outlets to report on FGM, but some journalists have now begun to cover the issue. Reporting on the issue is key as gender-sensitive media coverage has an important role to play in increasing public understanding about human rights violations, holding duty bearers to account and instigating positive change.

Small-scale in Iran have found FGM prevalence ranging from 16% to as high as 83% in some communities, and there are still many unknown places in the country where FGM may be happening.

Stopping FGM

At one point, the government, at the suggestion of Stop FGM Iran, attempted to conduct a pilot project. The project was launched and provided unprecedented insight, but government cooperation was abruptly paused and, despite a follow-up, never resumed.

Efforts to draft a specific law against FGM in Iran continue. Although some legal provisions refer to the issue of amputation of genitals and allocation of blood money, they are incomplete and should be reconsidered to effectively address the issue. A law explicitly banning FGM in Iran would make it clear to the public that FGM is a human rights violation and provide a deterrent effect to would-be offenders. It would also grant specific legal recourse to survivors within the criminal justice system.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

Many gynecological centers in Iran advertise under the pretext of genital cosmetic surgery, sometimes even under the name of female circumcision, and exploit the lack of public awareness. No government authority is responsible for raising public awareness against this human rights violation, and with very low costs, women are encouraged to have cosmetic surgery on their genitals.

A recent on attitudes toward FGM in southern Iran found the continued prevalence of misconceptions about FGM amongst women in the region, including that FGM prevents infertility, reduces the chances of divorce, protects girls from rape and ensures that women deliver more sons.

How can we stand against female genital mutilation without government intervention, changing the law and raising awareness? Today, in addition to the above, activists need to receive financial and other assistance from government and international actors so they can work toward reducing FGM prevalence and, ultimately, eliminate it.

*[Rayehe Mozafarian is the founder of Stop FGM Iran. Divya Srinivasan is a legal adviser at Equality Now.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Ending FGM in Iran Needs International Support appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Biden’s New Culture of Brinkmanship

READ MORE

Carter considers his time in office to be peaceful, but his says otherwise. Under his one term as president from 1977 to 1981, the US was still instigating conflicts across the world. The most notable was the Iran-Iraq War, which the US, the Soviet Union and their allies were heavily involved in by supporting the Iraqis.

Causing Trouble

The , a publication of the Peace Worldwide Organization, labels the US the world’s worst troublemaker. The evidence for this is clear.

First, the US at least 750 military bases in around 80 countries. It also has more than 170,000 troops stationed in 159 countries. Second, in 2016, The Washington Post that the US has tried 72 times to overthrow governments of sovereign nations between 1947 and 1989. These actions were in clear violation of the UN Charter. Third, the US continues using economic against numerous countries to force their leadership to bow to Washington’s demands.

The worst example is Iran, which the US has sought to use a policy of “maximum pressure” against. Sanctions are also in clear violation of the UN Charter and affect civilians more than the political leaders they seek to squeeze. These unwarranted interventions in Iran have brought pain and suffering to people in a country that is not known for its human rights.

The US, meanwhile, is known well as a country that pays lip service to human rights, democracy and peace. It talks about a lack of democracy in some nations but favors tyrannical rulers in others. This includes countries like Bahrain, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia.

The US today is the world’s only superpower, and with such power comes great responsibility. If the US is truly interested in human rights, democracy and peace, then it too must change its actions. It must begin by complying with the UN Charter and respecting international law. Washington must right its many wrongs — particularly in the Middle East — not because it is forced to do so, but because it is the right thing for a world in which peace can prosper. For this to become a reality, there are a number of areas for the US to consider.

Never Forgotten

The first area is addressing the US relationship with Iran. In the 1980s, in violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925, the United States and its European provided assistance to Iraq when it leader, Saddam Hussein, ordered the of chemical weapons against Iranian troops. Most victims of that attack in 1988 died instantly, while many others are still from the consequences. Some survivors of the chemical warfare now struggle to find inhalers in Iran, which is scarred by sanctions. The US should acknowledge the role it played in the war and provide reparations for the injuries and damage it caused. 

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

Today, the draconian sanctions the US has placed on Iran has deepened a rift with the European Union, Russia and China, all of which signed a nuclear agreement with Tehran in 2015. The US withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018 under US President Donald Trump led to the reintroduction of crippling sanctions that have hurt the Iranian middle class and the poor, causing hardship and death.

Washington must lift its unlawful sanctions, which Trump introduced to bring Iran to its knees. The US thinks that Iran is meddling in the affairs of countries like Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen, and that a policy of “maximum pressure” will force it to rethink its foreign policy. The Trump administration used this as an excuse to pull out of the nuclear deal, despite the Iranians complying with all of its obligations under the JCPOA. The US under President Joe Biden should also comply with the JCPOA by rejoining the agreement and lifting sanctions.

In the long term, a détente between the US and Iran could pave the way for the Iranians to forgive the 1953 coup d’état against the democratically elected government of Mohammad Mossadegh. During the Cold War, a US-orchestrated led to the overthrow of Prime Minister Mossadegh. He was replaced with Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the brutal last shah of Iran, who himself was overthrown in the 1979 Revolution. In a country struggling under US sanctions, memories of the coup have never been forgotten.

Lies Over Iraq

Iraq is another country where US actions have not been forgotten. If you attack anyone without being provoked, any court with an ounce of justice would require you to repair the inflicted damage. Relations between nations work in the same way. If a nation harms another without provocation, the aggressor is expected to repair the damage caused.

In 2003, under the false pretext that the Iraqis had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and ties with al-Qaeda, the US under President George W. Bush invaded Iraq. The result was the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and his government, the destruction of infrastructure, the death of hundreds of thousands in the years to come and the displacement of 9.2 million Iraqis.

The US invasion inevitably led to the rise of radical groups like the Islamic State (IS), which in 2014 seized territory in Iraq and Syria. The that American taxpayers paid for the Iraq War could have been well spent in the US on addressing poverty, building high-speed rail networks or repairing infrastructure. Instead, the dollars were spent on bombs and bullets to counter insurgents like IS.

When Iraqis led by Iranian General Qasem Soleimani and Iraqi militia leader Mahdi al-Muhandis formed a resistance against IS militants and expelled them from Iraq, many people were jubilant that their country was freed. Instead of congratulating Soleimani and Muhandis for the role they played, the US violated Iraq’s territorial integrity. In a US drone strike at Baghdad airport in January 2020, both men were assassinated in violation of international law. The US action was not only , but it also puts all foreign diplomats in danger by setting a precedent for other countries to assassinate enemies.

There are two ways the US can make up for its illegal actions of 2003. First, holding those responsible to account for the invasion and human rights violations would show the world that the US is serious about the rule of law. That includes the likes of Bush and his accomplices, who lied and betrayed the trust of the American people, as well as security and military personnel who went beyond the rules of war. Holding such persons to account would restore respect for the US across the world by demonstrating that no one, not even the president or American soldiers, is above the law. Second, providing reparations for the loss of Iraqi and American lives, the injuries caused, the people displaced and the property destroyed is essential.

Famine in Yemen

Yemen is another place where bombs have destroyed the country under the watchful eye of the Americans. In 2015, a Saudi-led coalition supported and armed by the United States, Britain and France began indiscriminatingly bombing Yemen in response to a takeover by Iran-backed Houthi rebels. The destruction of Yemen has led to accusations of war crimes by all parties involved. It has also resulted in 5 million people being on the brink of and millions more facing starvation.

The US must promptly stop all military and intelligence support to the coalition. As the one nation with such political power, the US must work on bringing the combatants together by implementing the that calls for respecting “the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.”

As citizens in a free world, we must assume responsibility for our political leaders’ actions. First, as a bare minimum, we should realize that the problems we cause for others, sooner or later, will come back to haunt us. The example of US support for the mujahideen during the 1980s in Afghanistan is well known. Second, electing the right political leaders who strive for freedom and peace will not only benefit people in faraway lands, but also in the US itself. Instead of taxpayer dollars being spent on weapons, cash can be reinvested into our society to educate children, improve access to health care and do much more.  

United, we can put “maximum pressure” on the US to become a leader in creating a world free from war, oppression and persecution.

*[The author is the founder and president of , a non-religious, non-partisan and charitable organization in the United States that promotes freedom and peace for all. It recently released its Civility Report 2021, which can be downloaded .]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post US Foreign Policy in the Middle East Needs a Rethink appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Will Saudi-Iran Talks Lead to Anything?

READ MORE

But times have changed. Three recent presidents — Barack Obama, Donald Trump and now Joe Biden — have made efforts to distance the US from its endless, exasperating entanglements in the Middle East. Those efforts had distracted the United States from its principal challenges in the world — China and Russia — and sapped it of its military, economic and political might and influence. America received very little in return on its investment. Furthermore, years of US involvement in the region had also fractured the American public’s support for the more critically important role it must play in anchoring the international order.

Enter the Others

Downgrading America’s involvement in the Middle East isn’t necessarily a bad thing. For decades, many in the Middle East and in the US had argued that the region’s problems must be tackled by the governments and people of the region. Outsiders can play a supporting role, but the tough decisions can only be made by the governments themselves. That may now be happening.

But handing off the task of addressing the region’s manifold challenges got off to a poor start. Neither the US, nor the international community, nor the states of the Middle East seemed able to solve the conundrum of the region’s three failed states.

Then, starting around 2015, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman started ordering others around — imposing a blockade on Qatar, detaining the Lebanese prime minister, jailing courageous dissidents and largely harmless millionaires, ordering a hit job on journalist Jamal Khashoggi and jumping into the Yemeni Civil War. And it all went bad, very bad in fact. Additionally, it provoked other would-be movers and shakers to get in the act, including the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Iran, China, Russia and even Israel. And not always with good intent or positive results.

After years of misdirection, however, governments now seem to be taking a more sober and responsible approach that could prove genuinely beneficial for the region. For starters, they have embarked on a simple approach: dialog. They are talking about their problems, especially those between and among one another. Dialog leads to understanding, which can lead to shared interests. Ultimately, to be effective, dialog must lead to compromise. That involves the inevitable give-and-take that allows nations, especially those close to one another, to live and thrive in peace and prosperity.

It’s a Start

One of the most encouraging initiatives may be the most unexpected: dialog between the Middle East’s two major powers, Iran and Saudi Arabia, and hosted by perhaps the most unlikely state, Iraq, unquestionably the region’s most conflict-ridden for decades. The issues are many between these two historic rivals, separated by a narrow gulf on whose name neither seems able to agree. But the larger gulf lies in their differing views of the other, their competing religious sects — the Saudi uber-conservative Wahhabi Sunni Islam vs. ��������’s clerically-led, conservative Shia Islam — perceptions of the other’s role and intentions in the region, their wealth, and relations with and ties to the broader international community, almost non-existent in the case of Iran.

One especially neuralgic issue for both is their respective roles in the Yemen War. It is now abundantly clear that the Saudis’ overwhelming military power, bolstered by the US and some European nations, cannot defeat the Houthi rebels. Nor can it end either the war or even its costly intervention in it. The Saudis need help. Enter the Iranians, who have been supporting the Shia-affiliated Zaydi Houthis in this war since 2013. With ideology and much-needed weapons and funding, though much less than what Saudi Arabia has expended, the Iranians have empowered the rebels to the point where they are now an established power in a future Yemen, whether unified or bifurcated.

So, the two regional powers are talking it out. The Saudis want out of the war, but they also want reliable security along their southwestern border. The Iranians want a Shia power on the Arabian Peninsula, but preferably one at peace.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

Yemen may be the most immediate challenge for the two states. But there are others. More broadly, Saudi Arabia and Iran need to reach a modus vivendi in the region. On-again, off-again formal relations, menacing behavior toward each other’s oil and shipping interests, and verbal assaults do little more than increase the temperature in a region plagued by heat, literally and figuratively.

Brothers Reconcile?

Saudi Arabia has also launched a campaign to repair the frayed relations among its Arab neighbors. Last week, Mohammed bin Salman week began a PR  to demonstrate a new and improved political environment. In a swing through the neighboring Gulf states of Oman, the UAE, Bahrain and, most importantly, Qatar, he seems to be trying to rebuild what once had been the region’s preeminent multilateral organization, the Gulf Cooperation Council.

Mohammed bin Salman single-handedly fractured the Gulf alliance when he imposed his 2017 blockade on Qatar, joined by the UAE, Bahrain and Egypt. It backfired. Qatar remained in the good graces of the US, drew the political and military support of peripheral power Turkey and earned the support of Iran. Consider it the young prince’s on-the-job training in global as well as regional politics. He is now devoting particular attention to Doha in the hope of what yet we aren’t quite certain. But this repair work and goodwill tour cannot help but create progress.

And not to be outdone, the Gulf’s other power, the UAE, has  on its own diplomatic repair mission. Like the Saudis, the Emiratis want to lower the temperature in the Gulf, and their position as the region’s prime economic entrepôt gives them special heft. The UAE’s ties to the US, still the unquestioned but now quiescent power in the Gulf, also lend special weight.

Could It All Be for Naught?

Looming over all of these laudable efforts, however, is Iranian behavior in the region. All eyes are now on the recently restarted talks over the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in Vienna, Austria. Following a near-six-month hiatus at ��������’s request, the P5+1 group and Iran renewed negotiations to reinstate the JCPOA — aka the Iran nuclear deal.

But it is the critical non-dialog between the US and Iran — the two countries are still not meeting face-to-face but rather communicating through the intermediation of the other P5+1 countries — that bears the most serious watching. Unless they can agree on a way forward that puts ��������’s nuclear weapons potential well into the very distant future while also lifting America’s onerous and inescapably crippling sanctions on the Islamic Republic, the heat in the Middle East will become white hot.

Judging from the US State Department’s uncharacteristically downcast semi-official  of the first round of the negotiation restart, there is cause for concern. ��������’s counterproductive, albeit predictable, maximalist opening gambit soured the P5+1, even China and Russia. Negotiators met again last week. Unless there is a greater attitude toward compromise, however, pessimism will win out. Positions will harden. And more extreme (and dangerous) measures will become viable.

President Biden has reiterated the US pledge that Iran will not get nuclear weapons. But neither he nor his secretary of state, Antony Blinken, will state what the consequences of failed talks might be.

Israel, however, is not so coy. Recent Israeli  confirm that the military option is very much in play. As if to put an even finer point on the matter, US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin  Jerusalem late last week for meetings with his Israeli counterpart, Defense Minister Benny Gantz. Both men are retired top generals of their respective armed forces and will have discussed military and other options.

Military action would be an unspeakable disaster for the Middle East. But so would a nuclear-armed or even nuclear-capable Iran. Even an approach that stops short of armed conflict will impose extraordinary hardship on the region, certainly prompting other states to consider acquiring nuclear weapons and further isolate Iran.

It would be unfair to place the entirety of the burden for the success of these talks on Tehran. However, unless Iran understands the futility of its mindless pursuit of nuclear weapons, no effort at fostering understanding elsewhere can temper the region’s mercury-popping political heat.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Can Self-Help Diplomacy Lower Political Heat in the Middle East? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

How Date Farming Helps Yemenis on Soqotra

READ MORE

Until now, the negotiations have reportedly revolved around two main issues. The first is the restoration of diplomatic relations between both countries. Bilateral ties were cut off in 2016 when Saudi Arabia executed Nimr Baqir al-Nimr, a Saudi dissident who was a Shia cleric, and protesters in Tehran stormed the Saudi Embassy in retaliation. The second topic of discussion is the Yemen War, which entered a new phase with the 2015 Saudi-led intervention against Houthi rebels who had taken over the Yemeni capital, Sanaa.

For more than one year, the Saudis have been looking for a way out of Yemen. The enormous economic costs of the conflict became more when oil prices fell as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and the ensuing lockdowns.

Even after the recovery of the hydrocarbon market, the fact remains that six years of war have not brought Saudi Arabia any closer to its two major goals in Yemen: reestablishing Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi as president and constraining the Houthis’ influence. Furthermore, US President Joe Biden, while not as tough on the kingdom as promised in his election campaign, has been less with Saudi Arabia than his predecessor, Donald Trump.

Who Are the Houthis?

The Saudis often present the Houthis as little more than Iranian puppets. ��������’s official is that the Houthi movement only receives ideological support from Tehran. Both narratives are inaccurate, to say the least.

The Houthis are a homegrown movement that successfully the Yemeni government’s military offensives from 2004 to 2010 without any external assistance. Hussein al-Houthi, the movement’s early leader and from whom its name is derived, was an of the 1979 Iranian Revolution and was influenced by its symbolism and ideology. His brother and current leader of the movement, Abdel-Malek al-Houthi, has also his admiration for the Islamic Republic.

The first credible of Iranian military support for the Houthis date back to 2013. Until 2016, weapons transfers were largely restricted to light arsenal. In the following years, Tehran started to supply the Houthis with increasingly sophisticated missile and unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) components. Furthermore, a contingent of Iranian Revolutionary Guards on the ground has been Houthi fighters. The Yemeni movement’s capacity to key strategical interests within Saudi Arabia, such as oil extraction facilities, pipelines and airports, cannot be understood without accounting for ��������’s role in the conflict.

At the same time, and contrary to Saudi claims, the Houthis are largely independent from Iran. Their territorial expansion in 2014 was politically built on its Faustian bargain with the former Yemeni president and arch-rival, Ali Abdullah Saleh, and the unpopularity of the Hadi government, which was backed by Saudi Arabia.

Moreover, most of the Houthis’ current arsenal has not been sourced from Iran. It has rather been acquired in the local — which is well-connected to the Horn of Africa’s smuggling routes — in battle or as a result of the of governmental military units to the Houthis. Before the war began, Yemen was already a country with small weaponry, coming only to the US in terms of weapons per capita.

According to the official Saudi narrative, the Houthis necessitate Iranian help to maintain their military effort. While this is most likely the case when it comes to the group’s capability to strike targets within Saudi territory, an abrupt end of Iranian military assistance to the Houthis would make little difference in Yemen’s internal balance of power.

What Saudi Arabia and Iran Need to Do

Saudi Arabia needs to come to terms with the fact that its attempt to impose a military solution in Yemen has failed. It has done so because of counterproductive airstrikes, support for unpopular local actors and a misunderstanding of internal dynamics. If Yemen has become Saudi Arabia’s quagmire, this has little to do with ��������’s limited support for the Houthis.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

Iran, for its part, should understand that its claims of non-interference in the Yemen War have gained a farcical nature over the years, as growing evidence has piled up on Iranian–Houthi ties. Iranian leaders cannot impose on the Houthis an end to attacks against Saudi territory. However, they can decisively constrain them by stopping the flow of UAV and missile technology to the Houthis, as well as ending their military training on the ground. In conjunction with this, Iran can support the direct Houthi–Saudi talks that began in late 2019.

For Saudi–Iranian negotiations to bear fruits in relation to the Yemen conflict, both sides need to show a realistic appraisal of ��������’s role in the war. It comes down to acknowledging two key facts. On the one hand, Iran has leverage over the Houthis because of its military support for the group. On the other hand, this leverage is inherently limited and cannot be used to grant Saudi Arabia a military victory in Yemen.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Will Saudi-Iran Talks Lead to Anything? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

��������’s ethnic minorities endure double discrimination — from the ruling regime and from the Iranian human rights community. While the regime and human rights organizations both at home and abroad disagree on many issues, they share a disdain for ��������’s ethnic minorities, unwilling to see them gain national rights. Thus, the government and its mainstream opposition share a common cause that strengthens the regime’s ability to stay in power and prevent democracy from taking root in Iran.

Repression Is No Longer Enough to Stem the Anger of ��������’s Minorities

READ MORE

��������’s undergo extreme discrimination beyond the restrictions imposed on all Iranians. They are not allowed to operate schools in their native language, are forced to use Persian in all formal settings, and are regularly subjected to mockery and ridicule in the official media and school textbooks. Ahwazi Arabs face suppression of any expression of their ethnic identity and culture as well as open anti-Arab racism.

Ahwazi Arabs, who number around 8 million, suffer from , environmental degradation, in employment, and high rates of poverty despite being the majority population in the oil and gas-rich . The Persian ruling class reaps the profits from these abundant natural resources while the local Ahwazi people suffer the from their production.

Shared Prejudice

Despite being formally committed to advancing democracy, Iranian human rights organizations share the regime’s prejudices and racism. These organizations rarely report on the distinct discrimination against ��������’s ethnic minorities, the specific goals of Ahwazi Arab protests or the political prisoners who have campaigned for the rights of ethnic minorities.

For instance, when listing the names of activists who have been abducted from their Western exiles by Iranian operatives, they neglect to mention , an Ahwazi activist and Swedish citizen kidnapped by the regime in Istanbul. Chaab is being held in Tehran’s notorious Evin Prison and is in imminent danger of execution.

I personally have experienced this double discrimination. As an Ahwazi Arab human rights activist, I was almost to death for supporting the right of Ahwazi children in Iran to learn their native language, Arabic. I was lucky to escape and settle in the US in 2015. My fellow activists were not so lucky — they were executed in 2014. The physical scars from that torture, which run from my sternum to my groin, will never leave me. Even after multiple operations, I will be on medication for the rest of my life.

Yet despite all the available evidence, I was shocked to discover that the Persian-dominated human rights organizations in the US opposed recognizing the rights of the Ahwazis and other minorities, co-opted our struggles and blocked reporting on our plight.

Social Media Wars

With ��������’s regime imposing a total media blackout on the Ahwazi issue, social media remains the only option for activists to raise awareness. But even here activists face constant abuse and threats not only from the regime, which deploys trolls and bots to mass-report activists’ accounts in an effort to shut them down, but also from Farsi-speaking Iranian dissidents. At one point, I had three Twitter bans in under 20 days. 

Due to this media war, most people in the West are not aware of Iran’s ethnic diversity, where Turkish, Ahwazi Arabs, Balochi, Kurdish and Caspian account for nearly 40% of ��������’s population. Most Iranian human rights organizations in exile focus on abuses against Persian dissidents while barely giving any coverage to the systemic racism against the ethnic minorities.

When our young men die for their rights in the streets of Ahwaz, the Persian-dominated groups report on these protests as anti-regime activity, intentionally disregarding the ethnic factor. This was the case in the widespread November 2019 protests and the recent wave of demonstrations this July, which were led by Ahwazi youth. Such co-opting of our activism adds insult to the injury of the brave sacrifices made by our young people.

Refused Recognition

The country’s Persian opposition is reluctant to recognize that Iran is a fundamentally diverse country and that its people have both a national identity and local sovereign claims. These Persian opposition groups have succumbed to the idea that providing support to the Ahwazi cause and recognizing its ethnic demands is a prelude to secessionism. Instead, they continue to turn a blind eye to the demands of ethnic minorities in their own regions in order to promote one nation, one centralized rule, one culture and one language — all Persian.

With this denial by Persian oppositions groups both at home and in exile, and with the regime continuing its brutally repressive, restrictive and racist rule, the outcome of subjugating the country’s ethnic minorities and disregarding their rights is predictable. The civil war that ravaged former Yugoslavia serves as a terrible warning of how states can fracture along ethnic lines. 

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

To avert such a catastrophe, Iran must abandon its antiquated supremacist mindset and acknowledge its non-Persian minorities as equal stakeholders and partners who form a power base in their own right. The creation of a federalized democratic system would defuse tensions and mean the possibility of a fair, genuinely progressive, modern state.

Even without its regressive theocratic foundation, the current supremacist system in Iran is an inadequate and outdated relic reflecting a mindset based on 19^th-century colonialism. In reality, the Iranian state is a patchwork of ethnicities, faiths and doctrines. As a result, Iran can choose between creating a fair, stable, democratic and progressive 21^st-century state — which reflects this vibrant and diverse melting pot where each group can elect its representatives to share in an equal, fair and federalized system — and collapsing into factionalism and civil war.

This double oppression to which Ahwazis and other ethnic minorities are subjected and the refusal of the Persian Iranian opposition in exile to even acknowledge both the regime’s or its own deep-seated antagonism toward Ahwazis and other ethnic minorities ultimately only benefits the regime, which can easily thwart a splintered opposition. In the end, we can only dismantle oppression in Iran — and globally — through unity and mutual respect.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post ��������’s Ethnic Minorities Face Double Discrimination appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Informed analysts such as the Quincy Institute’s Trita Parsi at the beginning of the year that because the impending elections in Iran were likely to reinforce the hardliners, the Biden administration had a “short window” to act on rejoining the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and undoing Donald Trump’s handiwork. In June, Ebrahim Raisi, a hardliner, won the election in Iran.

The West Struggles to Understand China’s Common Prosperity

READ MORE

The indirect talks, begun too late to have an impact, were already stalled. Shortly afterward, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken that the Iranians were dragging their feet. “We are committed to diplomacy,” he asserted, “but this process cannot go on indefinitely.”

This past week, MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell sat down with Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amirabdollahian for clarification. Citing President Raisi, she began by asking the minister whether Iran was to moving forward “within weeks.” Americans believe that “time is of the essence.” Mitchell insisted on pinning down that essence. The minister chose to respond as any Asian diplomat might.

He used the kind of indirect language Americans habitually fail to understand or simply lose patience with. US culture expects people to call a spade a spade, even though in politics, Americans rarely do so themselves, preferring deviation or even prevarication to ironic reflection.

“We do not have the opportunity nor the time,” the minister replied to his impatient interviewer, “to sit in meetings simply to drink coffee with one another. What is important for us are tangible results.” He was reminding Mitchell of ��������’s well-established position that consists of challenging the Americans, who unilaterally broke the deal and applied sanctions, to cancel the sanctions as the means of returning to normal.

Mitchell then added new pressure, citing Blinken’s position that “time is not indefinite” and asked him to “project how quickly” Iran might return to the negotiating table. The minister complained that the JCPOA had not provided any benefits to Iran in years and explained that they are currently “reviewing” and “assessing” in order to “keep the window of negotiation open.” He added that “we will very soon return to the negotiations.”

His remark provoked a new misunderstanding echoed in the press the following day. It concerned the word “soon.” that Amirabdollahian went on to explain to his compatriots on state TV channel IRINN the obsession of Americans who “keep asking how soon is soon. Does it mean days, weeks or months?”

He added: “The difference between Iranian and Western ‘soon’ is a lot. To us, ‘soon’ means really in the first opportune time — when our reviews (of the nuclear file) have been completed. What is important is our determination to return to the talks, but those that are serious and guarantee the Iranian nation’s rights and interests.”

Today’s Daily Devil’s Dictionary definition:

Time:

A measure of the relationship between identifiable events that most cultures see as variable and flexible but US culture long ago decided is a rigid, fixed system that can be translated both into monetary value (“time is money”) and a means of measuring the moral character of those who fail to respect time limits.

Contextual Note

At one juncture, Mitchell asks a question only an American would ask: “Is time running out for ��������’s willingness to go back to the JCPOA?” Americans believe that everything must have a cut-off point or expiration date that should be defined as quickly as possible. Amirabdollahian replied, “We believe diplomacy always works,” adding that if the other parties (all six original signatories) fail to honor their commitments, Iran would not “remain in the deal, fulfilling our side of the bargain.”

According to the minister, Iranians “believe diplomacy always works.” Just like “soon,” the word “always” has a different meaning in the two cultures. Analysts of culture describe Iran as a high context culture, in contrast with America’s low context culture. In a high context culture, the circumstances and context provide and complete the meaning that is only superficially indicated by a word or an idea.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information..

Without context, one can never be sure of the meaning. Americans prefer to think everything has a fixed, univocal definition. Not only do they call a spade a spade, they believe it is only a spade.

In Lewis Carroll’s “Alice in Wonderland,” tells the eponymous heroine, “When I use a word … it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.” Bemused, Alice replies: “The question is whether you can make words mean so many different things.” Humpty Dumpty may have a talent for confusing young girls and may even be less than totally sincere, but he represents high context culture. Alice thinks like an American.

Historical Note

Ever since it supplanted French as the recognized universal diplomatic language at some point in the 20^th century, English has become the world’s lingua franca for business and politics. One of the advantages the British and Americans have is that everyone is now obliged to speak a language they understand. But there are ways in which using their own language prevents them from understanding what other people mean when they use it.

Being monolingual often correlates with monocultural thinking. English speakers today may feel comfortable with the sound of the words they hear while not even hearing the thoughts and intentions others express with the same English words. That is what appears to be taking place in Andrea Mitchell’s interview. It required Amirabdollahian to explain something most Americans fail to understand. 

Mitchell is of course just doing a job that entails delivering a form of entertainment called the news to an audience with known expectations. For that, she doesn’t really need to explore meaning. Her audience expects her to produce a superficial impression designed to comfort their own beliefs. That is the law of the media. A deeper question to consider is its impact on foreign policy.

Biden’s foreign policy aims at understanding the material and psychological truth of the situation. But it is also orientated by what they know about the American public’s much more superficial expectations. A significant part of their job is to please American voters, a key to being reelected.

Most Americans probably learned at some point in their life that the Spanish word “����ñ���Բ�” means “tomorrow.” Americans sometimes say they will do something tomorrow. They mean it as a promise to act the following day. But they are also taught that when Mexicans promise to do something ����ñ���Բ�, it expresses a vague intention to possibly do it sometime in the future. This stereotype allows Americans to categorize Mexicans as both unreliable and lazy. 

What monolingual, monocultural Americans fail to appreciate is that every culture treats time and everything related to timing differently. There is no logical reason why “tomorrow,” “demain,” “����ñ���Բ�,” “domani” or “Morgen”should refer to a precise date in the calendar. In Spanish and German, “����ñ���Բ�” and “�Ѵǰ������” also mean “morning.” Those languages designate the coming night as dividing the present from the future. That future can be indefinite, such as “für ein besseres Morgen” — for a better tomorrow. 

In South Africa, the English word “now” similarly can mean any time in the future, starting from the present moment. To situate things closer to the present, people will literally say “now now,” but even then there is some leeway. As one South African , “we can try to explain it, the reality is you still might not get it.” This is a case where English doesn’t translate into English.

Both Andrea Mitchell’s interview and the example of Americans joking about the Mexican “����ñ���Բ�” highlight the difficulty low context Americans — convinced that words have a fixed meaning — have understanding not just other people’s concept of time but, more importantly, the value of time-related notions in those people’s minds when applied to real situations. Perhaps in the domain of foreign policy, like cigarettes, they should be labeled as potentially dangerous to your health.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Daily Devil’s Dictionary on 51�Թ�.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post It’s Time to Revise the American Concept of Time appeared first on 51�Թ�.

During this time, I have also learned a fair amount about military matters and various weapons systems, because they cost enormous amounts of money that could be put to much better use than killing and maiming people. But also because it’s hard to resist the absurd: The high-performance US F-35 fighter jet — at , the most expensive weapons system in US history — that costs $36,000 an hour to , shoots  and can decapitate pilots who attempt to bail out. There are, as well, the $640 toilet seats, the $7,622 coffee maker and the fact that the US Department of Defense cannot account for $6.5 trillion in spending.

What Is the Ruckus Over AUKUS?

READ MORE

I have also become fairly conversant with the major nuclear arms agreements, and I know what Article VI of the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty says (more on this later).

This is a farewell column, so I ask for your indulgence. Having (hopefully) beaten back cancer, I have decided to spend more time with my grandkids and maybe return to my  (I have at least one more in my head). But I would like a last hurrah about what I have learned about the world and politics over that last half-century, so bear with me.

Wars Are Bad and Empire Is Delusional

First, wars are really a bad idea, and not just for the obvious reason that they cause enormous misery and pain. They don’t work, at least in the sense that they accomplish some political end.

The United States has finally withdrawn from Afghanistan and is contemplating getting out of Iraq. Both wars were disasters of the catastrophic variety. If anyone in the Oval Office or the Pentagon had bothered to read Rudyard Kipling on Afghanistan (“” comes to mind) and D.H. Lawrence on Iraq (the “” is worthwhile), they would have known better.

But the illusions of empire are stubborn. The US still thinks it can control the world when every experience of the past 50 years or more — Vietnam, Somalia, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq — suggests it can’t. Indeed, the last war we “won” was Grenada, where the competition was not exactly world-class.

Americans are not alone in the delusion of confusing the present for the past. The  are sending the aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth and a destroyer to the South China Sea — to do what? The days when Charles “Chinese” Gordon could scatter the locals with a few gunboats are long gone. What the People’s Republic will make of Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s nostalgia for Lord Nelson and Trafalgar is anyone’s guess, but Beijing is more likely to be amused than intimidated by a mid-size flat top and a tin can.

The Same Goes for Cold Wars

China is not conquer the world. It wants to be the planet’s biggest economy and to sell everyone lots of stuff. In short, exactly what Britain wanted in the 19^th century and the US wanted in the 20^th. The Chinese do insist on military control of their local seas, in much the same way that the US controls its east, west and southern coasts. Imagine how Washington would react to Chinese warships regularly exercising off Pearl Harbor, San Diego, Newport News or the Gulf of Mexico.

Are the Chinese heavy-handed about this? Yes, indeed, and they have unnecessarily alienated a number of nations in the region, including Vietnam, the Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia and Japan. Demilitarizing the East and South China seas would reduce tensions and remove the rationale for Beijing’s illegal seizure of small islands, reefs and shoals in the area. China will have to realize that it can’t unilaterally violate international law through its claims over most of the South China Sea, and the US will have to accept that the Pacific Ocean is no longer an American lake.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

Meanwhile, the Russians are coming! The Russians are coming! Actually, no they are not, and it is time to stop the silliness about Russian hordes  on the border ready to overrun Ukraine or the Baltic states. What those troops were doing late last spring was responding to a plan by NATO for a huge military exercise,  Russia is not trying to recreate the Soviet Union. Its economy is about the size of Italy’s, and the current problems stem from the profoundly stupid decision to move NATO eastward. The Russians are sensitive about their borders, with good reason.

We can thank Bill Clinton and George W. Bush for disinterring this particular aspect of the Cold War. Both presidents expanded NATO, and Bush unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) and began deploying anti-missile systems in Poland and Romania. NATO claims the ABMs are aimed at Iran, but Iran doesn’t have missiles that can reach Europe and it doesn’t possess nuclear weapons. The Russians would be foolish to draw any other conclusion but that those ABMs are targeting Moscow’s missiles.

NATO has a zombie alliance, staggering from one disaster to another: first Afghanistan, then Libya and now the US is pressing NATO to confront China in Asia (which is unlikely — Europeans view China as an invaluable market, not a threat).

NATO should go the way of the Warsaw Pact, and the US should rejoin the anti-ballistic missile agreement. Removing the ABM missiles might, in turn, lead to reestablishing the, an extremely important treaty from which the US also unilaterally withdrew.

Apartheid Can’t Last Forever

Elsewhere, Israel needs to study some Irish history. In 1609, the native population of what became Northern Ireland was forcibly removed to Connaught in the island’s west and replaced by 20,000 Protestant tenants. Yet now, centuries later, the upcoming census is almost certain to show that Catholics once again constitute a majority in Northern Ireland.

The moral? Walls and fences and apartheid policies will not make the Palestinians go away or cause them to forget that much of their land was stolen.

In the short run, the right-wing Israeli settlers may get their way, just as the Protestant settlers did more than 400 years ago. But history is long, and the Palestinians are no more likely to disappear than the native Irish did. It would save a lot of bloodshed and communal hate if the Israelis removed the West Bank and Golan settlers, shared Jerusalem and let the Palestinians have their own viable state. The alternative? A one-state, one-person, one-vote democracy.

The US should also end Israel’s “special status.” Why are we not as outraged with apartheid in Israel as we were with apartheid in South Africa? Why do we ignore the fact that Israel has  When Americans lecture other countries about maintaining a “rules-based” world, can you blame them if they roll their eyes? Why is it “illegal” for Iran to acquire nukes when Tel Aviv gets a pass?

We Should Really Deal With Existential Threats More Often

The Biden administration is fond of using the term “existential” in reference to climate change, and the term is not an exaggeration. Our species is at a crossroads, and the time for action is distressingly short.

By 2050, some 600 million Indians will have inadequate access to water. Vanishing glaciers are systematically draining the water reserves of the Himalayas, the Hindu Kush, the Andes and the Rockies. While much of the world will face water shortages, some will experience the opposite, as Germans and Chinese recently discovered. Water is a worldwide crisis and there are few blueprints about how to deal with it, although the 1960 Indus Valley water treaty between India and Pakistan could serve as a template.

There is simply no way that the world can tackle climate change and continue to spend — according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute — almost $2 trillion a year on . Nor can the US afford to support its empire of bases — some 800 worldwide, the same number as Britain had in 1885.

However, climate change is not the only “existential” threat to our species. Somehow nuclear weapons have dropped off the radar as a global threat, but currently, there are major nuclear underway involving China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Russia and NATO. The US is spending upward of $1 trillion  its nuclear triad of aircraft, ships and missiles.

Sanctions Don’t Work

Sanctions, as journalist Patrick Cockburn argues, are war crimes, and no country in the world applies them as widely and with such vigor as the United States. Our  have impoverished North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Venezuela and Syria and inflict unnecessary pain on Cuba. They raise tensions with Russia and China. And why do we apply them? Because countries do things we don’t like or insist on economic and political systems that we don’t agree with.

Washington can do it because we control the de facto world currency, the dollar, and countries that cross us can lose their ability to engage in international banking. The French bank BNP Paribas was forced to pay $9 billion in fines for bypassing sanctions on Iran. Yet sanctions have almost always failed to achieve their political objectives.

Self-Determination Is Good

Dear Spanish government: Let the Catalans vote in peace and accept the results if they decide they want to go their own way. Ditto for the Scots, the people of Kashmir and, sometime in the future, the Northern Irish. You can’t force people to be part of your country if they don’t want to be, and trying to make them is like teaching a pig to whistle: It can’t be done and annoys the pig.

If You Displace People, Offer Them Refuge (Then Stop Displacing People)

The US and NATO cannot destabilize countries like Afghanistan, Syria and Libya and then pull up the  when people flee the chaos those wars have generated.

Similarly, the colonial countries that exploited and held back the development of countries in Africa and Latin America cannot wash their hands of the problems of post-colonialism. And the industrial countries that destabilized the climate can’t avoid their responsibility for tens of millions of global warming refugees.

In any case, the US, Europe and Japan need those immigrants, because the depressed birth rates in developed countries mean they are heading for serious demographic trouble.

Hypocrisy Is Bad 

The world rightfully condemns the assassination of political opponents by Russia and Saudi Arabia, but it should be equally outraged when the Israelis systematically kill Iranian scientists, or when the US takes out Iranian leaders with a drone attack.

You don’t have the right to kill someone just because you don’t like what they stand for. How do you think Americans would react to Iran assassinating US General Mark Milley, the head of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff?

Less Exceptionalism. More Diplomacy.

The world desperately needs an international  to confront future pandemics and must guarantee that it includes the poorest countries on the globe. This is not mere altruism. If countries can’t provide health care for their residents, that should be the responsibility of the international community, because untreated populations give rise to mutations like the Delta variant of COVID-19. Ask not for whom the bells toll. It tolls for us all.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

American  is an albatross around our necks, blocking us from seeing that other countries and other systems may do things better than we do. No other country accepts that Americans are superior, especially after four years of Donald Trump, the pandemic debacle and the January 6 insurrection in Washington. Who would want the level of economic inequality in this country or our prison population, the highest in the world? Is being 44^th on the World Press Freedom Index or 18^th on the Social Progress Index something we should take  What we can take pride in is our diversity. Therein lies the country’s real potential.

Finally, to of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: “Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiation in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.” Amen.

Two and Two and 50 Make a Million

Pie in the sky? An old man’s wish list?

Well, the one thing I have learned in these past 50-plus years is that things happen if enough people decide they should. So, to quote that rather clunky line from Pete Seeger’s “One Man’s Hands,” sung widely during the ‘60s peace movement: “If two and two and 50 make a million, we’ll see that day come ‘round.”

And that’s all folks (for now).

*[This article was originally published by .]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Lessons From 50 Years of Covering Foreign Policy appeared first on 51�Թ�.

One day after Biden’s inauguration, QAnon sympathizer and representative for Georgia, Marjorie Taylor Greene,  to impeach the new president on the Trumped-up charge of bribery. As the US withdrawal from Afghanistan proceeded at its telescoped and chaotic pace, impeachment calls came with greater regularity from the Republican Party, with South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham  the president’s ouster for the high crime and misdemeanor of “ignoring sound advice.”

It’s a curious turn of events when the Republicans lambaste the current president for implementing the policy of their own party’s standard-bearer and doing so in a dysfunctional manner that was a hallmark of Trump’s tenure. And why exactly are Republicans complaining? They’ve already effectively handcuffed the current president —without the bother of actually trying to send him to jail — by forcing him to deal with the consequences of the actions taken by Donald Trump during his four years in office.

Understanding and Misunderstanding the Biden Doctrine

READ MORE

Sure, Biden has emphasized the few global issues on which he has boldly departed from Trump’s agenda. The new administration dramatically reentered the Paris agreement on climate change. It committed the United States to fight COVID-19 worldwide with a somewhat more generous policy on vaccine distribution. It rescinded the “global gag rule” prohibiting foreign aid for family planning overseas. It signaled the end to US support of the Saudi-led war in Yemen.

But in many other foreign policy areas, Biden has had to operate within the parameters established by his predecessor. On Afghanistan, Iran, immigration, trade and many other issues, Trump implemented radioactive policies that have long half-lives. The Biden administration has been stuck with the job of cleaning up the toxic waste. Worse, in some cases, the president has, for political reasons, decided to live with the mess.

Poisonous Gifts

Afghanistan has been perhaps the most significant foreign policy legacy of the Trump team. In February 2020, the administration negotiated a deal with the Taliban in Doha to end the two-decade war. At the time, about 13,000 US troops provided training, muscle and firepower to a seriously underperforming Afghan army. According to the deal, the last US soldiers would depart Afghanistan in May 2021. By the time Biden took office in January 2021, US forces were officially down to 2,500, although in reality there were about  American soldiers in the country.

Biden could have the Doha deal, just as Trump threw out so many of the agreements that the Obama administration signed. He could have once again expanded the US military footprint inside Afghanistan, as some of his advisers recommended. But there was virtually no popular support for another surge, and Biden had never been a fan of more boots on the ground. He’d promised during the presidential campaign to end the US war in Afghanistan, so the 2020 agreement served as a useful rationale.

What the new administration was not happy with, however, were some of the consequences of the peace deal, including the release of 5,000 Taliban prisoners without a quid pro quo and the ultimate undermining of the authority of the government in Kabul. The radioactive gift from the Trump administration was to rob the Biden team of any real leverage in its implementation of the deal. The most Biden could do was to delay the withdrawal of troops by a couple of months and hope for some kind of power-sharing arrangement between the Taliban and the government in Kabul.

Instead, an emboldened Taliban clearly capitalized on the feelings of abandonment among provincial officials in the wake of the 2020 deal to negotiate the handover of one city after another. Sure, Biden could have begun withdrawing American personnel and Afghan colleagues before the Taliban reached Kabul. But the president would have been blamed for jumping the gun and contributing to the demoralization that hastened the Taliban’s ultimate victory.

Trump’s ill-planned deal — and his  to pull out all troops by January 15, 2021, regardless of the “sound advice” of his national security team — set up nothing but bad choices for Biden around what was ultimately a necessary military withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Another poisonous gift from Trump has been his Iran policy. Trump backed out of the Iran nuclear deal in May 2018 and tried, with additional sanctions and pressures, to ensure that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) would never be resuscitated.

The Biden administration has promised to find a way back to the nuclear agreement. But it has yet to come up with a formula in its negotiations with Iranian counterparts on eliminating Trump-era sanctions and providing compensation for their impact while at the same time walking back ��������’s moves to expand its nuclear program. In one good sign, Iran  an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency that preserves previously agreed-upon monitoring.

But there’s no guarantee that the JCPOA can be revived. Meanwhile, the Biden administration is hedging its bets. “We’re putting diplomacy first and see where that takes us. But if diplomacy fails, we’re ready to turn to other options,” Biden . If diplomacy fails, Biden will certainly deserve some of the blame, but Trump did what he could to make success as unlikely as possible.

Trade Policy

Iran is not the only country still suffering under the burden of Trump-era sanctions. China was hit with a variety of tariffs and economic sanctions during the Trump years, and it retaliated with trade penalties of its own against the United States.

To get the tariffs reduced, China signed the “phase one” trade agreement in which it promised to purchase $200 billion more US products in 2020-21. Last year, China of its targeted purchases by 40%. Of course, the global outbreak of COVID-19 didn’t help, as global trade in general plummeted. The numbers for 2021, on the other hand, have been better, with Chinese purchases of agricultural products in particular .

Significantly, that “phase one” agreement didn’t lift any of the tariffs on Chinese goods, just reduced some of the rates. Tariffs on 66% of Chinese products , amounting to about $350 billion. That cost the United States around , not to mention the $28 billion in subsidies Trump sent to farmers to offset the initial drop in Chinese purchases of soybeans and other foodstuffs.

The Biden administration shows no sign of reducing or eliminating those tariffs. Indeed, it has  more economic sanctions against China over its policies in Xinjiang and Hong Kong. It expanded a Trump-era prohibition on US investments into Chinese companies connected to defense or surveillance technology. Meetings between Chinese and American officials have failed to establish common ground on trade or any other issue for that matter.

The bottom line is that Trump helped move the needle in Washington against China, so that anti-Chinese policies now have strong bipartisan support. Biden would have difficulty lifting tariffs and sanctions even if that’s what he wanted to do.

But even where such animus doesn’t exist, like Europe, Biden hasn’t pushed hard to lift penalties. Although this summer the administration finally ended a 17-year trade war with Europe over subsidizing the aerospace sector, Biden has not lifted the tariffs Trump imposed on European steel and aluminum. When asked after the G7 summit in June about these measures, a clearly exasperated president : “A hundred and twenty days. Give me a break. Need time.”

His response is disingenuous. He could have lifted those sanctions on day one. In fact, protectionism strikes a chord in certain sectors of the Democratic Party, and Biden doesn’t want to lose blue-collar voters. Trump made protectionism great again. Biden is loath to push against this tide.

Immigration

Trump’s protectionism also extended to border policy. He spent much of his four years in office doing whatever he could to cut the numbers of people entering the country and, where possible, deporting people who were already here.

Biden pledged to  the ugliest of Trump’s policies. He stopped the construction of the infamous wall on the southern border. He ended travel bans for people coming from majority Muslim countries. He recommitted to protecting the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which covers undocumented young people who came to the United States at a young age.

But Trumpism lives on throughout the US court system. In July, a federal judge in Texas  that the Biden administration must stop accepting new DACA applications. In August, the Supreme Court ordered the administration to  Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” program, which forces asylum-seekers to wait in Mexico while awaiting a decision on their status. In putting asylum-seekers at risk, the program  international law.

It gets worse. The Biden administration is not happy with the above rulings and is seeking to challenge them. Yet in other immigration matters, the Justice Department continues to prosecute Trump-era cases.

“Over the past six months, the U.S. government has backed the expiration of certain visas, pushed for tougher requirements for investors seeking green cards, and supported the denial of permanent residency for thousands of immigrants living legally in the U.S.,” Anita Kumar  in Politico. “Former administration officials and immigration lawyers say Biden’s hands may be tied in certain cases—that the government may not necessarily agree with the specific policy but that the Justice Department may have to defend Trump-era policy because of requirements in law and the time needed to review all the cases.”

Trump didn’t just tie his successor’s hands. He handcuffed them to the throttle of a runaway train.

Not a Rule-Breaker

Trump made some changes that Biden has accepted without reservation. The previous president created a new focus in Asian policy that he called “Indo-Pacific,” which brought together the United States with Japan, India and Australia to form the Quad (not to be confused with the Squad). Indo-Pacific coordinator Kurt Campbell has  India in the new administration’s containment of China, which had been a major Trump focus (to the extent that he could focus on anything).

The Biden administration has also  Trump’s Abraham Accords that secured new diplomatic relations between Arab countries and Israel (but at the expense of Palestine). Meanwhile, Biden shows no sign of attempting to reverse such Trump innovations as establishing the US Embassy in Jerusalem.

Of course, Biden is in a policy space whose parameters were established long before Trump came along with his sledgehammer. Biden is not exactly a rule-breaker when it comes to international affairs. The new administration has increased Pentagon spending and reaffirmed military commitments to NATO and allies in the Pacific. Biden has resurrected the old approach of “strategic patience” with North Korea.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information..

Aside from some proposed increases in foreign aid, he has largely ignored the global south. It turns out that the new president is comfortable working within the constraints of the status quo ante.

Trump was a true rule-breaker who did manage to do quite a lot in the international arena, where he had far greater leeway to make changes beyond congressional control. Much of that activity was destructive because Trump proved quite adept at smashing things.

Indeed, Trump smashed things — the Iran nuclear deal, détente with Cuba — not just because of a peevish desire to destroy his predecessor’s legacy but as part of a  to FUBAR the federal government for generations to come. As a result, Biden will spend much of his term picking up the pieces — and that’s a whole lot harder when you’re in handcuffs.

*[This was originally published by Foreign Policy in Focus.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Handcuffing of Joe Biden appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Explosive Reporting From The New York Times

READ MORE

Business Insider the Taliban about what to expect as it recounts the drama experienced by Iran for more than 35 years: “The frozen money was a thorn in the side of the US-Iran relationship for decades until it was returned to Iran in 2016 under the Obama Administration in a dead-of-the-night transportation from Geneva.”

Today’s Daily Devil’s Dictionary definition:

Frozen money:

A form of legal theft that is the privilege of a powerful nation whose money has become the de facto reserve currency and who uses its control of the global banking system to punish any nations that don’t declare allegiance to its economic and political ideology

Contextual Note

Business Insider quotes Cornell University legal scholar Robert Hockett, who explained last week that the process for the Taliban “could also go on for decades, if the Taliban itself goes on for decades.” His insight reveals what the game is really about and how it is played. For the US, the endgame is to make sure the Taliban cannot exist for decades. Starving a nation will alienate its people, encourage opposing forces and provoke regime change.

That was the strategy with Iran, but it ultimately failed. The regime the US sought to overthrow is still in place. The net result of freezing the nation’s assets and applying crippling sanctions has been to strengthen the grip of its leadership that must appear forceful in the face of the oppressor.

Hockett explains why one nation can unilaterally refuse to honor the core principle of America’s capitalist ideology: the inalienability of property. “The United States has the legal authority to freeze assets that were held by a government when that government is replaced by a nongovernment,” he says. The key then is simply to refuse to recognize a new government, which thus redefines even a fully functioning new government as a non-government. Admitting that the US has the “legal authority” under the vague set of principles called “the rule of law,” many may be wondering whether it has the moral authority.

The contention on both sides concerning ��������’s assets might appear as a classic short-term negotiating situation. But the case of Iran demonstrates that the haggling can last for decades or even longer. From the Associated Press, we that “Secretary of State Antony Blinken said Wednesday that any legitimacy or international support for the Taliban ‘will have to be earned.’” That constitutes a reasonable warning that if the Taliban wishes to have formal recognition, they will have to take into account the international community’s expectations about minimum standards of policy on questions such as modes of government and human rights.

This raises two problems: defining those minimum standards and agreeing on a reasonable time frame. In normal circumstances, contending nations seek to define minimum thresholds and then work to reach some kind of compromise. Things may be a bit different when negotiating with the US. According to Hockett, the “only way that the Taliban could see the billions of dollars in reserves is ‘if it ceases to be the Taliban.’” That is a fair description of US negotiating tactics. Translated into the American popular language, it reads: My way or the highway.

As for time frames, the Iranians waited more than three decades for the opportunity to deal with a president whose middle name was Hussein. Over all that time, the Iranian people suffered. To this day, the Americans believe that with a bit more suffering, regime change will occur. Instead, over time, the Iranian government became increasingly rigid. The perceived sadism of the US had the effect of reinforcing the national pride even of Iranians who had little sympathy for the hardline regime. Americans have a hard time understanding that the prospect of succumbing to a dominating imperial power can be off-putting, especially for populations with a rich cultural heritage.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

Today’s dramatic showdown demonstrates two basic features of human cultures that American politicians apparently have a hard time taking on board, even those educated at Harvard, Yale, Columbia and Princeton. Americans raised in the consumer society are taught to believe that all humans seek fulfillment in the great principle the US offered to the world: conspicuous consumption. Faced with the choice of material deprivation or consumer nirvana, people will always choose the latter. 

The second concerns time. In the US, time is money. In a negotiation situation where losses may accumulate, people lose patience and tend to capitulate when they see no visible end date. Other cultures, especially in Asia and the Middle East, experience time on a much broader scale. They cannot so easily be made to hurry into an agreement that offends their sensibilities just because it will appear to ease their material suffering.

Historical Note

The failure of US political culture to appreciate these cultural variables has led to immense suffering for multiple populations across the globe for the better part of the past century. The US neo-imperial system provides an interesting contrast to other systems of domination, such as the British Empire.

People who accept to live in a colonized nation tend to see their own history as pointing in two possible directions. One group passively accepts the colonial system as a new model destined to replace the old system. Many of these passive participants spontaneously adhere to the implicit values of the new colonial regime. They may not see it as a form of progress, but they tend to accept it as a fatality of their history that need not be celebrated but cannot and should not be resisted.

A second group of passive participants simply decides to yield to the force of current events. But because they share a vision not limited to the short term, they view the colonial regime as ephemeral. They expect that time will eventually banish the invader and restore the culture they perceive as their own.

Then there are the activists, who will always represent a minority. They see the new order as a repression of something fundamental to their culture and more permanent in time. They may lurk in the background or emerge as the revolutionaries or transformers, looking for the first sign of weakness on the part of the colonial power. Some are patient and play the long game. Others seek to precipitate the action at the first opportunity. Both groups may be disappointed, either because the long game appears to last forever or because precipitation provokes an effective repression. But their spirit endures.

The history of India and many other of what were once “possessions” of the British Empire illustrate all these tendencies, which admit of various other subtle variations. Even without a precise knowledge of history, everyone understands that empires ultimately fail. The British Empire was remarkably durable but couldn’t rival the Roman Empire, which lasted for at least four or five complete centuries. The key to keeping any empire in place as long as possible lies in building a wide base of passive participants and creating the illusion that the new colonial order is a natural extension of the nation’s history.

Thomas Babington Macaulay abysmally failed to understand the reality of India, but he very successfully grasped the strategies that could create the cultural illusion that would make British India stable over time. His work, undertaken in the first half of the 19^th century, was largely responsible for keeping the illusion going for a full century.

Americans in the 21^st century on the other hand may have the money and the military might, but they simply don’t have the time to spend on such ventures. Their ideas tend to be as frozen as the Taliban’s assets.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Daily Devil’s Dictionary on 51�Թ�.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Economic War That Truly Is Forever appeared first on 51�Թ�.

360˚ Context: How 9/11 and the War on Terror Shaped the World

READ MORE

After 20 years of the doctrine in action, which saw the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq that further ignited regional instability, President Joe Biden has withdrawn US troops from Afghanistan and is determined to end the in Iraq by the end of the year. Without concluding whether two decades of aggression succeeded in defeating terrorism, it can be said that the war on terror opened a new area of influence for one of the axis of evil, namely Iran in Iraq.

Opening the Gates

Thanks to its Shia population, Iraq has been a significant target of Iranian foreign policy since the Islamic Revolution of 1979. Due to both geographic and sectarian proximity, Iran, which sees Washington as an enemy and a source of instability in the region, was suspicious of the 2003 US invasion of Iraq.

Deeming Baathist Iraq as a major threat to its national security, the regime in Tehran has meddled in its neighbor’s internal politics and strategic tendencies ever since coming to power. With the US toppling of Saddam Hussein, however, Iran succeeded in courting Iraq’s Shia population by taking advantage of its shared border and cultural, religious and economic ties.

The fact that significant Shia figures opposed to the Iraqi regime took refuge in Iran in the early 1980s strengthened Tehran’s relations with these groups in the post-invasion period. During this time, the Shia population has become influential in the Iraqi state and society. For example, Hadi al-Amiri, the leader of the Badr Organization militia, and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the recently deceased vice president of the Popular Mobilization Units (PMU), count among some of the most prominent pro-Iranian figures in the current Iraqi political and military establishments.

The Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, a Shia resistance group headed by Ayatollah Mohammad Baqir al-Hakim hoping to topple Saddam Hussein’s regime, was established in Iran in 1982. It became a pioneer organization for various Shia militias and political groups with connections to Tehran, incorporating the Badr Organization, then known as the Badr Brigades.

While Iran benefitted from the support of Iraqi militias during the inconclusive war with Iraq in the 1980s, Tehran redirected this mobilization against the US forces following the 2003 invasion. The Iraqi militia group Kataib Hezbollah was in early 2007, followed by Asaib Ahl al-Haq, as part of the campaign by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Quds Force against US forces.

Iran’s presence in Iraq came to light when the Americans several Iranian operatives in 2006 and 2007, among them of the IRGC. Asaib Ahl al-Haq kidnapped and killed five US soldiers in January 2007, but two months later, captured the militia’s leader, Qais al-Khazali, alongside an operative of Hezbollah, Tehran’s proxy in Lebanon, Ali Musa Daqduq. It is well known that the Jaish al-Mahdi militias led by Muqtada al-Sadr, who still has distant dealings with Iran, received intensive Iranian support to fight against the United States.

The disbanding the Iraqi army and establishing the interim government by the US after 2003 provided Iran with new opportunities to secure many significant positions in the bureaucracy. In this process, many members of the Badr Brigades were integrated into the new army and police forces, their political connections winning many rapid promotions. Today, Badr is still one of the most active groups within the police, the army and the Ministry of Interior.

Consolidation of Iranian Power

The Baghdad government was formed along ethnic and sectarian quotas. As per the country’s 2005 constitution, the presidency was allocated to the Kurds, the prime minister’s office to the Shia and the position of parliament’s speaker to the Sunnis. The allocation of the executive position to Shia leaders strengthened Iran’s elbow room in Iraqi politics.

The sectarian policies of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, who held office between 2006 and 2014, the Sunni society further. In addition to the fact that the Shia occupied a central position in the administrative system, the American inability to understand Sunni expectations has marginalized Sunni society. Radicalization led to the resurgence of al-Qaeda and later the formation of the even more extreme Islamic State (IS) group in the Sunni regions of Iraq.

After capturing Mosul in June 2014, IS has taken control of almost a third of Iraqi territory. All Shia groups fighting against the new threat were under the banner of the Popular Mobilization Units — an umbrella organization controlled mainly by pro-Iran armed groups — after Iraq’s top Shia cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, called for all those able to carry a weapon to take up arms.

The PMU militias were provided with American and Iranian-made weapons during their fight against IS. Pro-Iranian militias such as the Badr Organization, Kataib Hezbollah and Asaib Ahl al-Haq dominated the PMU. Active support by the IRGC provided to Iraqi militias and the presence of Qassem Soleimani, a Quds Force commander, at the front lines pointed to Iran’s effectiveness in the field.

Integrating the PMU as a of the Iraqi security mechanism in 2016 further legitimized Iranian influence in the political and military establishments. For instance, almost $1.7 billion was to the PMU, which consists of some 100,000 militants, from the $90-billion Iraqi budget in 2021.  

Defeating the Islamic State

After the declaration of victory against IS in 2017, tensions between Iran and the US, placed on the back burner during the campaign, reignited. While US officials argued that the PMU completed their mission and should be , pro-Iranian groups reassumed their anti-American tone.

Thanks to their active role in the fight against IS, Iran-backed militias secured their position in the military bureaucracy and were able to establish themselves politically. The Fatah Alliance, under the leadership of Hadi al-Amiri and backed by pro-Iranian militias, gained victory in the 2018 election, becoming the second-largest group in the Iraqi parliament. Iran has thus become one of the decision-makers in post-IS Iraq.

Tensions increased in 2018 after President Donald Trump decided to unilaterally withdraw the United States from the nuclear deal with Iran. Pro-Iranian forces began to attack US forces on the ground in Iraq. While Iran seemed to want to punish the US via the Iraqi militias, these attacks also aimed at forcing Americans to withdraw from Iraq. The situation has come to an apogee with the killing of Soleimani and Muhandis in the in Baghdad on January 3, 2020.

The assassinations shifted the tensions to the political arena. On January 5, under the leadership of pro-Iranian groups, a was passed in Iraq’s parliament to call on the government to expel foreign troops from the country. In addition to political pressures, as a result of ongoing attacks by pro-Iranian militias on American bases and soldiers in Iraq, the US many of its bases in the country. As a result of strategic dialogue negotiations with Baghdad, Washington decided to withdraw its combat forces and retain only consultant support. To a large degree, Iran managed to get what it wanted — to drive the US out and reassert its own influence in the region.

Pro-Iranian militias, already active in the Shia regions, started to show their presence in Sunni-dominated areas such as Mosul, Anbar and Saladin after the defeat of IS. Furthermore, Iran-backed groups pursue a long-term strategy to seize control of disputed areas between the central government and the Kurdistan Region of Iraq. Iran-backed groups, including the Badr Organization, Asaib Ahl al-Haq, Kataib Imam Ali, Kataib Sayyid al-Shuhada and Saraya al-Khorasani, have been active in the disputed territories since 2014.

At the same time, these militias under the PMU umbrella reject control by Baghdad and threaten the central government. So much so that Abu Ali Askari, a spokesman for Kataib Hezbollah, was that “the time is appropriate to cut his ears as the ears of a goat are cut,” referring to Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi, while militias were able to against the government in the streets of Baghdad amid tensions leading up to the anniversary of Soleimani’s assassination.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

Aiming to limit US influence, Iran has been gradually reshaping Iraq‘s internal and security policy since 2003. While millions are still paying the price of the war on terror in Iraq, which resulted in the collapse of the political and economic systems followed by a campaign of terror by the Islamic State, Iran continues to consolidate its power, both in military and political spheres.

After an 18-year-long story of invasion and with the US poised to withdraw its combat forces, Iran’s hegemony over Iraq will inevitably come to fruition. The sectarian and ethnic emphasis within the framework of the government quota system not only prevents the formation of independent Iraqi identity but also keeps fragile social fault lines dynamic, an opportunity that Iran will, without doubt, continue to exploit.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The War on Terror Drove Iraq Into ��������’s Orbit appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The fall of the US-backed Afghan government led by President Ashraf Ghani will shelve if not kill Indian support for the Iranian port of Chabahar, which was intended to facilitate Indian trade with Afghanistan and Central Asia. Chabahar was also viewed by India as a counterweight to the Chinese-supported Pakistani port of Gwadar, a crown jewel of Beijing’s transportation, telecommunications and energy-driven Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

The Hazaras of Afghanistan Face a Threat to Survival

READ MORE

The United States facilitated Indian investment in Chabahar by  the port from harsh sanctions against Iran. The exemption was intended to “support the reconstruction and development of Afghanistan.” However, due to stalled negotiations with Iran about a revival of the 2015 nuclear agreement, the US in July — together with Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan — plans to create a platform that would foster regional trade, business ties and connectivity.

The connectivity end of the plan resembled an effort to cut off one’s nose to spite one’s face. It would have circumvented Iran and weakened Chabahar but potentially strengthened China’s Gwadar alongside the port of Karachi. That has become a moot point with the plans certain to be shelved as the Taliban take over Afghanistan and form a government that would be denied recognition by at least the democratic parts of the international community.

China

Like other Afghan neighbors, neither Pakistan, Uzbekistan nor China are likely to join a boycott of the Taliban. On the contrary, China last month made a point of giving a visiting Taliban delegation a welcome. Yet recognition by Iran, Central Asian states and China of a Taliban government is unlikely to be enough to salvage the Chabahar project. “Changed circumstances and alternative connectivity routes are being conjured up by other countries to make Chabahar irrelevant,” an Iranian source told , a Delhi-based publication.

The Taliban have sought to reassure China, Iran, Uzbekistan and other Afghan neighbors that they will not allow Afghanistan to become an operational base for jihadist groups. This includes al-Qaeda and Uighur of the Turkestan Islamic Party (TIP). The Taliban have positioned themselves as solely concerned with creating an Islamic emirate in Afghanistan and having no inclination to operate beyond the country’s borders. But they have been consistent in their to expel al-Qaeda, even if the group is a shadow of what it was when it launched the 9/11 attacks in 2001.

The TIP has occasionally issued  documenting its presence in Afghanistan. But it has, by and large, kept a low profile and refrained from attacking Chinese targets in Afghanistan or across the border in Xinjiang, the northwestern Chinese province in which authorities have brutally cracked down on ethnic Turkic Uighurs. As a result, the Taliban reassurance was insufficient to stop China from  advising its citizens to leave Afghanistan as soon as possible. “Currently, the security situation in Afghanistan has further deteriorated … If Chinese citizens insist on staying in Afghanistan, they will face extremely high-security risks, and all the consequences will be borne by themselves,” the Chinese foreign ministry said.

Pakistan

The fallout of the Taliban’s sweep across Afghanistan is likely to affect China beyond Afghan borders, perhaps no more so than in Pakistan, a major focus of Beijing’s single largest BRI-related investment. This has made China a target for attacks by militants, primarily Baloch nationalists. In July, nine Chinese nationals were killed in an explosion on a bus transporting Chinese workers to the construction site of a dam in the northern mountains of Pakistan, a region prone to attacks by religious militants. This incident raises the specter of jihadists also targeting China. It was the highest loss of life of Chinese citizens in recent years in Pakistan.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information..

The attack occurred amid fears that the Taliban will bolster ultra-conservative religious sentiment in Pakistan that celebrates the group as heroes, whose success enhances the chances for austere religious rule. “Our jihadis will be emboldened. They will say that ‘if America can be beaten, what is the Pakistan army to stand in our way?’” a senior Pakistani official. Indicating its concern, China has  the signing of a framework agreement on industrial cooperation, which would have accelerated the implementation of projects that are part of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).

Kamran Bokhari, for The Wall Street Journal, explained: “Regime change is a terribly messy process. Weak regimes can be toppled; replacing them is the hard part. It is only a matter of time before the Afghan state collapses, unleashing chaos that will spill beyond its borders. All of Afghanistan’s neighbors will be affected to varying degrees, but Pakistan and China have the most to lose.”

The demise of Chabahar and/or the targeting by the Taliban of Hazara Shia Muslims in Afghanistan could potentially turn Iran into a significant loser too.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post What Starts in Afghanistan Does Not Stay in Afghanistan appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Several weeks ago came news that the FBI had a brazen scheme by an Iranian intelligence network to kidnap an Iranian-born US citizen who is a prominent of the Islamic Republic.  The plan was to abduct her from the streets of Brooklyn, spirit her to Venezuela via “maritime evacuation” using “military-style speedboats” and from there deliver her to Iran.  The plan was part of a broader scheme entailing the seizure of other individuals in Canada and the United Kingdom.

Is America Ready to Raise the Minimum Wage?

READ MORE

The elaborate operation, which the head of the FBI’s New York field office as “not some far-fetched movie plot,” is a flagrant gesture on ��������’s part at a time when the Biden administration is seeking to diplomatically engage Tehran on nuclear proliferation issues. What stands out from this episode is how much Tehran is willing to extend US–Iranian hostility onto the American homeland and how little it seems to fear the prospect of retaliation.

The Saudi Ambassador

The thwarted abduction is reminiscent of an even more audacious on US territory by Iranian agents a decade ago. In the fall of 2011, the FBI broke up an operation to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington. The plan was directed by the Quds Force, an elite branch of ��������’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps that conducts clandestine operations beyond the country’s borders. The plot blowing up the Saudi diplomat at an upscale restaurant popular among Washington’s political elite, followed by the bombing of the Saudi and Israeli embassies in Washington and in Argentina. The high likelihood of mass casualties at the restaurant was dismissed by the operation’s US-based organizer as “no big deal.”

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

The plot organizer to outsource the bombings to the Los Zetas drug cartel in Mexico, which the FBI later described as having “access to military-grade weaponry and explosives, and has engaged in numerous acts of violence, including assassinations and murders.” As part of the deal with the cartel, the organizer promised to funnel tons of opium from the Middle East to Mexico. The plan unraveled when the organizer reached out to an individual he believed was a cartel member but who was actually an informant for the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). 

Reporting on the foiled plot, the Washington Post that it resembled “an international cloak-and-dagger operation that reads like the plot of a Bond novel.” Robert Mueller, the FBI director at the time, that “Though it reads like the pages of a Hollywood script, the impact would have been very real and many lives would have been lost.” James R. Clapper, the US director of national intelligence, that “some Iranian officials — probably including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei — have changed their calculus and are now more willing to conduct an attack in the United States in response to real or perceived US actions that threaten the regime.”

At the time, the Obama administration was looking to wind down the military conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as find a way to halt ��������’s nuclear weapons program. Although then-Vice-President Biden the botched assassination plot as “an outrage that violates one of the fundamental premises upon which nations deal with one another”, the White House did little beyond prosecuting the hapless Iranian organizer and imposing sanctions on several Quds Force officials.

James Mattis on Obama’s Response

The tepid response was particularly criticized by General James Mattis, the head of the US Central Command (CENTCOM), which directs military operations in the greater Middle East. He was dismayed that President Barack Obama kept the details of “the enormous savagery of the intended attack” from the American public and failed to respond forcefully to the provocation.

Obama would eventually fire Mattis from his CENTCOM post, in part due to the latter’s frequent of the president’s approach toward Iran. Once in civilian life, Mattis publicly lambasted Obama’s response to the attempted assassination. Speaking at a in 2013, he claimed the plot was the result of a decision “taken at the very highest levels in Tehran.” He further asserted that “We caught them in the act and yet we let them walk free,” and “They have been basically not held to account. … I don’t know why the attempt on [the Saudi ambassador] wasn’t dealt with more strongly.”

In his 2019 , Mattis blamed the lax US reply on Obama’s keenness to strike a nuclear deal with Iran. He also elaborated on his earlier criticism, lamenting that “We treated an act of war as a law enforcement violation.” He added:

“Had the bomb gone off, those in the restaurant and on the street would have been ripped apart, blood rushing down sewer drains. It would have been the worst attack on us since 9/11. I sensed that only ��������’s impression of America’s impotence could have led them to risk such an act within a couple of miles of the White House, Absent one fundamental mistake — the terrorists had engaged an undercover DEA agent in an attempt to smuggle the bomb — the Iranians would have pulled off this devastating attack. Had that bomb exploded, it would have changed history.”

In the end, it was Obama’s successor who delivered the kind of reprisal Mattis thought necessary. In early January 2020, the Trump administration launched a drone strike that killed Major General Qassem Soleimani, the long-time Quds Force commander, while he was on a secret visit to Baghdad. Hundreds of miles away on the very same night, a drone in Yemen targeted but missed Abdul Reza Shahlai, a senior leader in the Quds Force. Washington had long accused Soleimani and Shahlai of being the key Iranian officials in putting the bomb plot into motion.

Biden’s Conundrum

Like Obama, President Biden now confronts a conundrum: how to shore up eroding US deterrence resolve ������-à-������ an increasing risk-acceptant Tehran while also keeping it in good enough humor to extract significant nuclear concessions. So far, he has eschewed Mattis’ advice about how to dissuade Iran from mounting further attacks on American soil.

In contrast to his outrage a decade ago, Biden has opted to keep personally silent about the Brooklyn abduction plot while his administration treats it as a matter for law enforcement. It seems unlikely that the incoming Iranian president, Ebrahim Raisi, will find this response a cause for restraint.

The views expressed in this article are the authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Joe Biden Faces a Dilemma Over Iran appeared first on 51�Թ�.

When it comes to foreign policy, however, the Biden administration has been nowhere near as transformational. The phrase Joe Biden has used so often is “America is back.” That sentiment certainly captures some aspects of Biden’s relationship with the international community, such as repairing relations with the World Health Organization and rejoining the Paris climate accords. In these ways, the administration has brought America back to the status quo that existed before Trump was unleashed on the world stage.

How Joe Biden Looks at the World

READ MORE

But on some very important issues — China, Iran, Cuba, North Korea — President Biden hasn’t managed to restore even the previous status quo. His approach to military spending and the arms race is decidedly hawkish. His message on immigration, as expressed by Vice President Kamala Harris on a visit to Guatemala earlier this month, effectively erases the inscription on the Statue of Liberty by  potential border crossers in the region to stay home. Okay, foreign policy is not a winning issue at the ballot box, and Biden certainly has a lot on his agenda. But even the notoriously cautious Obama took some courageous steps with Tehran and Havana.

It’s possible that Biden is focusing on America first before turning to the world as a whole. It’s also possible that he’s simply not interested in altering US foreign policy in any significant way beyond removing US troops from Afghanistan. True, it was exhilarating to have a conventional president again after Trump. But conventional, when it comes to US foreign policy, is just not good enough.

Confronting China

If the Biden administration’s overriding domestic preoccupation is a sustainable economy, then its dominant foreign policy obsession is China. Biden and Xi have spoken only once, by telephone in February. Xi participated in Biden’s virtual climate confab in April. They are likely to meet face to face sometime this year, possibly around the G20 summit in Rome in October. There’s been talk of greater cooperation on addressing the climate crisis. And there haven’t been any overt military confrontations in the South China Sea or elsewhere.

But otherwise, Biden and Xi have not really gotten off on the right foot. It was a no-brainer for the new Biden administration to lift the Trump-era tariffs on Chinese products and de-escalate the trade war that unsettled manufacturers and consumers on both sides of the Pacific. The Biden team is ostensibly doing a review of US–China trade policy with a focus on whether Beijing has met its commitments under the “phase one trade deal” signed back in January 2020 (so far, it’s been  of China meeting some targets for US imports and missing others).

The review is more than just bean-counting. In a marked departure from the usual neoliberal trade talk coming out of Washington, US Trade Representative Katherine Tai , “I want to disconnect this idea that the only way we do affirmative trade engagement, trade enhancement is through a free trade agreement.” Tai prefers to operate according to a “” that evaluates China on issues of forced labor, workers’ rights and the environment. A more nuanced approach to trade is all to the good, of course, and Tai should be commended for breaking with the Washington consensus.

But taken in conjunction with other Biden administration policies, the reluctance to lift tariffs on Chinese goods is part of a full-court economic press on the country. The Biden administration has effectively continued the Trump approach of not only lining up allies in the region to contain China (the Quad, the Blue Dot Network) but enlisting European countries as well to join the bandwagon. In his recent trip to Europe, Biden  the G7 to create the Build Back Better World (B3W) initiative, a purported alternative to China’s Belt and Road infrastructure program, and twisted some arms to get NATO to prioritize China as part of its mission.

NATO’s new emphasis on China reflects the Pentagon’s shift in focus. Trump might have loudly proclaimed his anti-China animus, but the Biden administration is determined to close what it calls the “” by expanding capabilities beyond the Navy to challenge China in the air and above.

China’s moves in Hong Kong, Xinjiang and the South China Sea are deeply troubling. Nor is Beijing doing nearly enough to green its Belt and Road Initiative. But the Biden administration needs to think creatively about how to leverage China’s own multilateral aspirations in order to address global problems. Trade tensions and disagreements about internal policies are to be expected. Yet the Biden administration has an urgent and historic opportunity to work with China (and everyone else) to remake the international community.

Sparring With Iran

Another no-brainer for the Biden administration was reviving the Iran nuclear agreement that Trump tried to destroy. Granted, it was tricky to unwind the sanctions against Tehran and address ��������’s demands for compensation. It wasn’t easy to reassure the Iranian leadership of the sincerity of US intentions given not only Trump’s past hostility but the current animosities of congressional Republicans. And there was also Israel, which was doing everything within its power to scuttle diplomacy up to and including  and .

These obstacles notwithstanding, the Biden team could have gotten the job done if it had started earlier and been more flexible. Not wanting to open itself up to criticism from hawks at home, however, the administration argued for a mutual, step-by-step return to the agreement. By contrast, Iran quite sensibly argued that the United States, since it attempted to blow up the agreement, should be the first to compromise by removing sanctions, a position that some US policymakers have also .

Is the US Back Under Biden?

READ MORE

Meanwhile, the Biden administration is continuing a tit-for-tat confrontation with militias aligned with Iran. This week, the administration launched airstrikes against facilities on the Iraq-Syria border from which these militias have allegedly attacked US.bases in Iraq. US forces in Syria subsequently came under .

Why are there still US soldiers in Iraq and Syria? Didn’t the Biden administration commit to ending America’s endless wars? Although US forces are scheduled to depart Afghanistan in September and Washington has pledged to remove troops from Iraq as well, negotiations around the latter have yet to produce a . Removing 2,500 US soldiers from Iraq would please the government in Baghdad, remove an irritant in US-Iranian relations and take US personnel out of harm’s way. What’s not to like, Joe?

Getting Nowhere With Cuba and North Korea

Late in his second term, Barack Obama orchestrated a bold rapprochement with Cuba. After lifting financial and travel restrictions, Obama  the island in March 2016 to meet with Cuban leader Raul Castro. It wasn’t a full opening. Washington maintained a trade embargo and refused to close its anomalous base in Guantanamo. But it was a start. Donald Trump brought a quick end to that fresh start by reimposing the restrictions that Obama had lifted.

Joe Biden promised to resurrect the Obama policy. Trump’s reversals, he  as a candidate, “have inflicted harm on the Cuban people and done nothing to advance democracy and human rights.” And yet, as president, he has done nothing to reverse Trump’s reversals.

As Karen de Young  in The Washington Post, “Under Trump restrictions, non-Cuban Americans are still prohibited from sending money to the island. Cruise ships are banned from sailing from the United States to Cuba, and the dozens of scheduled U.S. commercial flights to Cuban cities have largely stopped. Tight limits remain in place on commercial transactions.”

The reason for the new administration’s lack of action, beyond its concerns about human rights in Cuba and its fear of Republican opposition in Congress, boils down to domestic politics. Robert Menendez, the Democratic senator from New Jersey who never liked the Obama-era détente with Cuba in the first place, represents a key obstacle in Congress. Public opinion in Florida among Cuban-Americans, which had swung in favor of rapprochement during the Obama period, has now also  in the other direction, thanks to a steady diet of Trumpian demagoguery.

Here, the Biden administration could try something new by closing Guantanamo. The administration is already  to close the detention facility at the base by resolving the status of the several dozen inmates. He should go even further by rebooting Guantanamo as a center for US-Cuban environmental research, as scientists Joe Roman and James Kraska .

North Korea, meanwhile, is the one place in the world where Trump sought to overturn decades of US hostility. His attempts at one-on-one diplomacy with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un didn’t achieve much of anything, but it still might have served as a foundation for future negotiations. Biden has instead followed the script of all the administrations prior to Trump: review policy, promise something new, fall back on conventional thinking.

The administration finished its  of the North Korea policy in April. Biden  his predecessor’s approaches as misguided and has relied on the usual big-stick-and-small-carrot policy that stretches back to the 1990s. On the one hand, Biden  against the country and has maintained a military encirclement. On the other, his emissaries have reached out to Pyongyang, with Special Representative for North Korea Sung Kim  this month that the United States would meet with Pyongyang “anywhere, anytime, without preconditions.” “Without preconditions” is fine. But what about “with incentives”?

Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, North Korea is more shut off from the world than usual. It is preoccupied with the economic challenges associated with its increased isolation. In his annual address in January, Kim Jong-un made the unusual  that the government’s economic program fell short of its goals. More recently, he has  that his country is “prepared for both dialogue and confrontation, especially … confrontation.”

Biden should focus on the first half of Kim’s sentence. South Korea’s progressive president, Moon Jae-in, nearing the end of his own tenure, very much wants to advance reconciliation on the peninsula. Instead of beefing up its military containment of the isolated country, Washington could work with Seoul to break the current diplomatic impasse with a grand humanitarian gesture. Whether it’s vaccines, food or infrastructure development, North Korea needs help right now.

Military Exceptionalism

It’s still early in the Biden administration. Remember: Obama didn’t achieve his major foreign policy milestones in Iran and Cuba until later in his second term. Biden no doubt wants to accumulate some political capital first by repairing relations with allies and participating in multilateral fora on the global stage and achieving some economic success on the home front.

The administration’s position on military spending, however, suggests that Biden is wedded to the most conventional of thinking. The United States is poised to end its intervention in Afghanistan and reduce its commitments in the Middle East. It is not involved in any major military conflicts. Everyone is wondering how the administration is going to pay for its ambitious infrastructure plans.

So, why has Biden asked for a larger military budget? The administration’s 2022 request for the Pentagon is $715 billion, an of $10 billion, plus an additional $38 billion for military-related spending at the Energy Department and other agencies. True, the administration is hoping to boost non-military spending by a larger percentage. It is planning to remove the “overseas contingency operations” line item that funded the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

But if there ever was a time to reduce US military spending, it’s now. The pandemic proved the utter worthlessness of tanks and destroyers in defending the homeland from the most urgent threats. Greater cooperation with China, a renewed nuclear pact with Iran and a détente with both Cuba and North Korea would all provide powerful reasons for the United States to reduce military spending. To use Joe Biden’s signature phrase, “C’mon, man!”

*[This was originally published by Foreign Policy in Focus.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post So Far, Biden’s Foreign Policy Is Proving Too Conventional appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Although certainly distorted by the powerful, US democracy is not entirely scripted. If nothing else, the victory of Donald Trump in 2016 should have dispelled this particular misconception since the array of forces within the Republican Party, the intelligentsia and Wall Street were initially unified against him. By the same token. the come-from-behind victory of Black Lives Matter activist Cori Bush in her House race in Missouri in 2020 also demonstrates, on a smaller scale, that US elections cannot be predicted in advance.

Joe Biden Meets Afghanistan’s Leaders as the Country Faces Collapse

READ MORE

Iranian elections, on the other hand, are generally considered semi-democratic at best. Here, a true deep state of clerics and security organs really does stage-manage the elections in often quite transparent ways. This year, for instance, the Guardian Council of clerics and lawyers qualified only seven presidential candidates out of the 592 that registered. Forty women threw their hats into the ring, but the council  all of them. It also made sure that no viable reformist candidates would compete in the race.

As a result, hardliner Ebrahim Raisi handily won the election last week. Just as US President Joe Biden was declaring in his first European trip that “America is back” — by which he meant that an internationally engaged America is back — the recent Iranian election has been an opportunity for the Iranian conservatives known as principlists to declare their return to power. Raisi will take over from the reformist President Hassan Rouhani, who had staked his political career on a nuclear deal with the United States and a reduction of US economic sanctions, which was initially a winning bet. Thanks to Trump’s rejection of that nuclear deal and his ratcheting up of sanctions, however, the reformist agenda lost credibility, if not among the population then at least among ��������’s ruling elite.

Many Iranian voters were so disgusted by what was on offer in the recent election that they refused to vote. The turnout, under 50%, was the lowest since the revolution of 1979. Perhaps most telling was the candidate who came in second place. Actually, it wasn’t a person at all: it was “void.” More than 4 million votes were invalid.

Combined with the number of voters who stayed home, those who voided their ballots sent a signal that they, at least, know a sham when they see one. If one wants to be optimistic, the low-turnout election reveals just how strong the pro-democratic constituency is in the country. And ironically, this poor showing demonstrates that elections do matter in Iran since the Guardian Council had to go to great lengths to guarantee its preferred outcome.

When Trump won in 2016, he set about transforming US foreign and domestic policy. The swing in Iranian governance from reformist to conservative might be expected to produce a similar sea change in how Iran deals with the economy, its nuclear program and the outside world. But Raisi may end up selling the reformist agenda better than the reformists themselves.

The Nuclear Deal

The United States and Iran have just  a sixth round of negotiations on reviving the Iran nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). It’s just possible that the two sides, in negotiations facilitated by the European Union, will come to an agreement before Raisi assumes the presidency in August. Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, for instance, is  about a quick and positive conclusion to the talks.

But even if such an early agreement is not forthcoming, there’s no reason to expect that Iran will suddenly pull out of the negotiations. True, the JCPOA was integral to the reformist program, and the reformists were just voted out of office. But Ayatollah Ali Khamenei backed the agreement in 2015 and continues to do so. Raisi himself has expressed support for the deal, with the caveats that it was America’s fault for jeopardizing the agreement and that he’s no fan of negotiations for the sake of negotiating.

Raisi is looking to tread a fine line. His election campaign was based largely on improving the Iranian economy, and that will require the reduction and eventual elimination of nuclear-related sanctions. At the same time, he has made clear that he’s  in following the reformist agenda of using the nuclear deal as a cornerstone of rapprochement with the West. He stated this week that ��������’s missile program is not up for discussion — something that might have figured in post-JCPOA negotiations — and he is not looking to meet with President Biden.

“The Americans trampled on the JCPOA and the Europeans failed to live up to their commitment,” Raisi . “I reiterate to the US that you were committed to lifting the sanctions — come back and live up to your commitments.”

That’s a fair assessment of what happened under Trump (the trampling part) and what has so far failed to happen under Biden (the lifting of sanctions part). Still, if both sides return to the JCPOA even without future agreements, it would be an improvement over the dangerous impasse of the last few years.

So, the message is acceptable. The messenger, however, is problematic. Accused of gross human rights violations from his time as a prosecutor in the 1980s and a judge after that, Raisi was  in a 2019 Treasury Department sanctions list. So, ��������’s new president is going to face some difficulties traveling to the West and will not likely give a speech at the UN General Assembly meetings in New York as his predecessors routinely did. Given his reception in the West, it’s not surprising that Raisi is unenthusiastic about a detente with his detractors.

Yet because Raisi will now be presiding over a state that hews closer to the conservative views of the clerical establishment, there will be less political  at the top and Raisi may very well be able to sell an agreement at home more effectively than the reformists.

The Economy

The Iranian economy is a mess. Before the COVID-19 pandemic hit, the country  significant contractions in GDP of 6% in 2018 and nearly 7% in 2019. With Trump applying maximum pressure on Iran, Europe was supposed to pick up the slack. In fact, trade with Europe  by an astonishing 85% after 2017 as European countries buckled under the threat of secondary sanctions from the Trump administration.

The rise in prices for consumer goods, particularly gas,  widespread protests throughout Iran at the end of 2019, to which the government responded with force. US-imposed sanctions, the disruptions of COVID-19 and chronic budget deficits have all  to the inflation that generates a good deal of public discontent in the country.

In the late 1990s and the 2000s, Iran  a huge expansion of its middle class from below 30% of the population to nearly 60%. This middle class generally supported the modern, outward-looking agenda of reformists like Rouhani, who served two presidential terms beginning in 2013.

Instead of cultivating that constituency, however, the Trump administration undercut the reformists by withdrawing from the JCPOA in 2018 and applying punitive measures that hurt the middle class. This was not a case of unintended consequences. As Ryan Costello at Responsible Statecraft, elements of the US far right quite consciously supported hardliners in Iran as the political figures most likely to unwittingly precipitate an uprising and, ultimately, the collapse of the regime. The maximum pressure campaign of the Trump years was designed with the same ends in mind.

Instead of mobilizing another Green Movement, which protested the last hardliner to preside over ��������’s political system, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the return of the conservatives to power will more likely provoke apathy or even eventually support for anti-Western policies. “A decade of economic stagnation caused by sanctions and broken international promises has brought ��������’s middle class to a point that it may reconsider its future as a force for political moderation and globalization,” economist Djavad Salehi-Isfahani .

Raisi, meanwhile, has promised to fight corruption and economic mismanagement in the Iranian economy. He has his work cut out for him. The country  149 out of 180 countries on Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index. Bribery and favoritism are , while a number of officials have been prosecuted for embezzlement and influence-peddling. It’s going to be difficult to root out corruption since the system basically runs on clientelism. The new patrons who take over the government apparatus expect to siphon off a portion of the state’s wealth for distribution through their patronage system.

As a result, Raisi might find it easier to improve ��������’s economy by negotiating a reduction of external sanctions than a reduction of internal corruption.

Regional Relations

One of the side benefits of the Biden administration’s rethink of relations with Saudi Arabia is that it has forced Riyadh to hedge its bets in the region. Trump lavished praise on the Saudis, even as they were killing Yemenis, assassinating a Washington Post columnist and jailing human rights activists. Under Trump, the United States and Saudi Arabia bonded on their anti-Iran agenda.

Now, with the Biden administration pulling back from its support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen and criticizing the Saudi record on human rights, Riyadh has begun  with Iran to mend their relationship. Those discussions, which began last month in Baghdad, cover a number of flashpoints, but particularly the places where the two countries are competing for influence such as Yemen and Iraq.

Shortly after his electoral victory, Raisi announced that he wanted to improve relations with the Gulf Arab states. He singled out Saudi Arabia, which  diplomatic ties with Iran in 2016. “There are no obstacles from ��������’s side to re-opening embassies,” Raisi . “There are no obstacles to ties with Saudi Arabia.”

A rapprochement between these two regional hegemons, however superficial, could significantly improve the prospects for reducing tensions in the region. And that, in turn, could be good news for a Biden administration that so desperately wants to shift its attention away from Middle East conflicts.

In contrast to hawks like , I certainly do not root for the hardliners to win in Iranian elections. I believe that the Iranian system, led by the reformists, can evolve in a more democratic, more peaceful and more equitable direction.

But in the short term, the victory of Ebrahim Raisi might just be good news. After all, he supports the nuclear deal, needs the reduction of US sanctions to fulfill his economic promises and is open to better relations with his neighbors. Imagine if Ahmadinejad, ��������’s version of Trump, had returned to power. Fortunately, the Guardian Council disqualified him as well. That’s not a bad lesson for Congress, as it  the possibility of Trump’s return to public office.

*[This article was originally published by .]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post ��������’s Hardliners Are Back appeared first on 51�Թ�.