Recently, Prince Saud al Faisal, the Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia, tried to convince President Vladimir Putin that the strengthening of Iran could seriously destabilize the Middle East. Saudi Arabia said that if Russia cut ties with Iran, primarily in the nuclear and defense spheres, and not to protect Iran from Western pressure in the UN Security Council and other international organizations, it promised to make large arms orders and boost bilateral cooperation to $50 billion within five years.
We are witnessing this kind of bargaining during a period, in which Iran is trying to upgrade the level of its interactions with the Arab world, especially the Persian Gulf Cooperation Countries (PGCC). Iran counts a lot on its relations with Saudi Arabia, the main Arab state in the region. Because of that Faisal-Putin negotiation to curb Iran, Without doubt, would have a significant political implications to Iranian-Arabs relations. As the Arab states well know, Iran is not a threat to them and a status quo power in the region. They understand that radicalism in the Middle East is not rooted from Shia and does not support from Iran, instead the Israeli occupation in Palestine has been fueling radicalism among Sunni and Wahhabis.
Due to the close relations with the United States, these Arab countries unrecognized the real enemy of them and enter into the game in which the United States defines the rule of it. Through this game they’re expending billion of dollars to buy weapons from the U.S and deteriorating their relations with Iran. Obviously, the main winner of this game is the west, who got back the petrodollars from the Persian Gulf counties and defined Iran as threat for them to insure the long-term military presence in the region.
Saudi Arabia should understand that it is not Iran which destabilizes the Middle East, instead, supporting from radical Sunnis in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan and outsized Military build up which lead to an arm race, supporting the U.S policies in the region etc destabilize Middle East. As a leader of Arab world, Saudis should understand that their irresponsible behaviors can create Cold War-style politics of uncertainty which does not ensure the interest of Arabs.
Iran should send a clear diplomatic message to the Saudis, asserting its right to respond to such measures and reminds them of their destabilizing actions in the region. Saudis must not forget the time which America after the September 11th terrorist attack pointed an accusing finger at them for supporting the terrorists and some of no-cons at the White House talked about attacking Saudi Arabia. Bear these in mind; it is better for the countries of the region to create and support a regional security initiative and not to play in a way that great powers want.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Islamic Revolution or Revolutionary Islam?
Islamic
Islamic revolution means an uprising to eradicate cruelty, corruption, discrimination, etc according to Islamic thoughts which do not preach violence and terror in their essence. In better words in this school of thought war or jihad is one of the tenth branches of the religion, which will be necessary if its conditions prepare. Islam has many instructions which jihad is one of them. Islamic revolution is a way in which its goal is Islam and Islamic values and jihad is only a tool to establish Islamic values, in better words jihad is not the end but a means.
Contrary to this school, in revolutionary Islam or militant Islam, war is considered to be the base of the religion and indispensable part of it. This school of thought purses its goal by violent actions. So they think jihad is the core of Islam. For them jihad is an end, and Islam is a tool for war. Wahhabis, bin laden and Taliban mostly think like that. But Shia basically belongs to the first school of thought. Islamic
All Muslim’s actions should not be attributed to Islam. Having good relations with Islamic nations, west must differentiate between these two approaches of Islam. Even this distinction can promote the west interests better as
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Security Dilemma in Persian Gulf?
In the aftermath of President George W Bush's recent tour of the Persian Gulf, coinciding with a similar trip by France's President Nicolas Sarkozy, culminating in a deal with the United Arab Emirates (UAE) for a small French base, region’s security has been changed.
Although Persian Gulf has been witnessing foreigners’ presence since 16th century, but after the withdrawal of British troops from the east area of Suez Canal, including Persian Gulf, in early 1960s and replacing of United States troops in this gulf the security situation of this sub-region has been dramatically changed. The U.S. Military presence in the Persian Gulf has had several purposes from curbing Soviet Union during the cold war, to dual containment of Iran and Iraq and securing the oil flow from the region. After the cold war, the U.S fifth fleet located in the Persian gulf and this country has been the only power which has military bases in the region.
Without doubt, France diplomatic efforts to obtain military base in the United Arab Emirates has a significant geostrategic effects on the region. Sarkozy’s new foreign policy which has many things in common with the United States causes France to request establishment of a base in the Persian Gulf without U.S. disagreement. Meanwhile, Recently Russian deputy of foreign minister mentioned that Persian gulf needs to build a new security arrangement with cooperation of global powers. Although Russia has a long desire to dominate Persian Gulf, but we are witnessing the new trend of inclination among great powers to cooperate or to be in this strategically important region of the world.
It’s a dangerous desire for the regional state and of course, for the great powers. If the White House shows green light to the French president for his request of UAE, the U.S administration had been made a grave mistake because establishment of French base in Persian gulf will cause another states to request such a thing .In the short run, there will be a new kind of rivalry and also a new arm race in the region. China and Russia are the most strategic adversary of the United States which certainly react to such an action and will pursuing to gain new advantages in the region. In better word, there will be a new kind of security dilemma.
On the other hand, from the point of view of the states of the region, it’s unacceptable to change the region into the scapegoat of the great powers instead of making security. In this regard, Iran’s basic strategy for Persian Gulf security which is “Security Without Foreigners” would turn at stake. Iran is pursuing the line of confidence building with Arab states of the region and trying to insure them that Iran is not the threat for them and it wants the stability of the region. Of course the new rivalry of powers to obtain new bases in the region would compel Iran to enter and strengthen another security arrangement for example with Russia and China through the Shanghai Security Organization.
It is obvious that us military presence in the region for any reason which they declare, not only does not strengthen the security but also it makes instability in the region. In this regard entering new powers into security arrangements will increase the cacophony and exacerbate the situation. We all know that this presence is because of region’s resources and they do not care about security or other matters of the region. So the states of the region should be carful about increasing of the foreign troops and their rivalry in the Persian Gulf.
Although Persian Gulf has been witnessing foreigners’ presence since 16th century, but after the withdrawal of British troops from the east area of Suez Canal, including Persian Gulf, in early 1960s and replacing of United States troops in this gulf the security situation of this sub-region has been dramatically changed. The U.S. Military presence in the Persian Gulf has had several purposes from curbing Soviet Union during the cold war, to dual containment of Iran and Iraq and securing the oil flow from the region. After the cold war, the U.S fifth fleet located in the Persian gulf and this country has been the only power which has military bases in the region.
Without doubt, France diplomatic efforts to obtain military base in the United Arab Emirates has a significant geostrategic effects on the region. Sarkozy’s new foreign policy which has many things in common with the United States causes France to request establishment of a base in the Persian Gulf without U.S. disagreement. Meanwhile, Recently Russian deputy of foreign minister mentioned that Persian gulf needs to build a new security arrangement with cooperation of global powers. Although Russia has a long desire to dominate Persian Gulf, but we are witnessing the new trend of inclination among great powers to cooperate or to be in this strategically important region of the world.
It’s a dangerous desire for the regional state and of course, for the great powers. If the White House shows green light to the French president for his request of UAE, the U.S administration had been made a grave mistake because establishment of French base in Persian gulf will cause another states to request such a thing .In the short run, there will be a new kind of rivalry and also a new arm race in the region. China and Russia are the most strategic adversary of the United States which certainly react to such an action and will pursuing to gain new advantages in the region. In better word, there will be a new kind of security dilemma.
On the other hand, from the point of view of the states of the region, it’s unacceptable to change the region into the scapegoat of the great powers instead of making security. In this regard, Iran’s basic strategy for Persian Gulf security which is “Security Without Foreigners” would turn at stake. Iran is pursuing the line of confidence building with Arab states of the region and trying to insure them that Iran is not the threat for them and it wants the stability of the region. Of course the new rivalry of powers to obtain new bases in the region would compel Iran to enter and strengthen another security arrangement for example with Russia and China through the Shanghai Security Organization.
It is obvious that us military presence in the region for any reason which they declare, not only does not strengthen the security but also it makes instability in the region. In this regard entering new powers into security arrangements will increase the cacophony and exacerbate the situation. We all know that this presence is because of region’s resources and they do not care about security or other matters of the region. So the states of the region should be carful about increasing of the foreign troops and their rivalry in the Persian Gulf.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Coalition Building in Middle East Trip
George w. Bush in his trip to middle East tries to solve two main issues which have been so sophisticated to be solved since he came to power in 2000.The first issue was Arab-Israeli conflict and to follow up on Progress Made at Annapolis, which during last 7 years Bush administration has been done nothing for it and in better word, U.S. gives green light to Israeli regime to achieve its goals by all means in Palestinian territories. On the other hand U.S. presidential election in 2008 makes Bush to do something about Israel in favor of his Republican party, and also we should not ignore the effect of Israeli lobby on Bush to do so. Bush truly understands that his actions won't be successful and only have some domestic consumption.
The second goal of bush trip to the region is to making a coalition against Iran to contain this country in the region. Although it is not a new policy but the new situation in the region make it more important for the bush administration. First of all, Iranian confidence building with the Arab neighbors which is more reflected in participating president Ahmadinejad at Persian Gulf Cooperation Countries Summit and King Abdullah's invitation of him for hajj ceremony shows the Iranian desire to détente and having good relation to Arab nations. The second main clue is Iranian efforts to reconciliate with Egypt (the second main Arab state after Saudi Arabia).
Egyptian-Iran relations, recently assisted by Ali Larijani, who traveled to Cairo for talks in early January and visiting of Egyptian deputy of foreign minister from Tehran.
Although these developments are not bad news per se, but U.S. is paradoxically worried about solving the Iranian-Arabs problems to project and pursue its goal through these kinds of confrontations in the region. Iran's great spiritual influence in the region and in Arab countries is another U.S. concerns about Iran. Having these in mind President Bush has been trying to pretend Iran as a threat to the region because of that the United States needs to make new excuse to pressure Iran and manipulate the world public opinion. The propaganda about Iranian threat in the Strait of Hormuz was an excuse for the United States, coming as it did just before U.S. President George W. Bush’s trip to the region. Washington tried to use the incident to push for an anti-Iranian coalition among the Gulf Arabs, as well as to push Iran into publicly working with the United States on the Iraq problem. To do so, Bush administration ignores its strategy to build Great Middle East. Although this strategy after Hamas winning in Palestinian election and Israel lose in the imposed war to Lebanon, had been weakened, but Bush explicitly has changed his tone toward Arab states in this trip. Instead of pressing them to democratize, Bush's focus now seems to be winning solidarity behind his Iran policy. We should notice that these developments have been occurring while NIE report just has been published and accordingly, the Iranian claims about their nuclear program have been proved. Another important matter is that the U.S has a lot of interest in selling weapons to the Arab states, achieving this goal they should introduce Iran as an enemy of the region. What is more important is that the Arab states well know that not only Iran is not a threat to the region but also it's pursuing confidence building with Arab states. Iran is going to bolster its relations with the Arabs and making counter-coalition against United States and emphasize on a security arrangements in the region without trans-regional powers.
The second goal of bush trip to the region is to making a coalition against Iran to contain this country in the region. Although it is not a new policy but the new situation in the region make it more important for the bush administration. First of all, Iranian confidence building with the Arab neighbors which is more reflected in participating president Ahmadinejad at Persian Gulf Cooperation Countries Summit and King Abdullah's invitation of him for hajj ceremony shows the Iranian desire to détente and having good relation to Arab nations. The second main clue is Iranian efforts to reconciliate with Egypt (the second main Arab state after Saudi Arabia).
Egyptian-Iran relations, recently assisted by Ali Larijani, who traveled to Cairo for talks in early January and visiting of Egyptian deputy of foreign minister from Tehran.
Although these developments are not bad news per se, but U.S. is paradoxically worried about solving the Iranian-Arabs problems to project and pursue its goal through these kinds of confrontations in the region. Iran's great spiritual influence in the region and in Arab countries is another U.S. concerns about Iran. Having these in mind President Bush has been trying to pretend Iran as a threat to the region because of that the United States needs to make new excuse to pressure Iran and manipulate the world public opinion. The propaganda about Iranian threat in the Strait of Hormuz was an excuse for the United States, coming as it did just before U.S. President George W. Bush’s trip to the region. Washington tried to use the incident to push for an anti-Iranian coalition among the Gulf Arabs, as well as to push Iran into publicly working with the United States on the Iraq problem. To do so, Bush administration ignores its strategy to build Great Middle East. Although this strategy after Hamas winning in Palestinian election and Israel lose in the imposed war to Lebanon, had been weakened, but Bush explicitly has changed his tone toward Arab states in this trip. Instead of pressing them to democratize, Bush's focus now seems to be winning solidarity behind his Iran policy. We should notice that these developments have been occurring while NIE report just has been published and accordingly, the Iranian claims about their nuclear program have been proved. Another important matter is that the U.S has a lot of interest in selling weapons to the Arab states, achieving this goal they should introduce Iran as an enemy of the region. What is more important is that the Arab states well know that not only Iran is not a threat to the region but also it's pursuing confidence building with Arab states. Iran is going to bolster its relations with the Arabs and making counter-coalition against United States and emphasize on a security arrangements in the region without trans-regional powers.
Ahmadinejad’s Foreign Policy
Islamic Republic of Iran ’s foreign policy like other states has experienced several eras during its 27 year of Islamic revolution. This is because changing domestic and international situations. We can categorize Iranian foreign policy before president Ahmadinejad into 4 main categories:First, after Islamic revolution, Iran pursued conservative foreign policy. In this era Iran wanted to continue its relations with the world including the west (US and Europe ) in better words Islamic teachings hadn’t been formulized in foreign policy. This short part of Iranian history ended with taking over U.S embassy in Tehran .Second, during 8 year Iraq-Iran war, Iranian foreign policy was idealistic. The main characteristic of this era was pursuing the kind of radicalism and ignoring the world order and society. Most world powers in that time because of helping to saddam were believed as enemy of the Islamic Republic. International organizations especially the UN were supposed to be puppets of great powers.Third, after the War during President Hashemi Rafsanjani’s term of office Iranian foreign policy because of the changing the international situations (collapsing Soviet Union , ending the war, etc) became pragmatic. Rebuilding the country’s war damages and domestic policy of pursing economic growth changed the policy into making good interaction with the outside world. In this era we are witnessing economic oriented foreign policy.Forth, president Khatami pursued détente foreign policy in which dialogue among civilizations and cultural policies were the main guideline for Iranian foreign policy. He tried to make good relations with Europe . In this period of time, Iran differentiates Europe from the United States and tried to become closer to European countries.Iranian foreign policy’s tactics after Khatami changed dramatically. President Ahmadinejad once again revived Islamic idealism in foreign policy.To sum up, deconstruction of Iranian foreign policy, speaking to nations instead of states, making strong relations with South and non-allied countries, clarifying Islamic revolution ideals in foreign aspects, pursing active diplomacy instead of defensive one , rejecting the world order, talking for vulnerable people of the world etc, are the main attributes of Ahmadinejad’s foreign policy which could be seen in all kind of his behaviors.
Iran foreign policy’s slogan in cold war era was “NEITHER EAST NOR THE WEST” but after the cold war it became “NO AMERICA”. Some times Iranian policies have been similar to China or Russia or other countries but it is not necessarily true that we say Iran’s policies are in all aspects realistic because Iran does not rely on Russia or china in it’s policies. In better words Iranian religious oriented foreign policy accidentally resemble to Russia or China. Venezuela is not that powerful to be an ally for Iran. I believe Iran-Venezuela close relations is a symbol through which Iran wants to say to US that one of its neighbors has great relations with your enemy and can be used against you whenewhere necessary.
Hezbollah’s victory
After 33 days war, Israel with the help of UN Security Council Resolution could finish the war. Once again Security Council and specially the West help their ally to be survived and gave her what she couldn't get them through war. BUT this war had several results.First, Hezbollah absolutely is the winner, both militarily and politically.Second, Hezbollah became the statute of resistance in Arab and Islamic world. This reality was one of great mistake of Israel. In better word this war united different Muslim groups from Sunnis to Shiite.Third, the invincibility of Israel in Arab and Muslim public opinion was destroyed.Forth, west plan for reshaping Middle East map will face several unpredictable problems.Fifth, Israelis artificial society cleavages appeared.These and many others show that Israeli purposes from invasion to Lebanon didn't materialize and that was one of great fiasco in Israel history.
Arab Leaders Fault
When American university professors condemn the Israel aggression to Lebanon, why the Arab League condemn Hezbollah? Because the US related countries received some signals from United States in which they have been warned about empowerment of Shiite crescent. The Arab leaders prefer to witness slaughtering of innocent Lebanese and condemn their resistance. They have been conceived once again and if continue their way will certainly lose a lot of things. They do not understand that This is not a Shiite war but that's a war between Islam and the west in which they do not make difference between Shiite and Sunni, they kill Sunnis in west bank like killing them in south Lebanon. This is not the first Arab leaders fault but I hope be the last one.
Israel Blunder
Israel disappointing military show off once again proved that this artificial society can not stand such self-made crisis. In better words, there are many differences between Lebanon and Israel society. The main difference refer to this reality that Israeli society is artificial which is made from people who immigrated to Israel and do not have common sense about society. They do not have characteristics of a nation, so in critical situations they want to run away(the current Israeli situation).Oppositely Lebanese society is a coherent one in which war or another critical conditions bolster the social integrity.(all Lebanese support Hezbollah whether they are Muslim, Christian etc). This is exactly one of Israel mistakes in the current war.Another Israeli blunder is that they think they can beat Hezbollah. Even they can overcome Hezbollah forces they can not eliminate Hezbollah thoughts in Muslim world, in better word Hezbollah is not a party or guerrilla or military force it’s an IDEOLOGY which is arisen from pure Islamic thoughts and it will conquer hearts and mind of every free man. God Willing
West and Israeli crimes
These days we're witnessing that Israeli troops attacking Lebanon and violating international law. As always great powers do not pay attention to these crimes in which hundreds of civilians have been slaughtered. Hezbollah's resistance proved that Israel is not as powerful as it's been propagated. Some of western analysts believe that Iran’s logistic support of Hezbollah empowered it. But they neglect the power of Islamic believes and the desire for defense of their own country and innocent people. Bear in mind that they can attack more than that to Israeli cities but they do not want to hurt civilians (a matter which Israel do not care about).To sum up west support of Israel cause these crisis and only way to solve it is that west (united states and Europe) do not define their interests in defense of Israel.
Grave Mistake
When I read Ralph Peters’ article about Middle East borders I really became surprised. Why? Because he made the same mistake which great powers did after World War I. He believes that previous changes in Mid East borders caused Ethnic Cleansing Works, but he offered the new map which will cause the same act. Losing great parts of their lands, emerging those new states only happens after a new world war in which millions of peoples would die.1. The only way to solve Middle East “crisis” is to leave it for Middle Easterns and not interfering in its affaires.2. U.S war on Iraq and Afghanistan exacerbated the situation and so called “war on terrorism” increased the region hatred from US and its allies.3. Ethnic problems exist all over the world and it’s not for the Middle Easterns. As probably Peter knows, western states are not monolithic too in this matter and have many problems potentially or practically.(for example refer to Huntington’s HOW ARE WE?) But why west wants to exaggerate it in the region? (To me the answer is clear)What should we do if we do not want YOU to solve “our problems”?4. As an Iranian, I can strongly say that although there are many ethnic groups in Iran, but all of them before call themselves Kurd or Baluch etc call themselves Iranian. For centuries, they have lived together without any problem. There was no turmoil in the region without foreign interferences. Historically Iranians have proved that in critical situations became united. The west must fear from rising Iranian NATIONALISM.Thanks God, western statesmen and analysts do not understand Iranian society, culture and great civilization, and permanently doing the same mistakes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)