Right Track in Afghanistan?

Right Track in Afghanistan?

President Obama declared the Afghanistan War Strategy Review in a press conference on Thursday. To assess this Review I summarize the main points of it in the following pattern:
1. According to president Obama the U.S is on the right track to achieve its goals.

2. Al Qaeda and Taliban’s leadership is in its weakest situation since 2001. They possess very limited areas in Afghanistan than before.

3. To improve the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan it is necessary to promote the political and economic conditions in these countries.

4. The U.S should bridge the gap between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

5. Pakistan must do more to dismantle terrorist havens and to shut down the terrorist connection with its tribal areas.

6. U.S insists on reconciliation with those Taliban individuals who are not affiliated to al Qaeda.

7. The U.S is committed to NATO’s Lisbon summit agreement on withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2014 and handing over the security to the afghan forces.

8. The U.S progress in Afghanistan is fragile and reversible.

To sum up, the U.S president called his strategy on Afghanistan as successful but he was very cautious on his words. Because he knows that there are too many variables which should come together to fulfill his pledges on Afghanistan. I just refer to the above-mentioned points of the Review.

Beginning with the first point, we have been witnessing during two recent years that the U.S administration does not have clear-cut policy toward Afghanistan. The different opinion within Obama administration and especially among the U.S Generals on the ground caused a non-coherent strategy in US administration on Afghanistan. The main difference appeared on adopting the counter-insurgency or counter-terrorism strategy to combat Taliban and al-Qaida.

The second point comes from this wrong analysis that Taliban and al-Qaida fight for land and territory. Of course it would be good for them to achieve land but now they fight to force the foreigners to withdraw from Afghanistan and then in a proper time come back and take control of the situation.

The third point is a long run strategy which can help to eradicate terrorism. But as I mentioned the U.S administration cannot resort to it as a short term strategy and would not work in one or two following years.

The fourth and fifth points which relate to Pakistan, have been the main U.S crisis in the region for several years. Pakistan’s dual policies towards the U.S and Al-Qaida exacerbate the situation for U.S strategies in the region which does not have clear prospect in the future.

The sixth point refers to this fact that the U.S administration differentiates between good Taliban and bad Taliban. This is a grave mistake and as the recent failures prove that cannot be achieved. The identity of Taliban and al-Qaida is interconnected and it is not possible to differentiate them. So this policy won’t help Obama to improve the condition in Afghanistan.

NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2014 and before that, U.S pullout from the country in July 2011 is a crucial moment for coalition troops and specially the United States in Afghanistan. Afghanistan war is Obama’s war. He vowed to pullout U.S troops in 2011. This can grant the vital momentum to Taliban an al-Qaida to accomplish their missions in the country. So this policy is paradoxical in its nature. Not to withdraw from Afghanistan according to the timetable can damage the Obama’s prestige in the verge of us presidential election and on the other hand doing so, can bolster the enemy’s condition in Afghanistan.

The last not the least, is a confession which I think is the crux of the matter. The U.S progress in Afghanistan is fragile and reversible. The 2010 was the bloodiest year for the coalition forces in the country. The negotiation with Taliban has not clear results. Nation and state building in Afghanistan has not any progress. The corruption indexes in the country are high. There is gap between Afghanistan and Pakistan which is getting widening. The afghan officials criticize publicly the U.S policies in Afghanistan etc. These are not good signals to the U.S administration and the day still young to talk about “right track” in Afghanistan.

Iranian Islamic Revolution's Triumph in Lebanon

Iranian Islamic Revolution's Triumph in Lebanon

President Ahmadinejad's visit to Lebanon was really the show off of Iranian power in the region. The importance of the visit is much more when we take into account that the Iranian president repeated his anti- zionist literature close to Israeli borders- most of them mentioned less than five kilometers away from enemy's border in Bint Jbeil.
Through the realists' framework of analysis Iran-Lebanon relations can be justified as an alliance against a common enemy. In other words Iran sees Lebanon at the frontline of a probable Israeli-Iranian conflict and that's why Iran is backing Lebanon and Hezbollah. The realists believe that Iran's policy toward Hezbollah is absolutely rational and it does not related to their common ideology. In this kind of analysis Hezbollah and Lebanon is just a scapegoat for Iran's foreign and strategic policies. I am not going to explain the shortcomings of realists view on this matter but we cannot ignore their mere materialistic point of view. What really happened in Lebanon during Ahmadinejad's visit was the demonstration of Lebanese people's ties to the Iran's revolutionary ideas and discourse which translated and reflected fully in Lebanese society ironically to some extent more than Iranian society. Lebanese people do believe to the Imam Khomeini and ayatollah Khamenie's attitudes and goals. The attendance of tens of thousands of all Lebanese groups in meetings was not the victory of Ahmadinejad himself. He was the representative of Iranian ideology- although we cannot neglect the importance of his anti-Zionist rhetoric. The bottom line is that the Iran's relation to Lebanon cannot be understood through state-centric, materialistic viewpoints. The Iranian-Lebanese relation is rooted in strong common belief in Islamic Republic revolutionary ideas. Of course it can be justified through realistic approaches but that’s not the whole story.


http://stratfor.blogspot.com/

Does Really Mission Accomplished in Iraq?

Does Really Mission Accomplished in Iraq?

After a seven and a half year of US invasion on Iraq the US president declared the “end of combat mission” in this country. Nonetheless it is not a complete US forces withdrawal from Iraq because near the 50000 troops including six brigades with combat capabilities will remain first to train Iraqi troops and second to support Iraqi forces especially by the air force. On the other hand while the 82 percent of US military bases are closed or transferred into Iraqi government, 4500 US Special Forces stayed there for counter-terrorism missions. In addition let’s not forget that the US government spent nearly one trillion dollar in Iraq war.
The main question is now that does really the mission accomplished in Iraq. My answer is clearly NOT. Iraq’s supposed to be an ideal type of democracy for the Arab world but it does not have even embassy in several Arab states now. As I wrote in earlier post about Iraq democracy, because of lack of democratic experiences in Iraq the new political system would not work properly; the main evidence is that Iraqi politicians have not formed a government since March parliamentary election which it means a 6 month political deadlock in the country. On the other hand the violence in recent months has escalated and hundreds of Iraqi people have been slaughtered in explosions. This means that terrorism is not curbed in Iraq as well.
I believe we should find the main reason of the security handover in Iraq in US domestic affairs and especially upcoming congressional election. President Obama during the presidential election campaign pledged to fulfill several polices including ending the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, closing the Guantanamo prison and improving the social security and health insurance internally and creating more jobs during the global economic crisis. But he did nothing to the US people. That’s why the GOP is criticizing the Obama administration and calling him as one term president. Obama’s foreign and security policies put the democrats in jeopardy and as Joe Biden said in Iraq “this war divided Americans”. This can cause the democrats lose the majority in both chambers which it means making Obama’s policies’ performance sluggish in the rest of his term in office.
At this crucial moment Obama must has done something to rescue his party. The easiest thing to do was the handover the security command to Iraqi government. So this is a policy for domestic market while nothing important has been achieved. I think the US administration has a lot to do from now on to achieve its goal in Iraq as the US vice president, Joe Biden, during the “change of command ceremony” in Iraq said “ US engagement will continue in Iraq” and he announced that “operation Iraqi freedom is over but operation New Dawn has begun”. He did not mention what kind of policy it is but we can assume that the US government alongside its military presence desires to deepen its economic ties with Iraq in different area of reconstructions, oil sector etc. so it’s not a real withdrawal but changing in US role in Iraq. We should know that this is not a strategic change in US policy. There are many challenges on the way ahead for Iraqi people and the US policies in Iraq still regarded with great doubt. Suffice it to say that Iraq issue from the US viewpoint has several subjects from high politics to low one which cannot be solved easily and because of existence of lots of domestic, regional and international variables declaring the end of war does not have any sense.

Iran’s Options to Respond to the West

After adopting the new UN Security Council resolution 1929 against Iran, the EU and some other US allies such as Australia has been discussing on the new round of sanction against Iran in addition to the UNSC ones. It seems that there is some kind of monolithic actions in this regard against Iran in the West front but on the other side of the game which is Iran we have not witnessed any particular measure in spite of long rhetoric to respond to the sanctions.
In this article I’m trying to briefly clarify the Iranian options to respond to these actions. Iran can take into consideration five strategies to respond to the current situation.
First, acceptance of UNSC resolutions on Iran’s nuclear issue. This policy means that Iran halts its nuclear program and uranium enrichment and cooperates fully with the IAEA and approves the additional protocol in its parliaments. This may reduces the pressures on Iran and stop some of sanctions. On the other hand this policy certainly damages the Iranian prestige among Non- Allied Movement and Islamic nations. Internally the Iranian people would lose their confidence on the government and criticize it for withdrawal from their absolute right of using atomic energy. This also means that the Iranian government wasted its energy, resources, etc for near 8 year, for nothing.
Second policy is relative cooperation. According to this policy Iran accepts some part of resolutions in order to make confidence and show its good intention. For example Iran can suspend uranium enrichment for certain period of time and enforce the additional protocol voluntarily. This may result in more negotiations and reduce some sanctions. The aim of this policy is to ensure the international community about the good will of Iranian party. The course of history proved that this policy because of profound distrust between two parties would not operationalize.
Third policy is to continue the current situation which I mean by that resuming the Iranian nuclear issue in spite of the new sanctions and do nothing in particular in response to the sanction. This policy would complicate the situation. The continuation of the current situation may increase the sanction and put more pressure on Iran and in the worst case may bolster the idea of attacking Iran. So this situation is not desirable for Iran.
Fourth policy is to reduce the level of cooperation with the IAEA and the hostile states. Preventing IAEA inspectors to come to the country and restricting their access to some sites perhaps are some options in this regards. This may be a quick response to the new sanctions and has some domestic consumption. But on the other side it may increase the sanction on Iran and disappoints some Iranian allies in the world and proves the arguments of the west about Iranian non-compliance nature.
The fifth policy is a confrontation strategy which can be divided into two main categories: low-intensified conflict as a result of enforcement of the resolution 1929 to inspect Iranian ships and cargos and Iran’s retaliation in the Persian Gulf and Oman Sea. Limited conflicts in this regard would be occurred. Another category is high-intensified conflict as result of Iran’s change policy to exit from the NPT and trying to make bomb. This policy has the deterrence function for Iran but on the other hand can pave the way for the west to resort to article 42 of UN charter and attack Iran in a way that they did against Iraq in 2003.
I believe that Iran must assess the west strategy and intention of the current measures. They may have four purposes from their actions:
1. Increasing the pressures and sanctions to change the behavior of Iranian government through threat.
2. Continuing the current situation which is bargaining and trying to adopt new resolution.
3. Increasing the sanctions and limited confrontation with Iran in different areas.
4. Increasing the pressure and sanctions to change the Iranian regime.
This is exactly the fact that should be clarified. I think current situation should be changed by Iranian government. If we come to this conclusion that the west cannot tolerate the Iranian regime and this is the beginning of trend to topple Iranian government in Iraq-like manner then Iran should keep every option on the table even achieving to atomic bomb.
For now Iran should apply a combination of all aforementioned policies which it means trying to back the 5+3 to negotiation table and also some confidence building measures and at the same time reduce its cooperation with IAEA and warn the west that Iran can move beyond if they continue their hostile actions. In this regard the fifth way- exiting NPT and making bomb- should not be off the table. The West problem is the nature of Islamic Revolution and all of these actions are excuses to curb Iran. Solving the nuclear issue, this country cannot be sure that another issue would be presented.
To sum up, I extremely emphasis on solving the Iranian nuclear issue through political methods and cooperation with the international community but if the rival powers try to exhaust the country through counterproductive measures, Iran should take into account all possible options to deter the west from interfering and defend itself from probable attacks even by nukes.

http://stratfor.blogspot.com/

When the Oil Spill Does Matter!

It seems that the Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico is going to deteriorate Obama’s political future and overshadow his internal agenda. The Spill makes Obama to talk to his nation for the first time from the Oval Office of the White House and call the event as “the worst environmental and economic disaster” for America. He also mentioned that this is “an assault on American shores and citizens”. A sentence which reminds me of George W. Bush’s rhetoric after the 9/11 attacks. I am not going to say that the Oil Spill is the 9/11 of president Obama but it seems that he himself insist on that. Obama accused British Petroleum of failing to do proper measures to control the Spill and requested from BP to pay compensation to the victims. Obama’s strong rhetoric against BP made British new prime-minister to react to the accusation. It seems that after a century of “special relation” between the US and UK the environmental event deteriorated the liaison. This event has some implications on the US administration and also has some lessons for the International Relations as an academic discipline as follow.
First of all, as I mentioned before the Obama’s political gesture is now at risk by this environmental crisis. Because of the importance of the issue he traveled four times to Louisiana to show his commitment to solve the problem. This is exactly what we can call it a showdown of Obama. According to a poll 52 percent of American people disapprove Obama’s handling of the crisis. This a clear reason for Obama’s concerns. His second term of office may be at stake, so he angrily makes pressure on BP and deployed 27000 national guardsmen to curb the oil leakage to the gulf. History shows the Obama’s legacy in the subject.
The second point is incremental importance of environmental issues in domestic politics and international relations. We are witnessing some kinds of tensions happening in the US-UK relations because of environmental issue. It’s not new but it shows the importance of low politics in International Relations discipline. Some events like climate change, the Iceland volcanic ash, poverty, infectious diseases, Louisiana oil spill etc are going to shape the agenda setting of international arena.
The last point not the least, is the growing significance of NGOs in International Relations. In Oil Spill issue once again we are witnessing that a super-power confronted with an NGO which is simply BP. This event shows that the states are not sole actors of International Relations and some new actors which are not necessarily weak have been appeared. After September 11th the world has recognized terrorist groups as NGOs which can change the trace of history and all the states determined to fight them. It seems that now another kind of NGOs which is economic giant challenged the sovereignty of a super-power. Regardless to the result of this confrontation, these new entities-NGOs- are in the chessboard of International Relations and cannot be ignored whether the states like them or not.

http://stratfor.blogspot.com

New Resolution Against Iran: Does It Really Work?

Finally after five month of U.S. hard work to make consensus among major powers, the UN Security Council approved fourth round of sanctions against Iran. Barack Obama one hour after the approval of the resolution called that as “most comprehensive sanctions” and declared that the United States will continue its own sanction alongside the UNSC ones. The U.S. president said that the sanction is not directed to Iranian people. But everybody knows that this is matter of rhetoric. This is Iranian people who at the end of the day suffer from the sanctions. The main question here is that do these sanctions really work? Referring to history the answer is obviously clear: NO. Iran as president Ahmadinejad mentioned will not change its behavior. Iran certainly will reject the Resolution. In other word this Resolution is a wrong signal to Iran because Iranian president clearly had said Iran would halt negotiation if the new resolution passed. Knowing that reality, the U.S tried to adopt the new U.N Resolution and simultaneously the Vienna group sent the negative letter to IAEA in response to may 24th Tehran declaration. It means that regardless of Tehran reaction, the US and the West had decided to approve the resolution. Ironically the US president said the approval of the resolution does not mean that the door of diplomacy is closed. This clearly is a double standard policy toward Iran. The US wants to increase the costs of Iran’s opposition to the West. Once again this Resolution proved that the nature of Iranian government is the main problem of the West, not the nuclear issue. Of course the Resolution not only won’t change the Iranian behavior but also it bolsters the Iranian government position in its nuclear issue and certainly close the door for dialogue and negotiation for at least several month.
Adopting this Resolution is a signal to Iran that if the hegemon is reluctant to do something no one can do that. Iranian diplomatic achievement to make a semi-coalition with Turkey and Brazil was not a desirable matter for the U.S. and that’s why they reacted firmly at the UN Security Council.
Another important point is that this Resolution has domestic consumption for the Obama administration. He-during his 16 month of being in office-did nothing notable toward Iran. He must prove his authority in international arena by resorting to Bush-like measures.
The bottom-line is that the Resolution is counterproductive and was a catastrophic respond to Iranian confidence building measures at top level. Clearly Iran won’t give up its nuclear policies for peaceful purposes and such Resolution does not work and may exacerbate the situation for the West and encounter them to a no-win situation.

A Diplomatic Triumph for Iran

Iran's Nuclear Deal with Turkey and Brazil after ten month of deadlock in its nuclear issue has several key implications for the main players of the issue as follow:
1. The Deal was a diplomatic victory for Iran in several ways. First, it was a way out of deadlock and progress to weaken the pressure of west to impose more sanction on Iran. Second, entering the new players like Turkey and Brazil, Iran expanded the number of its nuclear issue players in order to increase the domain of its action and choices. Third, the Deal has shown the diplomatic ability of Iran and its curiosity to interact with the west and the rest of the world.
2. It is also a victory for the Turkey because this country is going to increase its role in the region and especially Middle East. This kind of mediation can contribute to reach to the aim.
3. Russia is the main loser of the Deal. Iran proved than it does not want to put all its eggs in the one basket. It was a signal to Russia that Iran does not want to be the scapegoat of the Russian-west relations. Iran is going to pursue its interest with or without Russia.
4. The west-the U.S and Europe- is another loser of the Iran nuclear deal. The west has been organized the strong and great propaganda to show that Iran is irrational state which does not respect international community and does not accept the rule of the game. So the chance of reaching any agreement with Iran is too low. West is at cross road now. If it accepts the Deal, Iran can get the necessary fuel it needs for Tehran reactor. So it’s a tremendous diplomatic triumph for Iran. If the west rejects the Deal, Iran’s skepticism and mistrust towards the west would be proved. In this way Iran is the winner too. On the other hand the Deal widened the gap between the west and the rest of the world on the Iran nuclear issue. After the Deal some states praised Iran’s desire to solve the nuclear issue. On the other hand the U.S and some European states declared that it was an Iranian deceive and nothing important. And as a result they are pursuing to impose more sanction on Iran. The gap also is getting widened among United Nation Security Council. Some non permanent states and also china supported the Deal. This is clearly what Iran has been following.
Besides the above mentioned points there are some negative issues:
1. The Deal can promote the Turkey’s role in the region and perhaps increase the rivalry between the Iran and Turkey in other aspects of the region.
2. After all West can conclude that through pressure can change Iranian behavior. This is a bad news for Iran.
The last point but not the least is that the Deal is the beginning of a process. If the west wants to solve the Iran’s nuclear issue it's a good point. Iran should get strong guarantee from the west to swap the nuclear fuel. On the other hand reaching to the saddle point requires confidence building and not politicizing the Iran nuclear issue from both parties. Although stream of the history shows that the west anxiety is somewhere else and they use every excuse in the book to get off the track.

NPT Review: Does It Have Any Sense?

NPT Review meeting has been held in New York aiming at altering the NPT articles in order to bolster the Treaty to guarantee that the non nuclear states cannot obtain nuclear weapons. Although this purpose is ideal and excellent per se but we should be realistic about the matter. As it clear the nuclear weapons and the related issues have been categorized as high politics which usually cannot be tolerated by the states easily. As the records and the history of nuclear weapons have been shown the international law and regulations have not been successful in their tasks in this regards i.e. high politics. For example there are some states which regardless to NPT and other international norms became nuclear and now posses the nuclear warheads. Israel, India and Pakistan are in this category. The important point is that the international community did nothing important to deter them and they easily joined the nuclear club. It seems the NPT has become the instrument of imposing pressure to the non nuclear states to gain political advantage. This instrumental view to the international law has been changed it into vain treaty. The bottom line is that the international relations in its high politics nature is not a matter of law so we cannot expect that such conferences resulted in extraordinary gains although it will be useful to some extent. We should bear in mind that it's difficult to apply international laws' norms and rules on high politics nevertheless it's an ideal and desirable aim. So unfortunately we cannot be optimistic about the NPT review from the international law's point of view.

When Ash Does Matter

Once upon a time International Relations just was the matter of Real Politiks, power, war and peace. But nowadays it's changed dramatically. These days the ash of volcanic eruption in Iceland has great influence on international arena. For example tens of thousands of flights have been canceled and it coasts billions of dollars for most of the airlines of the world. The funeral ceremony of Poland president held in absence of many leaders of the world. Lots of international organizations meetings including the United Nations have been postponed. Even ironically we can say FC Barcelona football team defeated against Italian team, Inter Milan, because they forced to travel by bus instead of flying by airplane. These developments clearly show that International Relations as an academic discipline is not the matter of hard power anymore and it should be studied from different aspects of human life like social, economic, environment etc. Perhaps it's better to divide international relations into some sub categories in order to not ignore the subjects like climate change or some sub-national matters. This can help the students not to confuse in IR discipline and also contributes the politicians to take into consideration some ex-trivial matters like ash!
At last we can welcome the new term of "Volcanic Ash Clouds" in politics and International Relation jargon referring to a bad situation of some phenomena. For example we can say the "Volcanic Ash Clouds" is on the Greek economy.

NPR's Dire Ramifications

Obama's foreign policy towards Iran has been changed dramatically after the Iranian presidential election. Before coming to power, Obama had declared his policy of negotiation with Iran without any pre condition but this policy changed with the allegation of Iran's outlaw behavior in its nuclear policy. Recently and after the publishing of the U.S Nuclear Posture Review the tone of president Obama towards Iran became more aggressive and he implicitly threatened Iran to nuclear attack. This did not happen in Bush Neoconservative administration. Exploring the root cause of this kind of turning point in U.S foreign policy is of the main important-which is not the task of this writing. I am going to focus here on the NPR's implication on Iran. The United States is threatening Iran while there are some non NPT members who posses nuclear weapons like Israel. Iran according to IAEA's reports has not diverted from NPT and it permanently has been declaring that it going to use the nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. This is exactly shows the double standard policy of the United States. The NPR is the breach of NPT per se and it's not only does not have the deterrence characteristics but also it is provocative and can persuade Iran to develop and change its policy toward nuclear weapon because a nuclear state has threaten to use the bomb against the country. It's obviously the threat to peace. In this case I believe that Iran has the right to bolster its defense capabilities even with non conventional weapons in order to deter the U.S possible attack. It is worth mentioning that lots of Iranian people believe that their country must acquire the nuclear weapons because it has many adversaries around the country. The new U.S policy can encourage the non nuclear states to posses the non conventional weapons. It seems that the U.S statesmen have ignored this dire ramification in their calculations.

The Evils of Iraq's Democracy

After the Iraq parliamentary election the main issue is to form the new government and electing new prime minister. The US invasion to Iraq in 2003 was due to create an ideal example for the other states of the region but immediately they recognized that the democracy in Iraq is against their interests because the Shia majority came into power which had strong relations to Iran.
The other problem in Iraq democracy has been appeared in current election where there is no party gained the necessary seats in the parliament to form the government. Iraq has the long history of dictatorship with no experience of democracy especially in this kind of it. (Parliamentary system) on the other hand there is not necessary infrastructure for the political participation for the people; the most important of them is security. It seems that this kind of political system cannot last too much because it cannot support the interest of Iraqi people at first because of it instable nature and even can endanger the stability and security of the region and the neighboring countries. This can spill over and exacerbate the interest of the United States too. The semi federalism and parliamentary system in a multi ethnic state with different religions, can divide the country into several part. (At least the Shia, Sunni and Kurd one). Clearly this is not in favor of the Iraqi people and the regional and states and even the US.
The other important issue is the fragmentation in Iraqi Shia groups. Of course the US welcomes this situation but it is a sign of Iran's miscalculation in Iraq, although the Iranian has been trying to integrate the Shia groups to form the strong government in Iraq. The bottom line is that it takes long time for Iraqi people to cope with the new political system and of course it has many side effects to the region as well.

Hijacking US Foreign Policy by Generals

David Petraeus in his interview with CNN called Iran government as thugocracy. Apart from the bad languages that the General used we can trace that the comments and opinions which the United States commanders are giving about Iran is escalating. This is of course is a signal. It means that the US non military officials like the State Department or the White House have been undermined by the Pentagon and the status of US military has increased in US foreign policy. Of course the US officials should be concerned about; this did not even happen during Bush neo conservative administration.
What is important in the regard of US-Iran relations is that such matter can exacerbate the situation because the US does not have the true understanding from Iran and of course the US commanders’ perception from Iran is much more beyond from Iran’s realities. It can definitely endanger the US interests in the region and can push it into a more chaotic situation. On the other hand it can be a signal to Iran that emphasizes on the possibility of an attack. In this case certainly the Obama's foreign policy which has been hijacked by the Generals like Petraeus, Michael Mullen, McChrystal etc enters into the dire which situation which can topple down the democrats sooner than they perceive.

Iraq election and Iran

Parliamentary system in Iraq increases the importance of the election in this country because it has great role in determination of the future Iraqi government. Of course it has the internal and foreign implications for the country and the region. The Iraq-Iran relation is one of the issues which can be impressed by the election. After the collapsing the Saddam regime, Iran has had good relations with the Iraqi government. Some special and even personal relations between the officials of the countries contributed having strong liaison. But there is some historical misunderstands which can change the situation. Although both countries are Shiite but the religion is not the only linking factor, however some Sunni states in the region has warned the forming Shiite crescent in the region in order to shape the Iran's hegemony. There are some independent variables in the relations of the two states which are important regardless of the kind of governments in the states.

1. Iran emphases on the democracy and democratic procedures in Iraq because of the majority Shiite in Iraq. This factor is in contradiction with the authoritarian Arab states positions in the region. In this case even the United States disagrees with the democracy because it makes the Shiite come into power in Iraq.

2. Because the United States is the most adversaries of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the US presence in Iraq, Iran should pursue the limited crisis policy in Iraq which it means the remaining some level of tensions and unrest in this country in order to balance and manage its antagonistic relations with the united states.

3. Iran and Iraq have some unsolved issues such as 8 year war compensations, border discord, etc which Iran because of its special relations has not demanded them and kept them intact. Iran should follow the Realpolitik in these matters as well. It seemed if the secular or U.S oriented government in Iraq come to power Iran can demand its request better although this is not Iran's policy today. Iran prefers to encounter with its friend in Iraq.

4. Iran's ties with Iraq, Syria and to some extent turkey can shape the new geopolitical situation in the region which the Arab states are the loser of that.

Iran's intelligence victory

Iranian security forces arrested Abdulmalik Rigi, leader of the Jundullah group. Jundullah has in recent years claimed responsibility for several bombing attacks inside Iran that have left dozens or people dead.

Rigi has never denied that his group has some drug trafficking as his main economic backbone. Junullah has the backing of American forces in the region and has a clear relationship with American and Pakistani intelligence. Iran's intelligence minister said that Rigi had spent time at an American military base prior to his arrest. And the Americans had issued Rigi with "an Afghan passport and an identification card for travelling to Pakistan.
What is important in the arrest of Rigi is that the Iranian security forces shown their domination and supervision on the region. Rigi has been supporting by Americans, Pakistani and the Saudi security forces during the past years. In fact these countries directly have involved in terrorism, killing innocent Iranian people, organized crimes drug trafficking etc. it proves again the US double standards in war against terrorism.
Islamic Republic of Iran once again asserts that in spite of the western powers and media's propaganda about Iran's weaknesses, closely monitor and surveillance the situation and can do appropriate actions if necessary to pursue its interest at home and abroad.

Obama's Retroactive Policy on Iran

Hillary Clinton in her recent visit to Persian Gulf countries warned the “international community” about Iranian nuclear activities. She accused Iran of turning into military dictatorship and said that Iranian officials refused “every offer” to meet and talk about nuclear issue. She talked about imposing more sanction to Iran as the US national security adviser Jim Jones had mentioned before. There are some points about what’s going on in US administration abut Iran as follow:
1. US secretary of state talks about “military dictatorship” in countries which there are no election, and do not have any democratic features. It shows the US double standard criteria in the region and the world.

2. The US officials are making the grave mistake now as they did 31 years ago about Shah Regime. At that time they considered Iran as the “stable island” in the region- as president Carter called Iran- but six month later the Islamic revolution occurred and the Shah Regime was overthrown. Now the US officials think that the Iranian government after some riots aftermath the presidential election in June 2009, has the same condition and is collapsing. They certainly have lack of understanding about Iranian internal affairs.

3. Iran always regards itself as a committed NPT member and it respects the international safeguards regimes about its nuclear facilities. The IAEA reports prove this claim. So calling Iran as “ destabilizing regime” in a region is preposterous and recalling us that the US and its allies wants to justify selling billion of dollars of weapons to the small Arab states of the region.

4. Clinton and her advisers forgot this fact that Iran never refuses negotiation about its nuclear issues. So it is not clear why Clinton repeated that claim again.

5. Clinton asked Saudis to help US for tougher sanction against Iran. This is exactly what destabilizes the region. Provoking the animosity among the states of Persian Gulf region is satanic policy of the United States to pursue its policies.

6. It seems that Obama is going to follow the failed policy of bush on Iran. He should understand that his team could not recognize the Iranian policies and realities, so his policy is a journey to an uncertain destination.

A Test for Obama's policy in Afghanistan

Afghanistan has been the cemetery of the great powers at least in last three decades. After an unaccomplished mission of the Soviet Union there, the US and its NATO allies are stuck in this country. They have encountered several conditions in the country since 2001 after the US attack to topple down the Taliban regime. As Senator John Kerry already confess the US does not have certain strategy for Afghanistan and in current situation after changing the strategy in Iraq the US defines its strategy in Afghanistan. Although, I think the US officials do not reach the point to adopt a certain policy toward Afghanistan yet. The ambiguity and different vantage points on the Afghanistan issues is clearly distinguishable in US officials' remarks and views. I can refer to the current offensive to Helmand which is said to be the great attack to Taliban strongholds since 2001 with nearly 15000 troops. There are some points on that:

1. After London conference on Afghanistan and deciding to cooperate with Taliban in some issues and not to ignore them, this kind of attack is not sensible. At least it shows dividing Taliban into "bad" or "good" is not a straightforward matter.

2. The coalition forces before the operation publicize the time and the aim of offensive vastly in media. This is exactly against the military doctrine of confidentiality. This caused the Taliban flee from the Helmand.

3. Although it was the US-led operation, some resources mentioned that it is the afghan-led one. As we know the Afghan forces do not have substantial weaponry. So it is only propaganda to show the progress of afghan army.

4. Regardless of the nature of this operation, it is a good test for NATO's ability to encounter the Taliban and al-Qaida. The success of this operation may engage more the NATO in Afghanistan affairs.

5. To win the war on terror in Afghanistan, it seems that the coalition should choose between counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency policies in the ground and analyze their requirements in theory and especially in practice.

6. The US have not learned the lessons from the soviet union experiences in Afghanistan by waging war on a group which cannot be distinguish from the ordinary people. By killing every civilian in Afghanistan in such offensives Taliban can recruit more combatants in this situation there is no victory for the US and its allies in the country because even if they could push back the Taliban from Helmand and defeat them, they easily can come back after the withdrawal of the coalition troops from the province as it happened in the past.

Finally I should emphasis that fighting with invisible enemy does not have clear result even for the super power.