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.

Saudi’s Effrontery

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.

Islamic Revolution or Revolutionary Islam?

Islamic republic of Iran is the only country in the world which is established according the pure Shia thoughts, in 1979, 29 years ago after toppling down the U.S. supported shah’s regime. Iranian Islamic revolution invalidated the thoughts of political thinkers who believed that there won’t create a religious- driven state in the new era. But it happened and has lasted since 1979 and it's in strongest positions after the revolution. Since then Iran has been a target of many accusation from the West camp. From the beginning of the Iranian revolution, West labeled Iran as fundamentalist, terrorist, etc. the crux of the matter is that the West does not differentiate between Islamic revolution and revolutionary Islam.

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 Republic of Iran is a Shia state in which revolution comes from Islam and Islam defines its borders, characteristics and features, instead in militant Islam, Islam is lessened to an instrument to achieve the goals of some radical Muslims.

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 America to some extent, has done in Iraq.

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.

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.