12/15/11- In recent days, several developments have occurred concerning Iran that bear some consideration.
The first issue is the ongoing drone saga that has added an interesting wrinkle to Iran's relations with West. Of course the United States continues to insist that computer error brought the drone down, thus implying that Iran doesn't have the capability to execute such a manoeuvre. Regardless of what happened to cause the drone to come down, the entire episode has been very positive for Iran. The Iranian side has shown itself to be capable, vigilant, and professional. For one thing, this episode shows that the Iranians keep a keen eye on their airspace and know full well what is going on above their heads.
The next interesting Iran-related development is Europe's apparent reconsideration of all-out import sanctions on Iranian oil. It seems as if the great minds of Europe have taken a break from driving their economies into the ground with absurd policies. A total import ban on Iranian oil would be catastrophic for Europe's most vulnerable economies, i.e. Greece, Italy, and Spain, who are heavily reliant on Iranian imports. In addition, it seems as if Sarkozy, Merkel, and the rest of the motley crew have recently taken a crash course in global commodities, because anyone with an even cursory knowledge of the sector knows that any oil that Europe refuses to buy from Iran will be greedily consumed by China, India, and the rest.
The third interesting tidbit relating to Iran is news of the Department of Justice's latest propaganda indictment with Iran connections. Readers may recall the phony assassination plot "uncovered" back in October by the ever vigilant Department of Justice in which an Iranian-American used car dealer apparently tried to hire Mexican gangsters to blow up the Saudi ambassador to Washington, a laughably nonsensical scenario surely concocted in some Washington backroom. Notice how you haven't heard much about that business lately? That's probably because it was contrived from the start and it didn't catch on and cause the mass hysteria they were hoping it would, so they conveniently buried it.
Well, the DOJ is back with another phony indictment, this time linking Hezbollah with Mexican drug cartels in an international money-laundering scheme. The story this time is that a Lebanese businessman indicted in Virginia has been running drugs and laundering money for Mexican drug cartels. That certainly seems plausible and not too far-fetched. Yet, what does that have to do with Hezbollah? Apparently, this Lebanese businessman has "links" to the militant group. Ah, the ever-convenient "links" language. This is what the DOJ is up to: they found a Lebanese drug dealer doing business with the cartels, indict him, arrest him, and then claim that he has "links" to Hezbollah, thereby implicating the militant group in drug trafficking. It's just that easy to magically create "links" where no actual links exist. The only evidence they have presented that Hezbollah was involved with drug dealing is that one of this suspect's associates is an alleged Hezbollah sympathiser. That's it. There are millions of Hezbollah sympathisers inside and outside of Lebanon, which renders this type of evidence meaningless.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Monday, December 5, 2011
Iran's Syrian Dilemma
12/05/11- With the Sunni rebellion in Syria intensifying and increasingly bearing more and more hallmarks of an outright civil war, Iran, Syria's staunch ally is facing a dilemma. On the one hand, Iran does not want to abandon its ally in a time of need. On the other hand, there is at least a plausible possibility that Assad's days are numbered, and Iran needs to have contingency plans ready for a post-Assad future.
Syria is a critical ally for Iran, because without this alliance it faces a near uniform wall of hostility among other Arab regimes. The Syrian alliance provides a conduit for Iranian arms transfers to Hezbollah in Lebanon, as well as a valuable mil-to-mil relationship between the armed forces of the two countries.
But, as the Assad regime teeters, Iran is loathe to be perceived within the wider Muslim world as being supporters of a secular, iron-fisted dictatorship that continues to murder devout, peaceful Muslims. Iran has taken care to develop an image of itself throughout the Muslim world as a defender of the faith, and its current posture regarding Syria doesn't fit well with that narrative.
In addition, Iran is currently embroiled in a serious internal power struggle between the Supreme Leader and his faction of ultra-conservative clerics on the one hand, and Ahmadinejad's faction of Islamic nationalists on the other. This struggle manifests itself in the form of divergent policies and statements regarding foreign affairs. For example, the Supreme Leader has maintained an unwavering support for the Syrian regime throughout the crisis and has consistently blamed the rebellion there on spies and infiltrators. The foreign ministry controlled by Ahmadinejad, in contrast, has taken a less hardline stance on the matter and has even called for an end to the government's violence.
It will be interesting to see how Iran resolves this dilemma, as it may be a good indicator of the state of Iran's internal power struggle.
Syria is a critical ally for Iran, because without this alliance it faces a near uniform wall of hostility among other Arab regimes. The Syrian alliance provides a conduit for Iranian arms transfers to Hezbollah in Lebanon, as well as a valuable mil-to-mil relationship between the armed forces of the two countries.
But, as the Assad regime teeters, Iran is loathe to be perceived within the wider Muslim world as being supporters of a secular, iron-fisted dictatorship that continues to murder devout, peaceful Muslims. Iran has taken care to develop an image of itself throughout the Muslim world as a defender of the faith, and its current posture regarding Syria doesn't fit well with that narrative.
In addition, Iran is currently embroiled in a serious internal power struggle between the Supreme Leader and his faction of ultra-conservative clerics on the one hand, and Ahmadinejad's faction of Islamic nationalists on the other. This struggle manifests itself in the form of divergent policies and statements regarding foreign affairs. For example, the Supreme Leader has maintained an unwavering support for the Syrian regime throughout the crisis and has consistently blamed the rebellion there on spies and infiltrators. The foreign ministry controlled by Ahmadinejad, in contrast, has taken a less hardline stance on the matter and has even called for an end to the government's violence.
It will be interesting to see how Iran resolves this dilemma, as it may be a good indicator of the state of Iran's internal power struggle.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Geo-political Entanglements
12/01/11- Geopolitical issues tend to become intertwined and entangled, and regarding Iran, the situation is no different. Take the recent intensification of western European, American, and Canadian pressure on Iran ostensibly over its nuclear program. This latest offensive can be traced back to the ridiculous October revelation by the U.S. Department of Justice of an alleged plot by the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Gaurds to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to Washington by hiring Mexican cartel members. The plot seemed less than genuine from the start to most Iran experts, and the whole thing must be viewed as part of a concerted campaign to ratchet things up against Iran.
The DOJ revelations were followed in November by a negative IAEA report on Iran, U.S., French, British, and Canadian calls for intensified financial sanctions, in conjunction with continued Israeli threats. But these steps have not occurred in a vacuum.
What is going on domestically in Britain, France, the U.S. and Canada? The financial crisis and economic worries have the French president in real fear of becoming a one-termer. The British economic picture is very bleak as well. A foreign policy outlet for sagging domestic fortunes looks very attractive at the moment to these leaders.
In addition, the NATO missile shield, which has been a source of contention between NATO and Russia for years is being talked about increasingly. In the past, the better Russian relations have been with the West, the more readily Russia has cooperated with the West on Iran. But it seems right now as if Russia has reached a point at which it feels that there is nothing much to be gained from a close relationship with the U.S. and NATO countries. NATO's stance on Libya, as well as the West's hard line on Syria have effectively alienated Russia, and have enabled it to take a much more conciliatory line with Iran.
Regime change in Iran is, of course, the single most important long-term foreign policy goal for the U.S. and NATO in the middle east. They will never admit it openly, but that is their ultimate aim. Their problem has been that economic sanctions have never been very effective against Iran, and military options range from extremely messy to catastrophic. The recent vow taken by Western Europe to refrain from purchasing Iranian oil is a poorly though-out and shallow policy. Oil is a fungible commodity. Iran sells about 10% of its oil exports to Europe and it can easily re-route its tankers to new and eagerly awaiting customers who would be delighted to buy Iranian oil.
So the picture that emerges is an entangled web of economic, military, and strategic issues that centers around Iran. Firstly, economic times are tough in the West and a foreign policy distraction would be very welcome for leaders in every Western capital. Secondly, the West's geo-political wrestling match with Russia is directly affecting Iran policy on all sides since Russia is clearly moving away from the West and looking eastwards. And thirdly, Iran's ability to shrug off economic sanctions has consistently frustrated and confused those in the West who are desperate to see a weakened, emasculated Iran.
The DOJ revelations were followed in November by a negative IAEA report on Iran, U.S., French, British, and Canadian calls for intensified financial sanctions, in conjunction with continued Israeli threats. But these steps have not occurred in a vacuum.
What is going on domestically in Britain, France, the U.S. and Canada? The financial crisis and economic worries have the French president in real fear of becoming a one-termer. The British economic picture is very bleak as well. A foreign policy outlet for sagging domestic fortunes looks very attractive at the moment to these leaders.
In addition, the NATO missile shield, which has been a source of contention between NATO and Russia for years is being talked about increasingly. In the past, the better Russian relations have been with the West, the more readily Russia has cooperated with the West on Iran. But it seems right now as if Russia has reached a point at which it feels that there is nothing much to be gained from a close relationship with the U.S. and NATO countries. NATO's stance on Libya, as well as the West's hard line on Syria have effectively alienated Russia, and have enabled it to take a much more conciliatory line with Iran.
Regime change in Iran is, of course, the single most important long-term foreign policy goal for the U.S. and NATO in the middle east. They will never admit it openly, but that is their ultimate aim. Their problem has been that economic sanctions have never been very effective against Iran, and military options range from extremely messy to catastrophic. The recent vow taken by Western Europe to refrain from purchasing Iranian oil is a poorly though-out and shallow policy. Oil is a fungible commodity. Iran sells about 10% of its oil exports to Europe and it can easily re-route its tankers to new and eagerly awaiting customers who would be delighted to buy Iranian oil.
So the picture that emerges is an entangled web of economic, military, and strategic issues that centers around Iran. Firstly, economic times are tough in the West and a foreign policy distraction would be very welcome for leaders in every Western capital. Secondly, the West's geo-political wrestling match with Russia is directly affecting Iran policy on all sides since Russia is clearly moving away from the West and looking eastwards. And thirdly, Iran's ability to shrug off economic sanctions has consistently frustrated and confused those in the West who are desperate to see a weakened, emasculated Iran.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)