The Iran attacks, the power of unity and the role of social media

18EBE9B8-CEC9-419B-9A76-3AFFBB7DF295_cx0_cy8_cw0_w1023_r1_s

A deadly terrorist attack carried out by ISIL in the capital of Iran on the morning of June 7, put the country into a state of crisis. Attackers targeted two of Iran´s most crucial national symbols, the parliament and Ayatollah Khomeini´s mausoleum, and killed at least 12 people while leaving 42 injured. Jayad Zarif, Iran´s foreign minister was one of many to condemn the attack and pointed out that terrorism is on the increase, not only in Iran but on a global scale. Undoubtedly, Zarif is right. On May 22, a suicide bombing during an Ariana Grande performance at the Manchester Arena claimed the death of 23 people, and only two weeks later on June 3 a van drove into civilians on London Bridge and people got stabbed with knives close to Borough Market. But what precautions are necessary to prevent events of such character and to fight violent extremism in general ?

Like President Rouhani recently stated after the Iran attacks, it is of the utmost importance that world leaders find common ground and unite against acts of terrorism. Unity, not only among head of states, but also among members of civil society is crucial. People need to stand together in such fatal times and spread awareness about the evil represented by the acts of violence carried out by Daesh. First and foremost, social media can function as a platform teaching the youth about Daesh´s savage ideology and their evil world view, and simultaneously informing non-Muslim communities about the real values of Islam in order to prevent the spread of Islamophobia. Unity and cohesion after all, between states and among civilians, can have a tremendous impact on the fight against terrorism and undermine the power of extremist groups.

 

In condemnation of the terrorist attacks

ash-2179184_960_720[1]

A day after the horrible terrorist attack on London Bridge and Borough Market in which seven people lost their life, the London Academy of Iranian Studies (LAIS) published the following article:

“The recent barbaric terrorist attacks in London and Manchester are the work of inhumane individuals. These acts of terror by individuals masquerading as Muslims, are against the very letter and spirit of the Qur’an and Islamic law. In Islamic law neither in peace nor war, is it permissible to kill civilians, or cause terror and chaos in society. Their crime is a crime against humanity.

We are filled with sorrow and grief for the victims, and honor the men and women in uniform who risk their lives in combating these heinous acts of terror, and admire the cohesion and spirit of unity in British society who do not give in to terror, and answer the terrorist call for division, chaos and hate, with unity, order and love.

The Muslim community in Britain and across Europe must rise up against the savagery perpetuated by those who proclaim to be Muslim but their actions reveal their evil nature. First, Peace loving Muslim communities must vocally condemn these acts, and vocally and in action oppose those who support the cancer of terror that has spread across the globe by Wahabbism. Second, Muslim communities must take back the mosques in their local area from the preachers of hate who poison the mind of our youth and are financed by the Wahabi movement originating in Saudi Arabia.

Third, as a community we must use social media to combat the campaign of hate and terror of Daesh (ISIS) and like minded groups. Our social media campaign must work on two general fronts, first to promote the true Islam, which is the Islam of peace and dialogue, the Islam of stability and respect for differences of opinion, and teach our youth that the savage ideology of Daesh and all those who support it or hold the same world view is opposed to Islam and condemned by Islamic law and the majority of Muslims. To do this the works of Muslim thinkers in the West such as Professor Seyyed Hossein Nasr is of great use and benefit. Second, Daesh and its followers aim to divide our communities across Britain, they aim to cause an atmosphere of Islamophobia, an atmosphere of hate, we must confront this in our social media campaign and inform our fellow citizens in Europe that we stand side by side in opposing these barbaric terrorist movements.

We will stand united in the face of terror, we will say no to hate, and we will defeat the ideology of hate which has taken the lives of thousands of individuals from all walks of life and all faiths across the globe.”

The Immolation of the West?

There are persistent claims in the media that amount to a picture of a possible combined ‘Sunni’ intervention in the Syrian conflict. It is said that Saudi Arabia is considering an armed incursion. Turkey is frequently tipped to engage and then nothing happens. Lord Howell of Guildford asked a most interesting question in the House of Lords which concluded:

Could she [the Minister responsible] just comment on reports that the British Army is now sending 1,600 troops to Jordan as part of some exercise, while the Egyptian troops are moving to Saudi Arabia to ally with them in preparation for possible moves to Jordan? The Jordan authorities have been urging for a long time that this is where we should open a new front, develop a buffer zone in the north and strike into the heart of ISIL territory. Is the war entering an entirely new phase? Could she just bear that in mind? She may not be able to answer that question at the moment, but we need to be kept up to date if things are changing as rapidly as it seems they really are.

The Minister gave no clear reply. We may note a related question on British engagement in the region in the House of Commons which received the following answer from Penny Mordaunt Minister of State, Minister for the Armed Forces:

We have deployed a small number of military personnel serving as liaison officers in Saudi headquarters to provide insight into Saudi operations. They remain under UK command and control. These liaison officers are not involved in the targeting process – whether it be the selection, decision making or directing. British personnel are not involved in carrying out strikes, directing or conducting operations in Yemen or selecting targets and are not involved in the Saudi targeting decision-making process.”

Something is up and Parliament seems unclear precisely what. But British military personnel are already involved in one or more regional conflicts without a very clear mandate. Is mission creep already in danger of setting in? Meanwhile, it is becoming more and more clear that the US is disinclined to intervene directly despite fairly aggressive lobbying from the Syrian Opposition in Washington (which also has strong links to the High Tory element in Parliament and Government).

We can speculate and speculate but anything we say may well result in egg on our faces when the facts are known, Nevertheless, what seems to be happening is two-fold. First, an appreciation that the Russian intervention is not going to result in the fall of Assad at the hands of the rebels and, second, that the drive outwards from Damascus could, if unchecked, destroy the ‘moderate’ Opposition and send waves of refugees into Turkey and thence to Europe and south into Jordan. Jordan is the forgotten nation here and its stability is a major concern of certainly the British.

The solution may be to use armed force to hold enclaves that stop border movements (and retain some bargaining position for the opposition) and also act as barriers to ISIS – but to secure these enclaves may require sovereign nations to invade another sovereign country which may then turn the business into a war of national liberation and pull in the countervailing regional powers, trigger opportunistic revolts amongst minorities within the primary invading powers and lead the superpowers into a confrontation that neither wants. The problem of Ukraine and the Baltic States lies behind this in a world where everything is connected.

It is, of course, an utter mess. The secrecy of the British Executive in relation to its own Parliament under conditions where many Britons have deeply negative feelings towards the two Sunni regional powers is a sign of its political weakness. The Government does not have the historic consensus on foreign policy to rely on – quite the contrary, although divided the Labour Opposition is led by a man who is suspicious of NATO, prefers dialogue to armed intervention under almost all conceivable conditions and is a known critic of the human rights record of just about everyone.

There are a number of things to consider here other than the obvious fact that, despite Kerry’s sterling work, Russia and, more indirectly, Iran hold all the cards in Syria. The ultimate fear in the White House is that the Sunni states intervene, ‘blow it’ and, in responding, Russia triggers a proto-global conflict by ‘accident’ that results in domestic protests in the West that would make Vietnam look like a picnic. Bear in mind that the New Hampshire Primary has now badly frightened the Washington Establishment – we have two lead candidates who oppose the consensus and many of whose supporters would rather vote for the other than for an Establishment alternative within their own Party.

This utter mess could even be presented as the fifteen year history of a reversal – the blundering attempt to bring liberal democracy to the Middle East has resulted in conditions that threaten liberal democracy at home, initially from a security state mentality and now from reactive revolutionary populisms.

Given the hysteria about terrorism and refugees and the rise of the new left-wing and national populist movements, a major destabilising crisis involving overseas armed engagement would actually destabilise Europe and even perhaps (though less certainly) the US and split the Alliance – what a prize for Mr. Putin! Note the reluctance of the UK Government actually to do anything publicly that would be effective in Syria (using its air power) despite winning a vote. The contentious vote that almost split the Opposition now looks as if it was designed only to cause some political mayhem domestically and to re-establish the principle that the Government could do what it willed.

The truth is that the Western public is deeply divided. It is unlikely to go to war willingly to defend Muslim obscurantism no matter how moderate the Islamists (and it will turn on its own Governments if it is pushed too far). Worse for the old elite, the psychological operation to demonise Russia and give NATO the latitude for action are falling rather flat except amongst the High Tory and Atlanticist Labour converted. Social media scrutiny is creating a substantial minority ready to take a resistance view of the matter and the mass of the population simply do not care but know they are not going to die for a bit of East European black earth or Middle Eastern desert. Short of an instant nuclear exchange, Putin holds a lot of the propaganda cards which he can then turn to his benefit in Europe and especially in destabilising both France (where he has been courting the NF) and Germany (where Russia has always had friends in high places).

In terms of the consequences of a civilised settlement in Syria, Turkey and Saudi Arabia may actually be part of the problem for the West, more than Iran and Russia (neither of which actually wants to go to the brink). That is, I believe, understood by policymakers and is a situation that will continue until Obama is replaced (over a year away) but only if his successor is not an outlier like Sanders or Trump, both of whom express some radical new views about America’s interests.

As for Saudi Arabia, the Kingdom’s attitude to Al-Assad is partly a matter of calculated interest and partly a matter of ‘honour’ that goes back to the assassination of Hariri, their primary agent in the Levant. Killing their regional man requires a remorseless vengeance that cannot end – this is politics but politics that is also personal in a world where the clientage systems of tradition matter. The personal is the political. Honour (no longer an issue in Western rational minds) remains live in Saudi minds.

This is not fully understood by many outside analysts. They dismiss it as ‘irrational’ or something that can be negotiated away but it cannot be so because it has its own inner logic. Saudi networks of allegiance are based on a feudal commitment to service in return for protection. The Saudis failed to protect their man because of ‘treachery’. They must avenge him to show that they will do so in other such cases and that their service providers need not go elsewhere if things get wobbly.

We have also detected a rising Saudi nationalism in the Saudi middle classes – analogous to being British and relating that Britishness to allegiance to the Crown (rather than to the People au Corbyn). A certain degree of militarism and swaggering goes with the territory as it did at the equivalent stage of development in European proto-nationalism. But it is sincere and growing stronger. The primitive view that Saudis are primitives is worse than insulting. It is wrong. It is a highly sophisticated political culture with close links to the British Royal Family and an intimate understanding of power and of how it is held and maintained.

Saudi nationalism rather than simpler reliance on feudal relations is a natural development that is culturally transformative if risky. Many Saudis respond to it.  It has also become a political necessity that binds the old tribal interests with the rising middle classes in a common destiny and it helps to explain a strategy of assertive and disruptive intervention across the region. One’s eyes should turn not north but south to Yemen where this is expressing itself most forcibly and where Western claims about ‘right conduct’ are dismissed when necessary.

For example, the Saudis (and Emiratis) need access to Assab Port to maintain their war in Yemen yet Assab Port is held by a pariah government (Eritrea) as far as the West is concerned. Given the criticality of Ethiopia to the anti-Islamist struggle, the West’s instinct is to retain Eritrea as a pariah (while seeking to bring it into the fold on its terms like Burma or Cuba) yet the Saudis have had the Eritrean President to Riyadh twice late last year and have integrated into their anti-terrorist alliance. The riots and killings in Oromia last week cannot be disconnected from Ethiopian fears of Muslim revolt and the Horn of Africa adds another line to the ever-expanding zone of conflict that now stretches to the Arctic.

The West clearly supports Yemen’s Government against the Houthis (as the Minister for Armed Services’ answer testifies) but no one seriously considers this a serious part of the ‘war on terrorism’ as opposed to a regional strategic play between the Saudi and Iranian networks where the Saudis clearly resent the fact that the West, in the person of Obama but also institutionally in Europe, has shifted towards an obvious and collaborative respect for Iranian aspirations.

Saudi concerns about the Iranians are thus so great that they are quite prepared to destabilise Western anti-Sunni Islamist strategies – not only in Syria but in the Horn of Africa. It is as if the Saudis have said to themselves that they will make themselves troublesome so that the West will have to mollify them by agreeing to their demands, perhaps without realising that the big picture does not allow that. But what is this fearsome big picture? It is one in which the Middle East is only one part of a great whole.

The potential danger of all these instabilities is horrendous. Saudi Arabia is a potentially unstable feudal polity moving towards a modernisation strategy that reminds one of the age of Stolypin under the Tsars. It is countering not merely the strategic interests of the West by default but it may be taking on more than it can administratively handle. And yet it feels it has no alternative. The model may not be Russia and revolution (as so many anti-Saudi liberals assume) but the United Kingdom in the Age of Castlereagh.

Even worse, it has perhaps not understood that the depth of resentment against the Kingdom within the West that was mollified in association with Western Governments after 9/11 has recurred with a vengeance under extremely unstable political conditions – the quite weird situation in the US political cycle with Trump and Sanders, deep concerns in Europe about Saudi involvement in mosque-building, human rights and Islamic migration and, above all, growing perception that, if not backing ISIS, the Kingdom may be backing some dark forces of its own in Greater Syria.

So, Saudi actions in this context are critical. If it enters into the Syrian morasse, with or without Turkey, Egyptian and ‘secret’ British support, and things go wrong, these things that go wrong can go wrong all the way down that fissure that leads to the Arctic, through a basket case of a Ukraine to the Balts who treat Russians as second class citizens. For the first time since the era of Nixon, Western peoples will be faced with the possibility of a nuclear exchange (and not just on the terms of the BBC’s ridiculous war games) and may not take it lying down. Senator Kerry, if he was reported correctly in his outburst to a Syrian NGO activist (“‘What do you want me to do? Go to war with Russia? Is that what you want?”) on Saturday subconsciously revealed the truth of the matter – getting this wrong is an existential question now. The end game could be the immolation of the West if we have many more blunders.

[Tim Pendry is Chairman of TPPR – www.tppr.co.uk and http://blog.tppr.co.uk – but only writes on the Next Century Foundation blog in a personal capacity. He welcomes criticism.]

 

 

Sanctions and Iran- and now for the Oil Glut

Pipes_on_an_oil_tankerThe coming glut of Iranian oil hitting the market will drive the oil price down below the twelve year low it has already reached. Yesterday’s $3 price hike is already being corrected with a 3% price drop today. Chinese demand will remain low. The oil sanctions against Iran were lifted after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed on Saturday that Iran had met the requirements for curbing their nuclear weapons programme. Iran’s government has ordered a 500,000-barrel per day increase in the production of oil from 1.1 million per day, and will increase this by a further 500,000 in coming months. Iran also has somewhere approaching 50 million barrels of oil in storage that it is seeking to sell. As well as the lifting of oil sanctions, Iran will gain access to bank accounts that have been frozen since the Shah was overthrown in 1979 believed to total in the region of $100 billion.

However, things are not all rosy for Iran. Just one day after the IAEA confirmed that Iran had met its nuclear commitments, and Iran had returned US citizens it had been holding hostage, on Sunday the US leveled new sanctions on Iran for its ballistic missile program test in December. The sanctions are limited to 11 Iranian-tied entities but they demonstrate a resolve to uphold the conditions of the agreement reached last summer. This may go someway towards placating Saudi Arabia and its allies, who fear the rise in power of Iran, and the conciliatory tone of the West towards their regional rival.

What Russia expects to gain and lose from the Iranian nuclear accord

Hassan_Rouhani_and_Vladimir_Putin_(1)
The July 14th agreement on Iran’s nuclear program with the P5+1 will prove fruitful for Russia in the immediate future. Sanctions-relief on Iran has provided Russia a greater opportunity to do business with the Islamic Republic. Russia has already signed lucrative deals with Iran in the past 12 months. In November 2014, Russia signed a multi-billion dollar agreement with Iran to build two nuclear reactors at the Bushehr nuclear power plant. In addition to constructing the facilities, Russia will sell nuclear fuel for the reactors.

The economic benefits of the relationship also cover areas of military cooperation. Russia has signed an agreement to sell and transfer Russian military equipment to Iran in the future. This includes the continued transfer of the controversial S-300 anti-missile defence system. Russia understands that Iran’s military is out-dated and is in urgent need of modern weapons, so taking advantage of the continued mistrust on military matters between the West and Iran means Russia will continue to have an advantage in this sector. Similarly, Russia has made headway in selling space technology, investing in oil and gas drilling, exporting pipeline construction and railway development in Iran.

On the other hand, Russia is set to lose out on the gradual entrance of cheap Iranian oil and gas to the world energy market. The already low price of oil and gas has battered the Russian economy intensely, with prospects of cheap Iranian oil gushing the market significantly reducing the revenue of Russia’s main export to the world. An increase in natural gas exports from Iran to the region will put downward pressure on gas prices, reducing Europe’s dependence on Russian gas. According to energy market analysts, it would take Iran approximately one year to increase its oil and gas production capacity. To prepare for this, Russia has taken a couple of measures to mitigate the consequence by signing a twenty-billion dollars barter arrangement, where Russia buys up Iranian oil in exchange for Russian goods and services. In effect, this would mean Russia could hoard surplus oil from the world energy market until prices rise.

Geopolitically, the nuclear accord is likely to empower Iran as a regional power, allowing it to execute its foreign policy with fewer constraints from the international community. Russia and Iran stand to gain from cooperating with each other on regional issues, like keeping Syria’s Bashar al-Assad in power, whilst uniting in opposition to Saudi Arabia’s actions in the region. Russia has substantial concerns for Saudi Arabia’s support for Sunni radicalism in the region and its potential of entering Russia’s troubled Caucasus region. It would also be a symbolic sign of protest against Saudi Arabia’s effort to reduce global oil prices, which has undermined Russia’s economy.

Lastly, Russia’s further cooperation with Iran ensures that it will retain a foothold in the region, influencing Middle Eastern diplomacy from a non-western approach. In sum, Russia is set to gain from the nuclear accord, albeit with an impact on Russia’s energy market.