Endless provocations and subversive actions of the US and Israel against Iran lead to the Iranian people getting increasingly bitter towards the two countries and their representatives.

Following the blatant US assassination operation against Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) special forces, killed on the night of January 3, 2020 by the United States near Baghdad International Airport, another similar assassination attempt was carried out on March 7, near Damascus. According to a statement from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, two Iranian officers were killed in an Israeli air strike there: “IRGC Colonels Ehsan Karbalaipour and Morteza Saibnejad became shahids, the responsibility for their deaths lies with the Zionist regime that launched the missile attack on Damascus. The Zionists will answer for their crimes.”

As early as 11 March, Israeli media reported, citing US intelligence, “Iran may dare to strike directly at Israel. This is how the Islamic Republic wants to avenge the Jewish state for the deaths of two IRGC officers on the outskirts of Damascus.”

And so on March 5, in the US state of Nevada, 21-year-old Nike Nikubin stabbed an American citizen in an attempt to avenge the death of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani at the hands of the US, local TV channel KLAS reported, citing the Henderson City Police.

And on the night of March 13, some twelve ballistic missiles were fired from the Hasanabad area in the Iranian territory at the Kurdish city of Erbil in northern Iraq, where the US consulate is located. However, some media outlets have highlighted the fact that the shelling took place at exactly 1:20 am, the same time that Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps General Qasem Soleimani was killed in a US drone strike on January 3, 2020. The Associated Press reported, citing Iraqi security officials and US officials, that none of the missiles that had exploded near the US diplomatic mission under construction caused serious damage. There were no casualties either. After the explosion, US Air Force planes were airborne.

According to Israeli media, the Saudi Arabian channel Al-Hadath believes that the Iranian missile attack on the US Consulate General in Erbil was in response to the killing of two high-ranking Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps officers in Syria on March 7. The Iranians chose to respond with an airstrike not on Israel but on US facilities in Iraq. At the same time, it is acknowledged that the target of the missiles fired at the capital of Iraqi Kurdistan was not only the US consulate, but also the intelligence center of Israel’s Mossad foreign intelligence service in Erbil.

This fact was later acknowledged by an Iranian state channel, which reported that the target of the overnight missile attack was “secret Israeli bases” in Erbil.

Doron Kadosh, Israeli Galei Zahal columnist recalled in this regard that in October 2021, in response to the Israeli bombing in Syria, Iran launched a missile attack on the US Al-Tanf base on the Iraqi-Syrian border. Late last year, the Israeli military estimated that Tehran would not tolerate this any longer and would be striking back at Israel next time. But that has not happened yet. “The word “yet” should be emphasized,” writes Doron Kadosh on his Twitter.

In these circumstances, it cannot be ruled out that, following the Iranian missile strike on the area where the US consulate under construction in Erbil is located, negotiations on the Iranian nuclear deal could be terminated. This, incidentally, is precisely what Israel sought, including through its provocative sabotage attack on March 7, killing two high-ranking IRGC soldiers.

Meanwhile, in these realities, the EU and Washington are losing hope of replacing Russian oil with Iranian oil, with the result that oil prices will continue their unpredictable rise.

As for the US, its retaliatory military action against Iran and in the Strait of Hormuz, which will again become unsafe for navigation, cannot be ruled out. Preparations for such military action have already been announced recently to the Associated Press by Vice Admiral Brad Cooper, head of the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet, who said the US is building a fleet of more than 100 unmanned aerial vehicles — both sailing and underwater — to counter Iran. Under the new concept, UAVs will patrol vast maritime areas. It should be recalled that the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet has included in its area of responsibility the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow artery in the Persian Gulf through which more than 20% of the world’s oil shipments pass, with Iran and the US fighting for control of it. The Islamic Republic controls the northern coast of the strait, while the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Oman possess the southern coast.

Against the background of the March 13 shelling of Erbil, it must also be recalled that US troops stationed in this international complex have previously been subjected to missile attacks, which were carried out by means of UAVs. In general, however, the US military presence in Iraq irritates both Shia and Sunni Arabs.

There have already been several recent attacks on US military convoys in Iraq. So, in the last month alone, according to Iraqi media reports, a US logistics convoy was attacked in Salah ad Din province on February 13. On February 22, a roadside bomb exploded near the city of Nasiriya in Dhi Qar province in the south of the country while a US convoy carrying equipment and supplies destined for US troops was passing through. On March 1, a US military convoy was attacked in Iraq’s Al Muthanna province between the cities of Samawah and Nasiriya, and several bombs were detonated in the path of another military convoy in Al Diwaniyah and Al Anbar provinces. Another convoy carrying equipment belonging to the US military was attacked in Salah ad Din province on March 4. On March 8, a convoy carrying equipment was attacked in the city of Nasiriya, about 360 km southeast of Baghdad.

Iranian Major General Rahim Yahya Safavi told the Mehr News Agency on March 7 that the US will soon flee Syria and Iraq, just as it retreated from Afghanistan. According to the Iranian military commander, the US is politically and morally in decline.

Vladimir Odintsov, political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Iran and the United States used to be the closest allies before the 1979 Iranian revolution, but now they are uncompromising enemies. Quite a peculiar political metamorphosis.  Makes one wonder how former close friends turned into such enemies in just over forty years? And why it is the US who is still full of such violent hatred towards the Iranian people and tries to suffocate them in a deadly embrace?

Everything began with the taking of hostages at the US Embassy in 1979. It was the time of free expression of the Iranians’ will and their fear that the Shah, supported by the West, may return to power, as he did in 1953 when the CIA and MI-6 organized a coup d’état by grossly interfering with Iran’s domestic affairs. Therefore, the taking of hostages was a clear message to Washington to warn it against meddling in internal affairs of the Iranian people who had chosen their own independent way of development. Quite obviously, if it wasn’t for the 1953 intervention, the grievous events of 1979 would not have happened. And it was US with its poorly targeted and insolent policy that caused a drastic worsening of the Iran-US relations. No one but Washington is guilty of the developments where the holding of hostages at the Embassy went on or 444 days of late-night news reminders to the Americans. And every time when Iran was mentioned in the news there appeared images of hostages and the chanting “death to America”, in order to remind the Americans about their numerous crimes committed in Iran and the spiteful messages of the vile politicians from the Department of State. For the first time in many years, the Americans felt helpless and humiliated while the US media and their biased politicians proceeded with thumping the drums of hatred and conflict. The conflict could be resolved literally within a week. But America’s spiteful masters needed to humiliate their own people, to blow up the flames of hatred and animosity against the Iranian people.

Instead of normal negotiations and explanations, America introduced inhuman sanctions against Iran. And it went even further. Both before and after the Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Iran, the US made many efforts to convince and encourage him to do the dirty work for it. The United Nations, being under tremendous pressure from the US, who had lost its political sense, and its obedient allies, did not display any activity to condemn this most serious violation of the UN Charter. The US and its European allies supplied to Saddam Hussein all the necessary weapons, including the chemical weapons prohibited by international law, while simultaneously introducing the embargo for deliveries of weapons to Iran.  The all-penetrating sanctions are equal to an act of war as even trade embargoes were historically regarded as such.

Thus, the war continued for over eight years. During the war, over 1.5 million people from both sides were killed, and even more people were wounded, and thousands of Iranians poisoned with gas have survived only thanks to oxygen flasks. America spitefully and vilely enjoyed its triumph, it showed little compassion to the Iranians’ pain and deaths, the memories of which will be hard to forget for the world and which have placed a heavy burden on the shoulders of all American people who had failed to curb their presumptuous leaders.

Though the war between Iran and Iraq ended in August of 1988, the hostilities between the US and Iran continued. America proceeded with introducing its vast sanctions and Iran strengthened its defense and supported – to the best of its powers and capabilities – its allies in the region. After the Iraqi intrusion to Kuwait, engineered by Washington, Tehran provided support to the fleeing Kuwaiti and made an attempt to improve its relations with the US and Saudi Arabia. However the Iranian rapprochement envoy was rudely renounced by the Department of State, while the Saudi waived their promises given to the mediator whom they had chosen together with the Iranians. Iran tried to attract American companies and was near to concluding an important agreement with Conoco on the new oil field development. Iran also invited Bechtel to discuss a number of projects, including the huge Iranian gas reservoir used jointly with Qatar. But in 1996 President Clinton adopted the malevolent ILSA (Iran and Libya Sanctions Act) limiting any major investments in Iran and closed a number of loopholes in the sanctions, including in respect of imports of Iranian refined petroleum.

The American bases and military power in the Gulf region threatened Iran, but much was still ahead. After 9/11, the United States, aggressively and in violation of all international laws, invaded Afghanistan and later Iraq. Afghanistan provided to Iran yet another opportunity to overcome the gap in the relations with the United States. Iran worked with its ally, Ahmad Shah Massoud, and with the Northern Alliance that actively attacked the Taliban (the movement is banned in the RF) in ground combats. Iran believed that this cooperation would open a more fruitful way towards making peace with the US. Though there appeared a flash of hope, as soon as the US won the war in Afghanistan the ungrateful American politicians grossly renounced the Iranian hand stretched out for peace.

It was followed by the invasion to Iraq when the former Secretary of State Colin Powell, acting like an unlucky beginner juggler from a burnt-down circus, grossly and insolently deceived the international community, “informing” about the existence of chemical and biological weapons in Baghdad and about Saddam Hussein’s close ties with international terrorists, first of all, with al-Qaida (banned in the territory of Russia). Nevertheless, it is common knowledge that Al-Qaeda was created by the US with the funds of the Gulf monarchies against the USSR, whose army at that time was fighting against international terrorists in Afghanistan. Thereafter, Iran was surrounded by the US troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. All these, along with the accumulated American political and economic abuse, boxed Iran into a corner. Tehran had to strengthen its defense and support its regional allies – Bashar al-Assad in Syria, the Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Shia Muslims everywhere, especially in Iraq. Such allies would provide to Iran offensive opportunities in their fight against what they perceived as the American threat to the survival of the regime.

The main factor nourishing and prolonging Iran’s isolation is the anti-Iranian lobbying on the part of Israel and its American allies and – however to a lesser extent – on the part of Saudi Arabia, the UAE and their corporate patrons in the West. By that time, Iran understood that cooperation with the US would not lead to mutual benefits and that it must work with the US only when it is directly related to its own interests and survival. Iran employed more concerted efforts to develop its defense industry. Missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles became the most economically efficient weapons. They were cheap and offered to Iran both offensive and defensive opportunities.

At the same time, Iran was building on its peaceful nuclear research, adding more and more centrifuges and increasing the enrichment levels. Though the conscientious Iran, as different from Israel, has signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) if has not received all the peaceful assistance in the nuclear technologies area promised pursuant to the Treaty.  Having received insignificant assistance or having received no assistance at all for their nuclear program, being under the strenuous sanctions, isolated and surrounded by the US, the Iranian officials believed that anticipatory disclosure of the information would lead to attack on their facilities.

The Israeli and Saudi Arabian anti-Iranian lobbying has enhanced. As far as Israel is concerned, it was lobbying its allies in the US Congress and media in order to isolate Iran, have the sanctions strengthened, engage in subversive activities in the territory of Iran and adopt the policy of changing the regime as the sole long-term acceptable solution. Some politicians gave it away that the ultimate goal consisted in breaking Iran into four or five parts, they all being too weak to pose any problem for Israel, the Arabs and the US.

Obama’s administration feared activation of Iran’s nuclear efforts but did not wish to attack Iran as suggested by Israel and some Gulf Arabs. The US began secret negotiations with Iran under the auspices of the Sultanate of Oman. The discussions resulted in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) that was also ratified by the UN Security Council. This was by no means an ideal agreement. This provided for the most obtrusive nuclear activity program of Iran for the US and its allies, though with a reservation regarding termination for ten years, conservation of the Iranian heavy water reactor, transfer of the most part of the Iranian enriched fuel (far from military quality) and restriction of the Iranian enrichment program. For Iran, the lifting of the sanction had to take place – de-freezing the Iranian assets, unimpeded direct foreign investments, access to the global financial markets and a flow of imports (with the exception of some nuclear and military goods) and exports of goods and services. Iran was naive in one very important aspect – the American compromise was reversible while much of the Iranian compromise was irreversible.

Trump’s new administration threw everything overboard. He had close relations with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and rich Gulf Arabs, and Saudi Arabia was the first country that he visited and concluded huge military contracts in favor of the US. Trump requested restriction of the Iranian missile programs of unmanned aerial vehicles, introduced new sanctions against Iran, he was also involved in the Israeli sabotage of the Iranian facilities and killings of Iranian scientists, in the first turn of the leading Iranian nuclear scientist. Then the US withdrew from the JCPOA. And, most notoriously, the United States killed General Soleimani with complicity of Israel in Iraq. In order to save its face, Iran had to strike a counterblow, and so it did launching missiles at the American base. Iran still could choose proportional revenge for a person whom many Iranians – both the supporters and adversaries of the Tehran regime – considered a national hero who had dedicated his life to defending Iran at its most gloomy hours.

President Biden began restoration of the JCPOA. Iran, who had been complying with its part of the deal during one year even after Trump’s leaving, was ready to join the JCPOA if all the sanctions that had been eliminated at signing of the JCPOA, as well as the other ones introduced by Trump, would be lifted, and if the US provided the guarantees that they would not withdraw while Iran was in compliance with its obligations. The US do not wish to lift all these sanctions, can not provide the guarantees sought by Iran but wish to discuss its missile program and its regional activities in support of its allies. The discussions in Vienna continue, with no end to be seen.

Though the US had been more popular in Iran than in any other Arabic country during many years, Trump’s actions in respect of Iran and the sufferings of ordinary Iranians caused irreparable damage to these relations.  The US did not demonstrate and are not demonstrating any compassion whatsoever towards the Iranian people, and the sanctions in addition to the new severe restrictions lead to impoverishment of ordinary Iranians.  The main factor nourishing and prolonging Iran’s isolation was the anti-Iranian lobbying on the part of Israel and its American “yeasayers” and – however to a lesser extent – on the part of Saudi Arabia, the UAE and their corporate patrons in the West. This lobbying so strongly turned the US Congress against Iran that a whole change of generations might be needed to change the US policy. Spreading anti-Iran attitudes in all US media “made” Iran enemy number one in the eyes of ordinary Americans.

The ruthless Israeli and Arab lobbying in its turn forced Iran into a corner. The Arab lobbying complicated the business relations while the Israeli lobbying poisoned Iran’s political relations with the US. Tehran feels a threat posed by the American troops and the Israeli adventurism that will be most possibly supported by the US military. The all-penetrating sanctions are equal to an act of war as even trade embargoes were historically regarded as such.

These hostile relations continue for over forty years and no signs to end them can be seen. The future of the Iran-US relations is not rose-colored, whatever happens at the JCPOA negotiations in Vienna. American presidents and other politicians do not dare to oppose the Israeli and Arab lobby. The only flash of hope for improvement of the relations between the two states is the renewed US. The President should firmly and unequivocally say to Israel, Saudi Arabia and the UAE to stop their interference with the American foreign policy and that the US must adopt a policy representing its long-term national interests. Extensive business relations with Iran that may be better achieved without other countries’ interference would definitely serve the interests of the US and improve the situation in this region.

Viktor Mikhin, corresponding member of RANS, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken was quite right when he said that the talks with Iran on its nuclear program are at “a decisive moment.” At it looked for a time as if Washington was ready to accept full responsibility for the deteriorating situation both in the Islamic Republic and in the Middle East as a whole.

But instead, Mr. Blinken stuck to the aggressive policy line adopted by the current US administration, and threatened Iran that if no agreement was reached in the next few weeks then Washington and its allies might be forced to change their tactics. In other words the Biden administration is ready to impose tougher sanctions against the Iranians, who are already on the breadline and even resort to force in order to pressurize Tehran to capitulate and accept a decision dictated by Washington.

But Joe Biden and his administration’s fanciful hopes count for nothing in the face of the realities in the Middle East, a region that the GIs have been withdrawing from over the last few years. In contrast Iran is enjoying a string of foreign policy successes and it seems that the time will soon come when it will be the dominant power in the region, just as Persia once was. Many recent developments would appear to confirm this view.

Over the past 15 years Iran has gained a strong foothold in Iraq, enabling it to influence its policies and obtain financial benefits from the Iraqi economy. Tehran has strengthened its position in Northern Syria, the northernmost part of the Middle East and a strategic crossroads between Central Asia, Europe, and Yemen, the southernmost part of the Arabian peninsula, bordered by Africa and the Indian Ocean. Since the Islamic Revolution in 1979 the Iranians have built up close political and cultural ties with the Shiite community in Lebanon, founding Hezbollah, a powerful Lebanese-based militant group.

Its presence in Syria and Lebanon has enabled Iran to develop negotiation and containment strategies in relation to the US, Europe, Turkey, Russia, Saudi Arabia and, of course, Israel. It should be noted that Iran’s presence in Syria and Lebanon is a fulfilment of its centuries-old ambition to secure a strategic position on the Mediterranean coast, a goal that has tantalized countless past national leaders, from Cyrus the Great and Xerxes to the last Shah.

Iran’s confidence in its ability to achieve its goal is founded in the national faith. The Islamic Republic is founded on theology, and on a deep faith in historic sacrifice (the Lineage of the Prophet), veneration of the Martyrs (beginning with the assassination of Imam Al-Husayn, the Prophet’s grandson) and a sense of historical guilt (Imam Al-Husayn was abandoned by those who had offered him hospitality). Over the centuries these concepts of sacrifice, martyrdom, and guilt developed into a cohesive ideology, and in the second half of the 20th century were enshrined in the teachings of Ayatollah Khomeini, one of the most charismatic religious leaders of his time, who channeled them into a powerful messianic movement. The Islamic Republic of Iran is thus both a nation and a Shiite ideal, which the Iranians see as sanctioned by Allah himself.

But Iran tends to express this concept in secular terms. In their official addresses, Iranian politicians present their country as a key link in the “axis of resistance” to both the Pax Americana in the Middle East and the Sunni militants who are sowing havoc in the Levant. This language reflects the Iranian regime’s firm convictions about the nature of the US empire, and is also good public relations at a time when many people in the region fear the spread of militancy and radicalism.

Iran’s role as the moral leader of that resistance has now spread far beyond the Middle East. It now has close links with states and organizations opposed to US hegemony in Africa, Asia and South America. Links which go far beyond just offering moral support. As the years have passed, these connections have developed into sophisticated networks and relationships for the transfer of weaponry and money, allowing Iran to greatly expand and develop its authority in far-flung regions of the world.

In addition to its foreign policy successes, the Islamic Republic has also been able to secure its home front. The groups that challenged the regime back in 2009 have been disbanded, and a those within the Republic who sought to bring about gradual controlled reforms have now been sidelined. That was the result of the inevitable transition from the rule of the 80-year old Ayatollah Khamenei to a new spiritual leader. It is now evident that Khamenei’s successor is part of the uncompromising camp that has guided Iran’s domestic and foreign policy over the last ten years.

Iran’s conservatives view that fact as a point gained over the USA. As they see it, since the mid-2000s the US has been putting pressure on Iran, adopting a stick-and-carrot approach to persuade it into signing a deal aimed primarily at protecting US interests in the Persian Gulf and Middle East. Iran’s ability, both in the past and now, to resist that colossal pressure and lead negotiations on its deal with the US on its own conditions is seen as a major strategic and rhetorical victory for the country.

Its clear successes over the last 40 years have made Iran much more ambitious, and it is now possible to identify its three main goals. Firstly, Iran wants to cement its presence in the Middle East and Eastern Mediterranean. This explains its determination to establish a Government of National Unity in Iraq and to engage in talks – which now seem increasingly likely- on a new constitutional document for Lebanon, to replace the 1990 Taif Agreement, which marked the end of the civil war in that nation.

Secondly – and this is related to the first goal – Iran wants to strengthen its ability to contain Israel, which it owes largely to the military capabilities of Hezbollah.

Thirdly, Iran wants to reinforce its “axis of resistance” by reaching agreements with major countries bordering the sphere of influence that it has built up in the Levant and Eastern Mediterranean. Specifically, it wishes to improve its relations with Turkey and start working with Egypt.

But, as the great Persian poet and Sufi Sheikh Hafiz Shirazi wrote, the “art of presence and of absence” aforms an important part of harmonious relations. The growth of Iran’s presence on the Arabian peninsula and in the Middle East and Levant has forced other major powers to consider how they can go about minimizing that presence and maximizing its absence. It is worth looking at three important variables that may impact future developments.

The first is that, for the first time in many centuries, the Shiites are now the dominant political force in the region that extends from Central Asia to the Eastern Mediterranean. This force owes its current position to natural population growth and to the demographic changes that have taken place over the last decade, primarily in Syria, and to Shiites’ increasingly dynamic and confident cultural presence, and their growing military might. As a result Sunni Muslims – and many Christians – living in this vast region are increasingly anxious, if not fearful, for the future. The tensions may cause outbursts of popular anger, of the type already seen in Lebanon, which may in turn trigger other undesirable events.

The second variable concerns Iran and Saudi Arabia, which has felt threated by Iran’s Shiite politics for the last 40 years. But it’s successes over the last decade, especially its strengthening of its political identity in the Persian Gulf region, the Levant and Yemen, have effectively encircled Saudi Arabia, and now appear increasingly menacing, especially since the latter country’s rulers are currently trying to reform both their political system and national culture. Riyadh may seem calm and focused on its savage, long-drawn-out and ill-advised war in Yemen. But the youth and lack of experience of Mohammed bin Salman, the current leader, the country’s vast wealth, and the perception of a growing external threat together form an explosive combination.

But it is the third of these variables that may, in the foreseeable future, turn out to have the most impact on the Middle East and the Levant, and thus on North Africa and Europe. It involves Iran’s advanced nuclear program, its rocket arsenal, and Hezbollah, its proxy on the Eastern Mediterranean. Together, these represent a serious challenge to the policies on which Israel’s national security depends. They also make up another powder keg, which could easily be ignited by the USA’s and Israel’s ill-considered policies, causing great damage to the whole Middle East.

Viktor Mikhin, corresponding member of RANS, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

On January 20, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran Sayyid Ebrahim Raisi completed a two-day official visit to Moscow. The Iranian leader arrived in Moscow for the first time since taking office. His visit included talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin, a visit and address to members of the Russian State Duma, and personal meetings with a number of Russian politicians and business people.

According to official information from the Kremlin, the talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin covered a wide range of bilateral cooperation issues, current international and regional issues, and the implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on the Iranian nuclear program (JCPOA). As Raisi noted at the end of the meeting, similarities of positions on many issues were confirmed. The IRI leader said that given the potentials that Iran and Russia have, the ground is ready for the countries to develop relations in economy, politics, trade, science, culture and many other areas. The Iranian President emphasized the existence of a document on strategic cooperation between the two countries, which can determine the perspective for at least 20 years going forward. They passed this document to their Russian colleagues. The Iranian side believes that this document will define strategic interaction between the Islamic Republic and the Russian Federation for the long term. Proposing a plan for such strategic cooperation, which, among other things, could become a synergy for confronting the West, Raisi stressed that, “We in the Islamic Republic of Iran have no restrictions on developing and expanding ties with friendly Russia and these ties will become strategic. Therefore, these relations will not be short-term or situational – they will be permanent and strategic.” Raisi stressed that Russia and Iran have common interests, and cooperation between the two countries in the region will definitely ensure security and prevent unipolarity in the world.

Touching upon the most pressing topic of the international agenda, Raisi once again publicly stressed that the development of nuclear weapons is not part of Iran’s defense strategy; IRI intends to negotiate on its nuclear program if the US and other international actors are ready to lift the sanctions previously imposed on Iran.

Raisi and Putin discussed ways to enhance the already established nuclear energy relations between Iran and Russia, a $5 billion joint project to build additional units at the Bushehr nuclear power plant, for which the countries plan to create a financial line of support.

Speaking at a plenary session of the Russian State Duma, the IRI leader outlined his views on the development of relations between Moscow and Tehran, the fight against terrorism and other topical global processes. He said that strengthening Iranian-Russian relations in various formats would lead to a new step in the economic development of both countries, as well as help peace and security in the region as a whole. And in this respect, the task and responsibility of cooperation between the parliaments of the two countries to ensure the legislative implementation of the decisions reached at the highest level between the leaders of the two countries are growing. In this context, the Iranian side supported Russia’s initiative to hold a conference of parliamentary speakers on countering terrorism and strengthening regional cooperation with the participation of China, Pakistan, Russia and Turkey. As the Iranian leader noted, Moscow and Tehran are creating an alternative pole of power, one example of which is the two countries’ close cooperation over the past six years in Syria to destroy terrorists together.

Raisi is convinced that the war against radical forces is only part of an even more global process – the fight against expansion and domination. In this context, he pointed out that the “strategy of domination” and maximum pressure chosen by the US had failed and led to a weakening of Washington’s position. The same applies to the rest of its NATO allies.

During his official visit to Moscow, Ayatollah Sayyid Ebrahim Raisi, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, met with Mufti Ravil Gaynutdin, Chairman of the Spiritual Administration of Muslims of Russia, who called it symbolic and significant that Raisi performed the Maghrib evening prayer right during his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in the Kremlin.

Although no agreements were signed publicly between Russia and Iran during the Iranian leader’s official visit to Moscow, the visit itself was nevertheless highly regarded not only in the two countries, but also beyond. In particular, it confirmed the decline of the Atlantic world order and the construction of a new multipolar world. This visit showed that the two countries are united not by the principle of “we are only friends because of a common enemy” and both sides’ objective rejection of Anglo-Saxon policies. Tehran and Moscow have many common themes and interests, both in the international arena and in bilateral cooperation, many of which have yet to come to fruition. Iran is an important ancient civilization. By creating its own unique type of state after the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran has emerged as one of the leaders of the Islamic world, despite the fact that the Shi’a faith practiced by Iranians is shared only by a minority of the Muslim Ummah.

Iran is grateful to Russia for the crucial contribution it made to the so-called “Iran deal,” an agreement that allowed the West to save face while clearing Iran of allegations of working on nuclear weapons. Negotiations are now underway to return to this deal, but given Washington’s unwillingness to negotiate under Trump, Iran is now demanding guarantees: first the removal or at least easing of sanctions, and a commitment not to break the agreement by the US. The objective justification for such actions by Tehran is clear, given the shaken confidence in the consistency of US, and indeed the West’s, policy.

Under these circumstances, Tehran’s desire to find further support not in the West, but in a rapprochement with China and Russia, which is now intensifying, is understandable. Iran’s actions to become a full member of the SCO and its intention to work as closely as possible with the Eurasian Union attest to this. Iran has already signed a strategic partnership agreement with China; now it is Moscow’s turn. Yes, Iran is now constrained financially by a Western-led restrictive policy, introduced shortly after the 1979 Islamic Revolution, which has been in place for more than 40 years. But it was and still is potentially one of the key, most powerful and richest countries in the world, not to mention a close neighbor of Russia. A strong and independent friendly Iran is beneficial for Russia, and therefore Moscow’s active participation in the process of returning it to its rightful place in the world will pay off both economically and geopolitically.

Vladimir Platov, expert on the Middle East, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

There has been a marked shift in the balance of power in the world as the US has recently intensified its attempts to regain world domination, including through sanctions against countries trying to demonstrate their independence from Washington. And in this respect, Beijing’s attempt to create a multipolar world based on an alliance with countries that have already felt pressure from Washington, in particular Iran, is noteworthy.

In the Middle East, the Islamic Republic of Iran is virtually the only country that poses a serious threat to regional American hegemony. Washington’s accusations against Iran in recent years are numerous and include “sponsorship of terrorism”, “violation of human rights”, a propensity to threaten the US and US allies in the Middle East, support for anti-American insurgents in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, building nuclear weapons, etc.

For years now, Iran has been suffering from US-imposed sanctions, affecting in large part the interests of countries such as Russia, China, India and Turkey, all of which have longstanding, close financial and trade relations with Iran. The most vulnerable area of any attempted pressure on Iran by the US and its satellites is to halt Iran’s increasing pace of economic cooperation with these countries, and especially with China.

In this context, Iran has in recent years become increasingly reliant on China economically, diplomatically and to some extent militarily, providing Beijing with a unique opportunity to expand its influence in the Middle East as well as diverting much of the US Navy away from the Pacific.

From Beijing’s perspective, Iran is becoming an increasingly important strategic partner and ally against the United States, as a growing market for Chinese goods and through its possession of vast reserves of oil and natural gas, which China badly needs to keep developing. Moreover, China has never had territorial claims to Iran, unlike other great powers, which has allowed Beijing to provide Iran with technology that the rest of the world has not sold, ignoring alleged “provocations” by Iran abroad and human rights “violations” domestically.

Faced with international sanctions, Iran has been deprived of access to foreign capital and the ability to develop its shrinking energy sector. As a result, the Islamic Republic has become largely dependent on China as the regime’s main diplomatic and economic protector in the face of internal and external pressures. All this has made Beijing in fact an ideal strategic partner for Tehran.

Relations between the People’s Republic of China and the Islamic Republic of Iran are currently at an all-time high, which led to the signing of a strategic partnership agreement on March 27, 2021 that will be valid for 25 years. Notably, this agreement had been “maturing” for five years since its origination in 2016 during Xi Jinping’s visit to Tehran. It was then, just after Barack Obama lifted sanctions, that Xi Jinping went to Iran with global plans and a large team of potential investors. The Iranian media were bubbling with excitement: Iran’s economy, drained by isolation and sanctions under Ahmadinejad, was to receive a golden rain of multi-billion-dollar investment from China.

Under the Strategic Partnership Agreement, China received a discount on Iranian oil and in exchange will invest $400 billion in various projects in Iran. In this context, it is noteworthy that whereas Iran used to “receive” investments from around the world worth no more than $5 billion a year, now it gets $16 billion from China alone, which is a huge financial “injection” into the Iranian economy. In addition, Iran, with its abundant hydrocarbon reserves, is interested in a reliable market and a stable trading partner, and needs technology and investment. It has found all this in China, which in turn needs a steady supply of imported hydrocarbons, the “engine” of its economy.

One should also keep in mind that for Iran, China is a potential ally against its main “enemy” — the United States — given that opposition to American “hegemony” is an ideological pillar of the Islamic Republic. Both China and Iran know too well the “handwriting and style” of their geopolitical rivals, primarily the “world policeman,” i.e. the US. These are echoes of the “velvet” revolutions that reached China, leading to the events in Tiananmen Square in 1989, the “mistaken” destruction of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade by a US precision bomb in 1999, at a time when the so-called international coalition was leveling Yugoslavia to the ground. This also includes the destabilization of the Uighur situation in Xinjiang, support for the protests in Hong Kong in 2014, 2019 and, more recently, Washington’s active actions to break away the Republic of China (Taiwan) from Beijing.

Iran also remembers well the “democratization in the American way” with the US invasion and the war in Afghanistan in 2001, Iraq (2003), Libya (2011) and Syria, as well as the war with Iraq (1980-1988), which started with the invasion by Iraqis of Iranian territory with the international support of the US and many interested states, primarily “US allies.”

There is no doubt that China and Iran share common interests in the military field as well, which could change the geopolitical balance in the Middle East. And this is confirmed by Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s agreement in early July 2020 to expand the existing deal to include new military elements proposed by senior figures in the IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps) and intelligence agencies, including air and naval cooperation.

Against this backdrop, the foreign ministers of China and Iran recently announced the launch of a 25-year cooperation agreement between the two countries. Signed in March last year, this cooperation agreement establishes a partnership between the two countries in areas such as healthcare, infrastructure, cybersecurity and agriculture. In addition, Iran has become a party to Beijing’s multi-billion-dollar Belt and Road Initiative, expanding the China-Iran partnership with other countries as well.

The US and a number of its closest allies have already expressed concerns about the bilateral agreement. As recently as a year ago, Bloomberg wrote: “Beijing’s alliance with Tehran is a challenge to Joe Biden’s administration as it sets about trying to rally allies against China, which Secretary of State Antony Blinken has said is the world’s ‘greatest geopolitical test’.” “It allows Iran to be a little bit tougher,” Dina Esfandiari, a senior adviser at the International Crisis Group, suggested in an interview with The Wall Street Journal: “I think this will make Europe and the US a little nervous as it looks like Iran will have a way out of its economic stranglehold.” At the same time, Tehran, by entering into an agreement with China, shows that it has strong allies, including a country that is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, Esfandiari noted.

Therefore, it is not surprising that Washington does not like the transition to a new qualitative level in relations between Tehran and Beijing, as, indeed, in relations between Iran and Moscow, which are developing quite dynamically in many areas, as evidenced in particular by the results of the personal meeting between the presidents of Russia and Iran held in Moscow on January 19. However, the Islamic Republic acknowledges that relations with Russia, as at the moment with China, may develop into a strategic partnership, to the apparent displeasure of Washington.

Vladimir Platov, expert on the Middle East, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

The negotiations now opening in Vienna under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) between Iran on the one hand and, on the other, a number of countries including the E3 (France, Great Britain, and Germany), Russia, China, and the US, are not generally thought likely to make any major positive change to the stability of the Middle East. The positions taken by the parties are too divergent, and each of them seeks to achieve maximum success for themselves without regard for the views and interests of the others.

Tehran’s position was set out by Abbas Moqtadaye, Deputy Chairman of the Iranian legislature’s committee for national security and foreign affairs, who stated clearly and unambiguously that if the Western countries recognize that the success of the Vienna talks depends on safeguarding the interests of the Iranian people, there is hope for success. At the same time, he noted that should the West miss this chance, Iran may make use of the opportunity, under the Strategic Action Plan to Protect the Iranian Nation’s Interests approved by its legislature, to order the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) to accelerate its nuclear program. Moqtadaye added that the US must first correct its mistakes of recent years, and only then and after verification will the Islamic Republic allow the Americans to act in accordance with agreements recognized by Iran.

Both before and after the seventh round of the Vienna talks began, Iranian officials clearly and unambiguously stated the three conditions which must be met by the US, given that the text of the JCPOA was approved by UN Security Council Resolution 2231, but the US withdrew from it. Firstly, Washington must immediately lift all inhumane sanctions against the Islamic Republic. The situation is such that, in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States as well as the German government forbade all other countries from supplying Iran with the COVID vaccine or even its ingredients under penalty of sanctions. Secondly, Washington must guarantee that no future American administration will withdraw from the deal, given that the party of the right wing may soon assume power and could promptly renounce this important agreement, as happened under Donald Trump. Moreover, Washington must “admit its wrongdoing in withdrawing from the JCPOA,” which caused great harm to the entire Middle East and, most especially, the Iranian people. It is well understood that Joe Biden lacks any legal means to force his successors to abide by his decisions. This can only be achieved by concluding an agreement that enjoys bipartisan support in the US, and that is what the current administration should be attempting to bring about. This is the only means by which the development of Iran’s military arsenal can be halted and the program directed into peaceful channels.

Referring to the Vienna talks, Iran’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Hossein Amir-Abdollahian said that: “Iran is serious, acts in good faith, and considers the practical and tangible result to be the removal of sanctions.” He remarked that the other parties need to make a practical demonstration of political will.  In an important declaration, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said that: “I would like to emphasize once again that this opportunity is not a window that could remain open forever and the US and the three European countries must well understand this. The Islamic Republic of Iran, while making its determined, strong and active diplomatic efforts to remove the oppressive US sanctions, has devised an effective program to neutralize the sanctions in line with its sustainable economic development program.”  He added that, even as US officials call for negotiations and say they want to return to the JCPOA nuclear deal, they are simultaneously imposing new sanctions on Iranian companies and individuals.

If the Iranian delegation is sincerely aiming at a positive outcome for the negotiations, then Western diplomats and media organizations, Reuters in particular, have begun a psychological operation to undermine the Vienna talks in order to then lay the full blame for the breakdown of negotiations on Tehran. Reuters, allegedly citing European diplomats, claims that within the last two days of the Vienna talks, a draft agreement was between 70 and 80% complete. But sources closer to the Iranian negotiating team reject this claim, saying that such an assessment isl not supported by the facts and that there is a long way to go before the outstanding issues are resolved. Even Enrique Mora, the chief of staff to the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, “weighed in,” stating that the current negotiations in Vienna are a continuation of the 6 previous rounds of talks. But his comments were immediately rejected by Iran’s chief negotiator Ali Bagheri Kani.

There is nothing new or remarkable about this. It is a favorite and well-honed tactic of Western politicians, who will accuse the whole world of guilt for some crime while never looking for it in their own conduct. Even when Europeans were exterminating American Indians and the indigenous peoples of Africa and Australia, enslaving the native population of Asia, imposing their domination by force, and plundering the world’s wealthiest countries, has anyone ever heard of them apologizing for their crimes or offering any kind of compensation for their under-development of the colonized nations? Never, but they have often spoken of the benefits they ostensibly brought to Asia, Africa, and America, and still do so to this day. It is enough to review such Asian countries as Afghanistan, Iran, and Syria, or in Africa, Libya, to fully appreciate the “blessings” delivered by the West under American leadership.

Current reporting and statements from the White House suggest that if the talks should fail, the result will be pervasive political confusion. Non-military options are likely to prove ineffective, especially considering that Trump has already imposed every conceivable form of sanctions on Iran. Biden and his European colleagues are desperate not to resign themselves to a worst-case scenario. This patently obvious reality is precisely what leads the ayatollahs to believe they have a window of opportunity for a nuclear breakthrough. As Sir John Jenkins, a former British ambassador, said in an article: “The issue is not troop numbers. It is political will. The idea that an administration that has made clear its desire to leave Middle Eastern conflicts behind will seek to put Iran back in its box is fantasy. And Tehran knows this.”

Despite Israel’s impressive acts of sabotage, Iranian scientists have gone to remarkable lengths to repair their nuclear facilities and keep their development on schedule. According to Western intelligence officials, Tehran has replaced damaged equipment with new technology that works faster and in larger volumes. It follows that a strategy dependent on cyber-attacks and pin-prick acts of sabotage has only caused Iran to double down on its efforts. Conversely, Western officials report that the Israelis are “100% certain” that they will launch a decisive strike against Iran’s nuclear and ballistic capabilities, and that if matters reach such a pass, they can also seriously weaken Hezbollah’s arsenal. US officials grimly acknowledge that in such a case, they would be drawn into the conflict. Prime Minister Naftali Bennett said that nuclear deal of 2015 has had a “sleeping pill” effect on Israel. He promised not to repeat his predecessor’s mistakes and stated that “even if there is a return to an agreement, Israel is of course not a party to it, and is not bound by it.” In other words, having at its disposal more than a hundred nuclear warheads and the means to deliver them, the Israeli leadership simply spits on international law and behaves like a tavern brawler.

Iran’s attainment of nuclear capability has immediate consequences for global security. As in the case of North Korea, the world will be compelled to respond to Israeli and Iranian actions with great caution, given that their disputes may escalate to the use of ballistic and nuclear weapons. However, Tehran’s access to nuclear weapons will have a positive effect on the containment of Tel-Aviv’s adventurism in the region. This is why the Israelis, fearful of losing their military superiority, are taking all possible measures and several impossible ones to disrupt the signing of the JCPOA, maintain their dominant military position within the region, and continue their aggressive actions with impunity. But unlike North Korea or Israel, Iran has proxy forces at its disposal throughout the region, which could act with impunity under an Iranian nuclear umbrella. At the same time, several regional states are preparing to establish their own nuclear arsenals should Iran achieve a breakthrough: a recipe for Armageddon in the world’s most chronically unstable region. In such a case, it will be interesting to see how the West will respond: will these allies of the US and Europe be placed under the same crippling sanctions as Iran?

Viktor Mikhin, corresponding member of RANS, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Tensions over the proliferation of nuclear weapons have recently increased significantly amid problems with the nuclear deal with Iran, of which one of the signatories to it, the United States, withdrew on the initiative of ex-President Donald Trump in 2018, and the current White House administration has so far unsuccessfully tried to restore it, but on new terms. It should be recalled that the nuclear agreement with Iran, known as the Joint Comprehensive Action Plan, was concluded in 2015 during the Barack Obama administration. Besides Iran and the USA, the agreement was signed by Great Britain, France, Germany, the EU, Russia and China.

Recently, tensions over the proliferation of nuclear weapons have risen again, largely due to the rhetoric of some leaders hinting at a return to the era of nuclear buildup around the world, which has already sparked fears about Iran’s nuclear stockpile. Israel has become an active initiator in this regard: without advertising its own nuclear reserves and without signing the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons approved by the UN General Assembly Resolution 2373 (XXII) of June 12, 1968, it is, in its regional counteraction against Iran, actively trying to involve in it both Washington and several other Western powers.

It seems that the world is very far from “coming to its senses”, given that millions of kilotons are currently in service in various countries around the world. Among them, nuclear states possess approximately 15 thousand warheads, the majority of which belong to the United States and Russia. According to experts from the Arms Control Association, less than 10 thousand of them are in service, while the rest are awaiting dismantling.

Only five states possessing nuclear weapons are recognized in the world: China, France, Russia, Britain and the United States. They are officially recognized as such by the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which entered into force in 1970. This Treaty recognizes and legitimizes their nuclear arsenals, but they should not strengthen or maintain them permanently. In fact, on the contrary, they committed themselves to eliminating nuclear weapons.

There are four countries unofficially possessing nuclear weapons: Pakistan, India, Israel and South Korea These countries have not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty and together they have approximately 340 such weapons.

Against this background, various international platforms and media are actively discussing Iran today, in respect of which Israel and the United States are taking active measures to prevent its possession of nuclear weapons.

Iran began developing its own nuclear energy in the 1950s during the reign of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi (1941-1979), a staunch US ally in the Middle East at that time. US President Dwight D. Eisenhower, within the framework of the Atoms for Peace program, at the supported this initiative by signing an agreement with Iran on the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy in 1957. In accordance with this document, Washington undertook to supply Iran with nuclear installations and equipment and train specialists. The first low-power reactor was delivered to the United States to the nuclear research center of Tehran University in 1959.

An increasing number of American politicians and the media engaged in Tel Aviv have been lately involved in the excitement raised by Israel over Iran’s nuclear program, which in the official statements of the Iranian authorities has repeatedly stated that it does not intend to develop nuclear weapons. Several sources reported at once that Iran was very close to the creation of a nuclear charge. “Iran needs about a month to get enough material to make one nuclear charge,” The New York Times recently wrote. According to experts, about 15-20 kg of weapons-grade uranium are necessary to create a uranium bomb. As stated in the joint statement of the foreign ministries of Great Britain, France and Germany, circulated recently, the volume of nuclear materials currently possessed by Iran after their additional enrichment will be enough to create more than one nuclear charge.

Against this background, as well as amidst the ongoing measures to restore the nuclear deal with Iran and the active information attacks by Israel (with a number of Tel Aviv-oriented American politicians) on Tehran’s nuclear program, it is quite remarkable how these anti-Iranian political forces completely ignore the already significant nuclear reserves sufficient for the production of atomic bombs by other “unofficial” nuclear powers.

In this regard, it is enough to look at Japan, which is the most serious military ally of the United States in Southeast Asia.

As you know, after the defeat in World War II, the new Japan was forced to abandon any development of nuclear weapons. Although there is no official information about the presence of nuclear weapons in Japan, which is a distinguishing feature of a truly strong military machine, nevertheless, according to the conclusion of many experts, this country needs very little time to create them. Moreover, today Japan has the necessary scientific and technical potential, as well as a significant amount of fissile radioactive material.

Thus, according to the Chinese Internet portal Sohu, Tokyo has a stock of already processed nuclear raw materials for 6,000 nuclear devices (!). For several years, Japan hid this from both its allies in the United States and from other countries. It should be noted that this number is the level of Russia and the United States, which have, according to the estimates of competent experts, 7000 and 6800 of them, respectively, while France has 300, China – 270, North Korea, according to various estimates, from 10 to 60. Meanwhile, Iran only has one nuclear device!

At the same time, the Sohu portal also indicates that for several years Tokyo, within the framework of its nuclear energy, has enriched and processed raw materials to a level that allows them to create weapons. With no criticism from today’s Iranian opponents. Although the Chinese exposing material does not name specific volumes, these could be several dozens of tons, at least.

As for the means of delivery of nuclear weapons, one must not forget that Japan is a leading space power, its spacecraft landed on an asteroid and delivered matter from there to Earth, and its launch vehicles are exceptionally reliable.

Hence, a natural question arises: who is really orchestrating the campaign to punish Iran for its nuclear program, while an active US ally under the former’s cover has already accumulated a world-destroying potential of raw materials for several thousand atomic bombs?  Isn’t the anti-Iranian information campaign of the United States and Israel a cover for Japan to secretly create its own nuclear potential without appropriate control by the world community?

Vladimir Odintsov, political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Turkey and Iran, whose cooperation and potential conflict are closely intertwined despite the occasional disagreement and contradictory views on world events, are still trying to maintain a complex balance between themselves to prevent a significant escalation of tension. Indeed, any shift in the balance of power between these two critical poles in the Middle East could considerably exacerbate instability in an already very complex region.

The geostrategic rivalry between Turkey and Iran, with the two practically mirroring each other, has ancient roots and has been shaped by long-term processes and changes in the balance of power in the region and the world. Because of their geographical proximity, they very often chose a common direction in their political aspirations, although they rarely agreed with each other. Under the influence of Persian culture, Turks turned towards the West and acquired their political and religious values. Iran was home to many Turks. Historically, Persia was ruled by Turkic dynasties such as the Safavids and Qajars – from the 16th century when they embraced Twelver Shi’ism up to the Pahlavi dynasty in the 20th century.

Iran, which positions itself as the leader of the Shiite world and the successor of the First Persian Empire, largely overlaps with the interests of the Turkish government and, although it is not engaged in confrontation, it tries to oppose the neo-Ottoman, pan-Turkic foreign policy of Ankara.

Although Turkey and Iran continued to compete religiously and politically in the region, the two countries, even in the face of international sanctions against Iran that prevented it from entering many markets worldwide, have long managed to develop their trade and energy relations. Their volumes were on the rise until 2018 when Turkey’s purchases of Iranian oil and Iran’s imports of Turkish products were cut due to US President Donald Trump’s tightening of sanctions on the Islamic Republic.  Although the level of economic ties seen before 2018 has not yet been achieved following the change of administration in the White House, it is still likely that Iran will continue to be the leading energy supplier to Turkey, while due to geographic proximity and low transportation costs, Turkish goods will continue to occupy a significant share of the Iranian market.

An essential unifying factor for both countries has always been the joint competition with Riyadh for influence in the Middle East. Since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, Saudi Arabia has considered Iran its mortal enemy. As for Turkey, it has in recent years become particularly active in challenging Saudi Arabia’s quest for supremacy in the Arab world as part of its neo-Ottoman policy, which proclaims Turkey as the natural leader of Sunni countries. This process was evident during the Riyadh-initiated boycott of Qatar, in which Ankara supported Doha by beginning to airlift supplies and troops to it to neutralize the threat it faced from Saudi Arabia and its allies.

Besides, Ankara and Tehran have the same opposition to the Kurdish separatism that threatens the territorial integrity of both republics. In that connection, the countries have reached a tacit agreement to fight against the common enemy, Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), and its Iranian wing, the Kurdistan Free Life Party.

Nevertheless, political conflicts periodically arise between the countries, even though they manage to resolve them without further serious consequences. For example, one of them erupted in early December 2015, when information about a phone conversation between Erdoğan and his then Iranian counterpart Rouhani hit the media. The Turkish President allegedly called the situation unacceptable when Iranian news agencies and some politicians accused Erdoğan’s family of having links with the Islamic State (banned in Russia) and trading the oil these militants supplied. With their heightened sense of national pride, Iranians always painfully perceived any demands and remarks by foreigners. So, on December 4, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hossein Jaber Ansari called on Turkey to be respectful, “to refrain from adventures and take responsibility for the chosen political position.”

Tensions between Turkey and Iran increased significantly at the end of 2020 because of Azerbaijan. Then, during his official visit to Baku on December 10, at the celebration of Azerbaijan’s victory over Armenia in Nagorno-Karabakh, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan recited a poem by Azerbaijani poet Bakhtiyar Vahabzadeh. Afterward, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said on Twitter that the poem “refers to the violent separation of areas north of Aras from Iranian motherland.”

In February of this year, there was a new diplomatic conflict between Turkey and Iran, which flared up against the background of the operation of Turkish troops in northern Iraq against units of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party. In particular, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said in an interview with Iran’s Press TV channel on February 22: “We reject the Turkish military presence in Syria and Iraq, and we consider Ankara’s policies towards Damascus and Baghdad to be wrong.” The Iraqi government also practically spoke out against Turkey. In response, the Iranian Ambassador to Ankara, Mohammad Farazmand, was summoned to the Turkish Foreign Ministry and was told, “Ankara expects Iran to support, not oppose, Turkey’s fight against terrorism.” Previously, in mid-February, the Iranian-backed Shiite group Harakat Hezbollah al-Nujaba, part of the paramilitary Popular Mobilization Force (Al-Hashd al-Shaabi, created in 2014 with Tehran’s support to fight the Russian-banned terrorist group Islamic State) threatened to attack the Turkish military for invading Iraqi territory.

Therefore, the visit of Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu to Tehran on November 14 attracted the international public’s attention quite rightly. Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian announced after talks with his Turkish counterpart Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu that Tehran and Ankara have agreed on a road map for long-term cooperation. The parties touched on the topic of Afghanistan, the revival of the 2015 nuclear deal. In the dialogue, among other things, the topic of Transcaucasia was raised. The sides agreed that Turkey, Iran, and Azerbaijan’s national and religious ties should not allow “some foreign forces” to cloud their relations.

At the same time, it was announced that the bilateral roadmap developed at the ministerial meeting would be signed during the upcoming visit of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to Iran.  Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian explained that the document envisages cooperation in several areas – trade, economic, energy, consular activities, and border security.

At a joint press conference in Tehran following the meeting between the two countries’ foreign ministers, Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu declared Turkey’s interest in cooperation with Iran in the “3+3” format (Azerbaijan, Georgia, Armenia, Turkey, Iran, and Russia). The Turkish foreign minister said Turkey and Iran could make active efforts to solve the problems in the region. “This applies not only to Syria but also to our neighbor Iraq. In addition, there are processes in the Persian Gulf and Yemen,” said Çavuşoğlu.

Despite all the differences and disagreements, there are several good reasons why Ankara and Tehran should look for opportunities to cooperate. The Syrian crisis has pitted Iran and Turkey against each other and forced them to act against each other, but one day this conflict will be resolved, and both countries will face and are already facing common threats. Therefore, they need to work out the parameters of cooperation now to counter the three major threats. This is primarily Kurdish separatism. Besides, the recent aggravation of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict carries risks for Turkish energy projects and Iran’s internal security, given the large number of Azerbaijanis living on its territory. In addition, extremism is a common threat that requires a united effort. A more sensible choice for Iran and Turkey could be to fight terrorism as a long-term strategy and maintain the traditional balance of Sunni-Shiite forces in the region. This would help stabilize a fragmented region.

Vladimir Odintsov, political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

On January 12, 2016, it was reported by international media that two US Navy riverine command boats were seized by a unit of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) in Iranian territorial waters and how the Iranians brought valiant American Marines to their knees, taking away their weapons. Tehran circulated a video of this detention of two boats with ten US Navy Marines, “boarded” without firing a single shot. According to the Pentagon’s report, one of the American ships had failed navigation equipment. The other boat rushed to assist but was spotted by an Iranian border patrol. The Islamic Republic’s “Mosquito Fleet” had no trouble blocking and disarming the Americans. However, Tehran made do with a light slap in the face, without escalating tension, although Washington, according to the General Staff of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, issued a formal apology.

And now, a new, hazardous incident took place on October 24-25 this year between Iran and the USA in the Gulf of Oman, a video of which was aired by Iran. As can be seen in the footage, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy thwarted an attempt by the US Navy to steal an Iranian oil tanker in the Gulf of Oman. The said confrontation followed the unprofessional behavior of the US warship in the southern waters of the Islamic Republic, which, as the Iranian media noted, “was met with firm response by the IRGC fast boats.”

According to the Mehr News Agency, the United States detained a tanker carrying Iranian oil and began pumping the oil cargo to another ship, leaving in an unknown direction. It is stated that in response to the blatant pirating by the US Navy warship, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Special Forces were sent to the area, landed from helicopter on its deck, and interrupted the pumping of the hydrocarbons. “The IRGC naval forces carried out heliborne operation to thwart the attempted “oil piracy” by the US warship. The Iranian oil tanker was moved back to Iran territorial water,” Mehr News Agency reported on November 3. It is claimed that Iranian sailors were able to prevent a US attempt to “seize a giant oil tanker in the strategic Gulf of Oman and move the vessel into the territorial waters of a third country.” The US Navy, using several warships and helicopters, attempted to block the tanker’s path but again failed. The merchant vessel in question is currently in the territorial waters of the Islamic Republic, Mehr notes.

The video shows the IRGC encircling the Sothys tanker, using a Shahid Nazeri catamaran and a Bell 412 helicopter to land troops on the deck. Other videos on the Internet about the incident show the Arleigh Burke-type destroyers USS The Sullivans (DDG-68) and USS Michael P. Murphy (DDG-112) of the US Navy, operating in the region, arriving on the scene. At least one US Coast Guard cutter can also be seen in the footage (the US Navy sent two such ships to the Middle East earlier this year: USCGC Charles Moulthrope and USCGC Robert Goldman). The footage also shows an MH-60R Seahawk helicopter, which could have been launched from an American warship, carrying two AGM-114 Hellfire missiles. The Iranian boats, actively maneuvering in the path of the American ships, forced them to turn around and head back. The stolen oil was safely returned to Iran.

The video of the incident circulated on the Internet shows the emotions of the American sailors. The details of the incident caught on camera are being actively discussed on the web. The reason for the jokes was the actions of US sailors who were frightened, as in the events of January 2016, of clashing with Iranian special forces, which were significantly inferior to the Americans both in numbers and firepower. What is then visible in the footage is a series of “very close encounters,” at least between The Sullivans destroyer, which came close to the Sothys tanker, and the Iranian warships. IRGC personnel are seen pointing deck-mounted machine guns at an American ship, although there is no evidence that any shots have been fired.

There are various bird’s-eye view shots of the entire incident, which may have been taken by Iranian manned aircraft or drones and which show numerous ships and small boats in the vicinity of the tanker. Although there is no indication of how close the US and Iranian vessels came to each other, it is clear that, at times, the distance between them was very short. In one episode of the confrontation, an IRGC gunboat is seen cutting the movement of The Sullivans destroyer right in front of its bow. Judging by the footage, the aircraft were unhindered by US warships.

According to the US news and analysis website The Drive, the said incident is an unprecedented clash between the two countries in the Persian Gulf. Iran accused the US of attempting to steal oil from a tanker in the Gulf of Oman.  “Such incidents can be hazardous for all parties involved because of the risk of clashes. Larger ships such as the Arleigh Burke-type destroyers, which are over 150 meters long and have a displacement of over 8,000 tons, may not even see the smaller vessel and may have trouble stopping or otherwise maneuvering away from such vessels,” The Drive concludes.

The Iranian media reported that the US warship eventually left the scene.

The incident took place against the backdrop of Iran’s ongoing oil export embargo, which the United States imposed in November 2018 under President Donald Trump.

The US Army Command said the incident did occur on October 24-25. However, in its official statement, the Pentagon, as usual, substantially distorted the incident in its favor, claiming that Iranian troops had allegedly hijacked a private ship that was under the protection of the US Navy. The agency did not say why the US Navy had not taken any action to protect the ship. Neither could they reject the documentary video footage of US Navy piracy and its suppression by IRGC fighters, which has already been circulated on the web.

Vladimir Platov, expert on the Middle East, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

In his instructions to the new cabinet, Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei denounced US President Joe Biden as a “ravenous wolf,” telling his ministers, “Diplomacy should not be influenced and linked to the nuclear issue.” Instead, President Ebrahim Raisi’s team intends to focus on east-oriented economic diplomacy. Both Raisi and Ali Khamenei condemned the previous President Hassan Rouhani for being naive in negotiations with the West, with the Supreme Leader explicitly stating, “Trusting the West doesn’t work.” He considers Western negotiators on the nuclear program unreliable and deceitful. Accordingly, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Saeed Khatibzadeh demanded that US President Joe Biden provide specific assurances that Washington “will not again renege on its commitments” under the renewed Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

In light of these directives, President Ebrahim Raisi and Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian pledged to pursue an Asia-centric or Look East policy while strengthening their western flanks with pro-Iranian militias in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. With Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hashd al-Shaabi in Iraq threatening civil conflict in recent days to achieve their guerrilla goals, notes World Israel News, Tehran’s new leaders’ willingness to push the region to boiling point is all too clear. However, the Israeli newspaper does not provide any reliable facts. However, the Israeli newspaper, in its attempt to muddle Iran up by its propaganda, continues to be suspiciously silent about the fact that it is Israel that continuously destabilizes the military and political situation in the region, regularly bombs the sovereign territory of Syria, kills the Iranian nuclear scientists, and develops plans of attack on the Islamic Republic of Iran with US help.

As a result, one of Raisi’s first tangible victories in his pivot to the east was that Iran joined the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. During his last meeting with this organization, the Iranian president actively advocated the unification of Asian powers into an anti-Western bloc. “Sanctions are not aimed at just one country,” he said truthfully. “Sanctions are targeting more independent countries, especially members of this organization,” he added, calling for the joint development of mechanisms to combat unjust and cruel sanctions against many nations in the world by the West. And this policy seems to be gaining ground among many Asian States. With Iran, Russia, China, Myanmar, and other Asian powers facing multiple and unjustified Western sanctions, these states are already integrating into an economic bloc with entire financial networks becoming immune to external pressures.

Iran’s rapid development of a peaceful nuclear industry is also due to clandestine pan-Asian ties with related industry sectors in North Korea and Pakistan.  The $400 billion investment agreement between Beijing and Tehran signed this year sounds more and more like a game-changer. First, due to Raisi’s eastward orientation; second, Biden’s hardline policy toward China; and third, Afghanistan’s neighbors, anxious about the Taliban’s victory, have converged because of regional stability concerns. It is no coincidence that it was in Tehran that a conference was held for the six neighbors of Afghanistan plus Russia, where a plan to coordinate joint actions was adopted.

Iran once provided covert support to the Taliban (banned in Russia) to drive the Americans out of the country. Still, it never expected its former enemies to return to power so quickly and decisively, especially given the Taliban’s anti-Shiite sentiment. “Iran has come to understand that the enemy of the enemy is not your friend, and the Taliban is a more complex problem than the Americans,” said Mohammad Hossein Emadi, a former Ambassador of Iran who worked extensively in Afghanistan. “The consensus is to deal with the Taliban very cautiously and pragmatically.” And judging by the latest statements of officials, this is how Tehran will conduct business with the new masters in Kabul, given that Afghanistan is still a vital neighbor of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the situation in this part of the world will largely depend on their relations.

According to the latest instructions from Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Raisi’s strategy concerning the nuclear talks with the West will be to continue these talks while avoiding additional sanctions, without allowing the negotiations to make much progress. Many analysts from various countries have confirmed that Iran’s agreement to negotiate appears to be a “tactical move to prevent a condemnatory resolution” at the November meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is increasingly getting under the influence of the United States. These talks will become vanishingly irrelevant as the uranium enrichment clauses expire and because, according to IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi, Iran will have the necessary materials to build a nuclear bomb within a few months.

Since Israel will never allow Tehran to achieve this goal, Israeli military strikes become the most likely option. At present, the US, a global player, sees no contradiction in allowing Israel to continue bombing Syrian territory under the pretext that it is disruptive for Iran, first and foremost. But also, Joe Biden has repeatedly said that he is ready to return to the nuclear deal with Tehran, thereby making a dwindling prospect of a peaceful solution to the Iranian problem. With the embarrassing flight of US troops from Afghanistan, some politicians in Washington hope to confront Tehran with the Taliban regime and incorporate the Iranian economy into a Western economy where the dollar still plays a key role, thereby strengthening the USA above all. But the evidence shows, all these dreams are built on sand and will disperse at the first real encounter.

Israel’s defense establishment has recently tuned up the heat of its warnings about Iran’s installation of batteries of surface-to-air missiles in Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq, as well as its reliance on game-changing drone technology. Iranian Western-based commentator Reza Parchizadeh says these air defenses are being developed in anticipation of Israeli strikes against nuclear facilities: “The Iranian regime knows that once the charade of the Vienna talks to reopen the 2015 nuclear deal is over … it will have to strengthen militarily significantly and rush for a nuclear bomb for the last time.” Finance Minister Avigdor Lieberman echoed the views of numerous Israeli officials when he said that a military clash with Iran is “inevitable and only a matter of time.”  This view was echoed by Dennis Ross, a former special assistant to President Barack Obama, who argues that America must bring the threat of military force back to the negotiating table: “Iran used Israeli sabotage attacks as a pretext to increase the percentage of uranium enrichment because the Ayatollahs never particularly anticipated any negative reaction.” According to the former special assistant, this loss of Iranian fear has allegedly contributed to dangerous scenarios of Iran becoming either military nuclear power or unleashing a regional war.

Since Iran has been “allowed to deploy hundreds of thousands of missiles throughout the region,” as the Saudi Arab Times wrote with dismay, even a non-nuclear war would be incalculably destructive as Iran would cause enormous damage to the GCC civilian and economic targets by targeting numerous US bases located there. Then, the question arises why and for what reason the Arab countries of the Persian Gulf deployed the American military on their territory if the only aggression, and not that from Iran, was the invasion by Saudi Arabia and the UAE troops in Bahrain to suppress the Pearl Revolution. However, it remains to be seen whether the ayatollahs will concede in negotiations and make the compromises the West needs in the event of a direct military threat to Tehran and the Iranian regime. No one knows the answer to these questions yet, and that is why a murky future is likely to reign over the entire Middle East region.

Viktor Mikhin, corresponding member of RANS, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

]]> https://journal-neo.org/2021/11/10/iran-s-politics-in-the-turbulent-middle-east/feed/ 0