Ebrahim Raisi, Chairman of the Supreme Court, won 17.8 million votes in Iran’s 13th presidential election, which took place on June 18, Jamal Orf, Chairman of the Election Commission, announced. The other three candidates standing for election received considerably fewer votes.

But it was even before the official announcement of the results that other leaders began to congratulate Ebrahim Raisi – a conservative cleric – on his victory. According to Hassan Rouhani, the outgoing moderate president, his successor won fairly and the election was well attended. The 60-year-old Raisi will take over from the moderate Rouhani at a moment when the Islamic Republic is trying to salvage the tattered nuclear deal which it concluded with a group of major world powers, and thus to relieve it from the burden of the harsh and inhumane sanctions imposed by the US, which have resulted in a serious – and painful – economic crisis.

Many Iranians abstained from voting after the list of some 600 candidates was cut down to just 7, all of them males, with the former president and the previous speaker of the Iranian Parliament among those rejected from the list. Three of the candidates – of whom two supported Raisi – were removed from the list just two days before the election. Former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, one of the candidates disqualified from standing for office by a decision of the powerful Supervisory Committee, consisting of 12 clerics and lawyers, was among those who publicly announced that he would not be voting.

On the day of the election state-controlled television channels broadcast footage of large flag-waving crowds – the country has a population of 83 million, but, further from the polling stations, many voters complained about the election, considering that the results had been fixed in advance. “Whether or not I vote, the winner has already been chosen,” chuckled Said Zareye, a Teheran shopkeeper, speaking to the Saudi newspaper the Arab News. Other factors which contributed to lack of enthusiasm among voters included rising inflation and unemployment, as well as the COVID-19 pandemic, from which Iran has suffered more than other countries in the region, with an official death toll in excess of 80,000.

Naturally, all these woes are caused by the aggressive policies of the US, which is seeking, by whatever means necessary, to break the will of Iran’s current leaders and prevent them from living according to their own rules and following an independent policy.  Many of those queuing up to vote in schools, mosques and other public buildings voiced their support for Raisi, who had promised to fight corruption, help the poor and build millions of apartments for low-income families.

After the close of voting, Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Hosseini Khamenei said: “What happens today depends on the people. It is the people who, through their votes, will determine the future of the country over the next few years.” Voting just minutes after polling stations opened, Ayatollah Khamenei took part in the 13th presidential election, the 6th Urban and Rural Islamic Council election, the 5th interim election to the Assembly of Experts, and the 11th interim election to the Islamic Consultative Assembly. The head of state emphasized the importance of public participation in determining the country’s destiny on voting day. He described voting in the election as a “wise choice”, continuing: “We have repeatedly called on people to vote in the election. It is the people themselves who will most be affected by their decision to vote. Naturally a high voter turnout can also bring our country benefits at an international level. But it is the Iranian people, above all, who will benefit from voting.”

In fact, in view of the current state of international affairs, this election is particularly important for a number of reasons. Firstly, it is being held after four years of aggressive US pressure on Iran under Donald Trump, who caused his country to unilaterally withdraw from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), as it is officially known. In May 2018, with a single flourish of his pen, he launched his aggressive policy of putting “maximum pressure” on the Iranians, once more imposing wide-ranging economic sanctions against the country in order to bring its people to their knees. The Trump administration optimistically hoped to drive a wedge between the Iranian people and the country’s leadership by exerting economic pressure. Political observers believe that Trump’s endgame strategy was to topple Iran’s political establishment by igniting social unrest and provoking uprisings of various types in the country.

But Trump failed to achieve his goal, because of his inability to understand the complex mentality and strong sense of national pride of the Iranian people, who refused to rise up against their government, as they were encouraged to do by their ‘wise’ foreign masters, and instead continued to support their political system despite all the economic problems. This election is the latest clear demonstration of the Iranian people’s support for the Islamic Republic, its political system and its government. Ordinary Iranians turned up in large numbers to vote for the candidates who, in their view, would serve them best. With a single pen stroke they determined their country’s future course at the ballot box.

Secondly, the election is a sign that the country has a healthy political system in which the people have a say. In the period leading up to the election the Iranian media and social networks were dominated by lively discussions on the voting process as a whole. The controversy began when the Council of Guardians, the legal body responsible for overseeing the electoral process, prevented high-ranking officials from standing for the post of president. While a number of commentators accused the Council of taking sides, others considered the disqualifications were legally justified. Some even praised the Council for its bold decision to disqualify such figures as Ali Larijani, pointing out that the filtering process was founded on strict legal criteria. Ali Larijani is currently serving as adviser to the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, and his supporters see his disqualification as a clear signal that no-one, however senior their post, is above the law.

What is more, during the debates, some critics even called for a boycott of the election. But when the polling centers opened the public ignored the calls to stay away and turned up to cast their votes. According to unconfirmed reports, almost 10 million votes had been cast by the middle of the day, and certain polling centers announced that there was a high voter turnout, and, in some cases, that they were running out of ballot sheets.

Raisi has been talked of in the media as a possible successor to Khamenei. In Iran, ever since the US-backed monarchy was toppled in 1979, supreme power has been exercised by the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, but the president has a great deal of influence in many areas, from industry to foreign affairs. He is responsible for Iran’s domestic policies, which are of particular importance in view of the fact that the country has, for several years, been suffering the burden of the heavy sanctions imposed by the US following its unilateral withdrawal from the nuclear treaty with Iran during the Trump administration. On two occasions during Rouhani’s presidency, these economic problems triggered nationwide protests. Iran has also suffered from a second wave of infections during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. It is the president who sets the general tone for Iran’s relations with the wider world. But the president-elect will still be subordinate to Iran’s spiritual leader, who has the last say on all matters of state. Rouhani, who is 72, has served two consecutive four-year terms, the maximum permitted under Iran’s constitution, and he will leave his post in August. His most notable achievement is the signing of the 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and major world powers, under which Iran agrees to limit its nuclear program in exchange for the easing of sanctions.

Iran’s Conservatives, with their deep distrust of the US, who they refer to as the Great Satan, or the “embodiment of global arrogance”, did not hesitate to attack Rouhani when the deal fell through. Nevertheless, all the candidates standing in the election, including Raisi, were largely in agreement on the need for Iran to secure the lifting of the US sanctions in the important talks on the renewal of the nuclear deal which are due to take place in Vienna. And the new president also faces a number of other challenges, no less serious, particularly in relation to the state budget and the economy.

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

Важнейшим элементом сегодняшней системы международных политико-экономических и военных отношений становится способность США и Ирана не довести конфликт между этими двумя государствами до прямой военной конфронтации.

Администрация Дональда Трампа до последнего времени выступала резко против ослабления санкций в отношении Ирана, в «неистовом» темпе налагая на Иран всё новые и новые санкции. Только в начале сентября американские власти ввели экономические меры против космической программы страны. А спецпредставитель Госдепартамента США по Ирану Брайан Хук объявил о том, что США возьмутся за так называемую сеть «нефть в обмен на террор» — группу лиц и организаций, при посредничестве которых Корпус стражей Исламской революции (КСИР) занимается незаконной с американской точки зрения продажей углеводородов.

На днях Иран предпринял дополнительные шаги по отказу от «ядерной сделки», заключённой Тегераном с рядом мировых держав в 2015 году, приступив к закачке газообразного урана в более современные центрифуги для обогащения урана. При этом Тегеран указал, что в условиях, когда не только американские, но и европейские участники «ядерной сделки» не могут гарантировать отмену по ней санкций против ИРИ, он больше не будет соблюдать предусмотренные этим международным соглашением ограничения на исследовательские работы в области атомной энергетики, подчеркнув при этом наличие в ИРИ технических возможностей для обогащения урана до 20% и выше. В то же время ряд аналитиков даже уверен в возможности Ирана достигнуть уровня обогащения, близкого к 90%, необходимого для оружейного урана.

Необходимо отметить, что указанные меры со стороны иранцев ожидались уже несколько дней. Тегеран ранее обещал, что будет каждые 60 дней отказываться от части обязательств по «ядерной сделке» до тех пор, пока европейские державы не найдут способ компенсировать Ирану экономический ущерб от американских санкций, которые ввела администрация президента США Дональда Трампа в рамках своей политики «максимального давления» на Тегеран. В июле Иран уже превысил предусмотренные сделкой ограничения по объёму запасов урана, а также самостоятельно поднял лимит по обогащению топлива с 3,67 до 4,5%. Вместе с тем формально страна — в отличие от Соединённых Штатов — из ядерной сделки пока не вышла.

Однако решение президента Д. Трампа отправить в отставку своего советника по нацбезопасности Джона Болтона  из-за «больших разногласий с ним по многим вопросам», вне всякого сомнения, позволяет надеяться на возможность смягчения американо-иранского конфликта в ближайшее время.

New York Times утверждает, что Болтон считал своей основной целью предотвращение заключения договоров с “врагами Америки”. И на этом фоне конфликт с Ираном, по мнению людей, близких к бывшему советнику по национальной безопасности, был во многом связан именно с позицией Джона Болтона, для которого разрыв Трампом ядерного соглашения с Ираном и восстановление американских санкций против Тегерана было главным достижением полуторагодичного пребывания в Белом доме.

Сам Трамп как-то полушутя сказал, что, “если бы он следовал советам Джона, Америка бы вела четыре войны”. И в этом плане американским президентом явно имелась ввиду возможность отнюдь не благоприятного для мира развития событий не только по иранскому вопросу, но и примирения с Северной Кореей из-за резкого осуждения Болтоном испытаний северокорейских ракет как нарушения резолюций ООН и отказа присоединиться к Трампу, когда американский президент встретился с главой Северной Кореи Ким Чен Ыном в демилитаризованной зоне, разделяющей две Кореи. Проводя свою политику «вашингтонского ястреба», именно Болтон стремился оказывать на президента США влияние по действиям Белого дома против режима Николаса Мадуро, всячески поддерживая лидера венесуэльской оппозиции Хуана Гуайдо Соединенными Штатами. Немаловажной стала и негативная позиция Болтона по переговорам с талибами и его призывы президента Трампа не идти на соглашение с радикальным исламским движением, в боях с которым в Афганистане погибли тысячи американских солдат, в результате чего Д. Трамп и отказался от попыток добиться с ними мирного соглашения.

70-летний Джон Болтон считается одним из ярких представителей американского консервативного внешнеполитического истеблишмента, придерживающегося глубокого скепсиса в отношении международных договоров, испытывающий неверие в эффективность международных организаций и убежденность в том, что военная сила – необходимый важный компонент американской внешней политики. Однако эти принципы Джона Болтона нередко не только противоречили позиции президента Трампа, но и срывали отдельные его инициативы по поиску мирного разрешения некоторых конфликтов.

Поэтому не удивительна положительная реакция значительного числа американских СМИ на смещение  с одной из ключевых в Белом доме должностей непримиримого “ястреба”, который, как подчеркивают многие из них, оттеснял Трампа от мира и дипломатии.

На этом фоне в последние дни все более обнадеживающе стала выглядеть возможность проведения между лидерами США и Ирана личных переговоров для урегулирования конфликта и облегчения Вашингтоном режима антииранских санкций. В качестве наиболее подходящего варианта называют встречу с глазу на глаз на полях Генассамблеи ООН в конце сентября. Впрочем, в Вашингтоне обращают внимание на то, что состоятся переговоры или нет, зависит в значительной степени и от верховного лидера Исламской Республики.

Однако о чем может пойти речь, и какими могут быть взаимные договоренности в случае проведения такой личной встречи двух лидеров – остается большим вопросом.

Нельзя забывать, что позиция Ирана заключается в следующем: когда США вернутся в Совместный всеобъемлющий план действий, или, проще говоря, к “ядерной сделке”? Именно тогда, по убеждению Тегерана, можно будет говорить о чем-то еще. Одно дело – согласиться ограничить ядерную программу, которая и так не преследовала цели получить ядерное оружие, а другое дело – “сдать” свое влияние и ракетную мощь. На это Иран не пойдет”.

Валерий Куликов, эксперт-политолог, специально для интернет-журнала «Новое Восточное Обозрение».

The key element of the current system of international political, economic and military relations is the ability of the US and Iran to keep the conflict between the two countries from degenerating into direct military confrontation.

Until recently, the Donald Trump Administration had strongly opposed easing sanctions against Iran, instead imposing, somewhat furiously, even more sanctions on that country. In early September alone the US Government introduced economic measures against the country’s space program. The US State Department Special Representative for Iran Brian Hook announced that the US would deal with the so-called Oil for Terror Network, a group of individuals and organizations through which the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is engaged in the illegal, from the American point of view, sale of hydrocarbons.

Iran has recently taken additional steps to cancel the nuclear deal concluded by Tehran with a number of world powers in 2015 by pumping gaseous uranium into more advanced uranium enrichment centrifuges. At the same time, Tehran pointed out that in a situation where both the US and the European participants in the nuclear deal cannot guarantee lifting sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran as per the agreed plan, Iran would be no longer bound by this international agreement on the nuclear energy research restrictions. Moreover Iran emphasized its technical capabilities for enriching uranium to 20% and above. A number of analysts are even confident that Iran will be able to achieve a level of enrichment close to 90% for weapon-grade uranium.

It should be noted that these measures on the part of Iran had been expected for several days. Tehran promised earlier that it would give up parts of its nuclear deal obligations every 60 days until the European powers found a way to compensate Iran for the economic damage from the US sanctions imposed by the US President Donald Trump’s Administration as part of its policy of exerting maximum pressure on Tehran. In July, Iran already exceeded the limits on the uranium reserves envisaged by the deal, and it unilaterally raised the limit on fuel enrichment from 3.67 to 4.5%. Nonetheless, the country has not yet officially withdrawn from the nuclear deal, unlike the United States.

However, President Trump’s decision to dismiss his National Security Advisor, John Bolton, because of strong disagreements with him on many issues, undoubtedly gives hope that the US-Iranian conflict can be mitigated in the near future.

The New York Times alleges Bolton believed his primary goal was to prevent the conclusion of agreements with America’s enemies. And, against this backdrop, the conflict with Iran, according to the former national security advisor’s entourage, was largely related to the position of John Bolton, for whom Trump’s withdrawal from the nuclear deal with, and the restoration of the US sanctions against, Tehran were the main achievements of his 18-month-long activity in the White House.

Trump himself once said, half in jest, that “if it was up to John, we’d be in four wars now.” And in this regard, the US President clearly meant the possibility of developments unfavorable for the world not only on the Iranian issue, but also on the possible reconciliation with North Korea due to Bolton’s strong condemnation of North Korean missile tests as a violation of the UN Resolutions and his refusal to join Trump when the US President met with the North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un in the demilitarized zone separating the two Koreas. It was Bolton’s policy as a Washington hawk to influence the US President regarding the White House action against the regime of Nicolas Maduro, providing the US support for the Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaidó in every way. Bolton’s negative stance on negotiations with the Taliban and his call on President Trump not to make an agreement with the radical Islamic movement, combating which thousands of US soldiers died in Afghanistan, proved important as well: it resulted in Trump’s refusal to try and reach a peace agreement with them.

The 70-year-old John Bolton is considered one of the heavy-weights of the American conservative foreign policy establishment, adhering to a deep skepticism about international treaties, disbelieving in the effectiveness of international organizations and being confident that military power is an essential component of the US foreign policy. However, these principles of John Bolton often not only contradicted President Trump’s position, but also undermined several of his initiatives to find a peaceful solution to certain conflicts.

It is not surprising therefore that a significant number of the US media responded positively to the removal of the irreconcilable hawk from a key position in the White House, since, as many are emphasizing, he was pushing Trump away from peace and diplomacy.

Amidst these developments, the possibility of personal negotiations between the leaders of the United States and Iran to resolve the conflict and ease the anti-Iranian sanctions regime has become increasingly encouraging over the recent days. The most suitable option is to meet face-to-face on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly at the end of September. Still, Washington is emphasizing that whether negotiations will take place or not will largely depends on the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Anyway, what can be discussed and what mutual agreement may be reached in the event of a personal meeting between the two leaders remains questionable.

We must keep in mind that Iran’s position reads as follows: when will the US return to the Joint Comprehensive Action Plan, or simply put, to the nuclear deal? Only then, according to Tehran, can we talk about something else. It is one thing to agree to limit a nuclear program that has never actually pursued the goal of obtaining nuclear weapons. It is a completely different thing though when it comes to surrendering one’s influence and missile power. Iran will hardly go for it.

Valery Kulikov, expert politologist, exclusively for the online magazine ‘New Eastern Outlook’.

Как отмечает в своей статье постоянный обозреватель НВО Салман Рафи, в то время как Вашингтон всеми силами стремится показать, что он готов к войне с Ираном и ему не нужно чье-либо одобрение для начала этого конфликта, перед западными политтехнологами стоит одно препятствие, которое они не могут преодолеть – Шанхайская организация сотрудничества (ШОС).

Несмотря на то, что ШОС ни в одном из своих аспектов не напоминает НАТО, поскольку является организацией экономического сотрудничества, направленного на мирное сосуществование и развитие, именно экономические соображения диктуют политическое и военное поведение её членов, а не какие-то надуманные обязательства.

В частности, председатель Китайской Народной Республики Си Цзиньпин дал Вашингтону понять, что он будет “отстаивать Иран до конца”, а потому, втягиваясь в военный конфликт с Тегераном, Соединенные Штаты очень быстро могут обнаружить Пекин, Москву и других членов ШОС “по ту сторону баррикад”.

И связано это не с каким-то особым расположением к Исламской Республике со стороны международного сообщества, а с тем фактом, что Иран представляет собой прекрасную платформу для развития регионального взаимодействия и экономических связей, в то время как его уничтожение создаст множество проблем для любого, кто захочет сделать Ближний Восток частью новой геополитической платформы.

В этой ситуации, отмечает автор, даже тот факт, что Иран членом ШОС пока не является,  его вступление в ряды данной организации является лишь вопросом времени.

А потому отныне и впредь любая политическая сила, которая будет опасаться, что завтра на её голову начнут сыпаться звездно-полосатые бомбы, будет стремиться к скорейшему вступлению в ШОС.

В этой связи, отмечает автор, мы можем с полной уверенностью говорить о том, что мир снова стал многополярным.

С полной версией статьи вы можете ознакомиться здесь.

It seems that the US can be considered the only state currently redrawing the entire map of the world for it to better suit the interests of its own political, financial, and military cycles. In fact one can’t help but to be amazed by the maniacal zeal with which the White House advances its agenda upon the international stage. It was this zeal behind the decision to drop nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, the stagings of war in Vietnam and on the Korean Peninsula, and the launch of the Cold War against the USSR and the Warsaw Pact countries. Those events were followed by countless wars across the Middle East and North Africa: in Iraq, in Syria. Afghanistan, and Libya. But special interests continue advancing their agenda regardless of the consequences, now pitting the US against North Korea and Iran.

In addition to repeated instances of armed aggression against any state refusing to obey Washington’s dictates, the White House has been engaged in the physical elimination of individual politicians that head undesirable governments. It goes without saying that for a government to fall into this category it’s enough for it to try to defend its own national interests in a bid to ensure the well-being of its people. Those politically motivated assassins have been examined in much detail in a number of media publications, including those featured in the New Eastern Outlook.

By establishing an elaborate network of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in various countries of the world, sponsored through a number of off-the-books operations of the CIA, the State Department has been political conflicts in various countries of the world, while being supported by a number of private foundations, including those founded and financed by George Soros. This fact constitutes a gross violation of all international norms, since a great many of these conflicts result regime change often described by the popular euphemism of “color revolutions”. There are several prime examples to consider.

Iran

Last summer, in a letter submitted to the UN Secretary General, António Guterres, Iran would accuse the United States of repeated attempts of taking down the government of the Islamic Republic. This official appeal to the UN appeared to be Tehran’s reaction to repeated attempts by Washington to interfere in Iran’s sovereign political affairs, including Rex Tillerson’s statement made last June at a hearing in the United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs, in which he stated that Washington’s approach to Iran can be summed up in its support of anti-government elements inside Iran, which were aiming at taking power in Tehran. Never before has such a high-profile diplomat officially pledged his support to the staging of a so-called “peaceful internal political transition”, which constitutes a flagrant violation of the Algerian Accords of 1981, signed and ratified by both Iran and the United States. After all, according to existing US-Iranian agreements, Washington promised not to interfere, both directly or indirectly, through the use of political or military force in the internal affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The fact Washington was behind the recent demonstrations in Iran is evident by the well-coordinated support that Washington has been providing to the local opposition. The White House has already stated that in the very near future it will allocate yet another billion dollars to support Iran’s “freedom fighters”, while imposing sanctions against the key political figures ruling Tehran. An attempt to make anti-government rhetoric in Iran more popular has also been made by current US president, Donald Trump himself. Using his Twitter account, Trump would urge individual representatives of Iranian society to break away from the “repressive” regime, while tagging his messages with the #IranProtests hashtag.

Netherlands

On the eve of the parliamentary elections in the Netherlands, which were due to take place last March, local politicians would voice a concern that the right-wing Party for Freedom was receiving funds from the US. Among the foreign bodies involved in the sponsoring of this party one can find such American conservative organizations as the Gatestone Institute and Freedom Alliance. It is noteworthy that the Freedom Alliance enjoys the support of Robert Shillman, a prominent supporter of President Trump.

It’s been noted that America’s neoconsorvative David Horowitz donated nearly 150,000 dollars to the Party for Freedom, making it the largest individual official donation that year within the Dutch political system, which may seem a modest contribution compared with donations made in the US. It’s curious that by making this donation via a fund overseen by David Horowitz, it violated existing US federal laws, which prohibit such funds from sponsoring political parties.

Ronald van Raak, a deputy of the Socialist Party of the Netherlands, on behalf of all Dutch politicians expressed outrage over this instance of foreign interference.

Armenia

The US Embassy in Armenia has been engaged for years in consistent attempts to make the representatives of the local opposition more combative in a bid to prevent candidates that are sympathetic to Russia from coming to power in upcoming presidential election next March. At the same time, the sitting US ambassador to Yerevan, Richard Mills is known for pledging all sorts of US support to the opposition at countless meetings he holds with them.

Venezuela

In recent years, there’s been a mounting number of well-founded accusations against the CIA and the White House due to their attempts to take down the current government of Venezuela. A Venezuelan-American lawyer, Eva Golinger in her interview with teleSUR, shared a number of details about Washington’s role in the staging of the attempted coup d’etat in Venezuela back in 2002 and the possible murder of President Hugo Chavez.

Recently, the Venezuelan Commander-General, Jesús Chourio, announced that US-sponsored mercenaries attempted to pull off yet another coup last year by launching an attack against the military in the city of Valencia. Earlier that year, according to Venezuelan authorities, a helicopter that opened fire at the building of the Interior Ministry and the Supreme Court of Venezuela was hijacked by a policeman suspected of having links with the CIA.

In order to force Venezuelan authorities into changing their policies to satisfy American special interests, the United States introduced harsh sanctions against Venezuela, while providing open support for opposition forces.

Cambodia

Washington has recently come forward with a direct ultimatum to Cambodia, aimed at discrediting its authorities. This step was provoked by Phnom Penh’s decision to dissolve the main opposition party – the Cambodian National Rescue Party. In response, the White House press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders would be as bold as to announce (emphasis added)

As a first step, we will terminate support for the Cambodian National Election Committee and its administration of the upcoming 2018 national election. On current course next year’s election will not be legitimate, free or fair.

End Notes

And list goes on and on, well beyond anybody’s ability to present all of Washington’s sins in a single article. However, it should be added that in a bid to hide from the international community the fact it’s been interfering in elections worldwide on such a scale, Washington unleashed a campaign accusing Russia of the very sort of interference Washington itself has been plying for decades. However, realizing the groundless nature of such allegations against Russia, a number American political figures have come forward to dismiss the charges. Even the director of the US Central Intelligence Agency, Michael Pompeo has recently been forced to admit that he was in possession of no evidence of collusion between Russia and Donald Trump’s election campaign members.

So wouldn’t it be better for Washington, instead of voicing far-fetched accusations against Russia, to admit its own destructive role in influencing democratic procedures in other states?

Martin Berger is a freelance journalist and geopolitical analyst, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”