Iran detente after Trump’s JCPOA pull out? We can wait 2 more years, or 6, or…

September 02, 2018

by Ramin Mazaheri for The Saker BlogIran detente after Trump’s JCPOA pull out? We can wait 2 more years, or 6, or…

Unfortunately, the final part in this 11-part series on modern Iran arrives at a time of major economic instability, perhaps the worst since the end of the Iran-Iraq War.

For the sake of argument, let’s be honest about what concrete steps Iran would have to take in order to finally get the sanctions called off.

We should totally ignore US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s 12 Points speech in May (which is what everyone in Iran did): all of those claims, which essentially perpetuate the false, 1980s-era notion that Iran supports terrorism, are designed solely for unquestioning Western consumption. They also totally obscure the real aims of the West in Iran: They want Iran’s natural resources and a compliant government – that’s capitalism-imperialism.

So what exactly would Iran need to terminate to placate the West?

Firstly, ending the post of the Supreme Leader (held by Khomeini and now Khamenei), the “soul of the government”, seems like a must – the post is basically one non-stop civic exhortation to patriotism, morality, social justice and international justice. That requires rewriting the democratically-approved and democratically-supported constitution, which is entirely too modern & revolutionary by Western standards; Iran would obviously have to adopt a West European (bourgeois) model to finally win the approval of Western governments, media and NGOs. The Basij is impossible to dissolve, but since the post of the Supreme Leader is gone they can be put under the ideological control of the military and be reduced to a purely jingoistic and neo-fascist group, I suppose. The military can no longer include the Revolutionary Guards because such a group only exists in socialist countries and never capitalist ones. Secularism must be enforced, and that logically translates into some sort of formal edict by the Shia religious establishment that clerics cannot hold civil power, as the Roman Catholic church did in 1983; who cares who that in 2013 Iran voted in Rouhani in a first-round sweep, even though he was the only cleric among eight candidates. Forget about the hijab law, even though Muslim women say it is an obviously feminist solution to male superficiality, and say hello to miniskirts for women and shorts for men in public (buy stock in sunscreen companies!). Legalisation of alcohol is a must, and also drugs eventually (even though drugs are already incredibly cheap in Iran because they are right next to the poppy fields of Afghanistan). Undoubtedly, Iran has to recognise the colonisation of Palestine, and also do a 180-degree shift in their policies towards Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and elsewhere, despite Iranian democratic support for such policies.

These are the big issues, but they aren’t the lucrative capitalist-imperialist prize….

Above all, the only thing which will calm the West is economic domination: Iran needs to go full-globalisation and sell off majority control of their companies to foreign stockholders. Iran has, per my estimates detailed in this series, roughly 100% state control of the non-Black Market economy – there is no doubt that Iran is a socialist country economically. That would have to be slashed to window-dressing levels, perhaps to French standards: the French state, following the sell-offs of Chirac and all who followed him, now only has $100 billion of shares in national corporations, even though their CAC40 stock index is worth $1.9 trillion. I can’t imagine Western capitalists ever being content with allowing the current 10-20% of the Iranian economy to be legally controlled by the bonyads, or state-controlled religious charity cooperatives, so that must be rewritten by law to now fall under private control.

I think you are crazy if you think the West would make peace with Iran while they kept any of these policies, because they are all – without a doubt – revolutionary, anti-capitalist & pro-socialist. Iran could totally satisfy Pompeo’s absurd demands – which essentially call for a foreign policy the same as the US, and unheard-of openness to foreign inspections – but it wouldn’t lift one sanction.

And Iranians know this, and they know it now more than ever. It’s the pain of this knowledge which is causing the instability in Iran, which is purely psychological: It has fully hit home that there will be no real detente, but only more totally-unjust Cold War against us.

And so people are freaking out, overreacting, getting angry, thinking desperate thoughts and feeling hopeless. Iran’s leaders and citizens have spent five years politicking, discussing, deciding, negotiating, signing, waiting and hoping that the JCPOA agreement on Iran’s nuclear energy program would end the sanctions…but the West has not honoured their word.

And pain for the average Iranian has truly increased since 2012, because that’s when the sanctions really went to wartime levels – non-Iranians just don’t understand how unprecedented these UN-US-EU sanctions are, and how unjust & devastating they are. I’m very sorry to report that in the past six years Iranians as a whole has become less secure, more desperate, more coarse, more greedy, less humane – Iranians have become more like a Western capitalist country. That is terrible, because Iranians are incredibly warm, gentle and generous people, but Iranians admit this change is taking place.

I admit that truth because: That has always been entirely the West’s goal. It is no exaggeration to write that they want to starve Iran into acting like animals until they start biting each other, then install a dogcatcher to rule them on behalf of the West’s needs – that’s capitalism-imperialism, and if you don’t see the injustice of it now I doubt you ever will: it is soul-destroying, in every sense.

The same is true for North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela and other socialist-inspired nations – it is the West who provokes the most pain, by far, and not their systems & vanguard parties.

And yet there is no way – NO WAY – Iran will take any of those steps I listed in order to appease the Western aggressors. It will not even be considered by the Iranian man and woman on the street, I can assure you.

The patriotic motivation of the 1979 revolution – “Neither East nor West” – was always the strongest force, and that has not diminished; conversely, it has only been strengthened after 40 years of war by the West, war with Iraq and seeing our neighbors invaded & their societies destroyed. On the positive side of the ledger, seeing Iranian-guided economic redistribution cause an economic renaissance since 1979 – which has only been paralleled by South Korea, China and Vietnam – Iranians KNOW they can run Iranian business better than any foreigner, and that will not change no matter what the pressures.

Giving up these policies the West wants to end is akin to suicide and certainly a betrayal of our sense of self…but continuing these policies will only engender more pain (through no fault of Iran’s own). That is the best explanation of why Iran is suffering from rather huge angst and economic instability right now.

The good news is: Iran is fundamentally quite healthy, thanks to the fruits caused by 40 years of a modern political revolution. This fever will pass because Iranians know there is no other solution but to sweat it out.

Hillary would have been no different than Trump – betrayal is what the US does

Unlike in the US, Iran grasps that “blame Trump” is a pathetic, near-sighted political analysis….

Fully implementing the JCPOA meant one thing: Iran becomes the first successful transition to a post-oil economy in the Muslim world – that’s historic.

The economic ramifications of that would be enormous and would drastically change the current capitalist-imperialist order. The cultural ramifications – given that Iran is the only modern, democratic, socialist-inspired nation in the Muslim world (with a nod to Algeria) – would be equally enormous as well.

Admiration for a highly-functioning Iranian model, and subsequent possible emulations, drastically changes the entire order in the Muslim world. Even though it would good for the Muslim world’s inhabitants, and thus the entire world, it should be obvious that none of that can be permitted by Western capitalist-imperialism.

Unfortunately for the American people and the entire world, political lobbies in the US make peace with Iran impossible, and the JCPOA’s failure makes that clear (yet again). As I described in an interview with Sputnik shortlyafter the US broke their word (again) and pulled out: US politics is based solely on lobbies, not ideology or morality or democratic public opinion or the fair-minded soul walking on Main Street. And not only is there not a single pro-Iran lobby in the US, but there are many powerful anti-Iran lobbies. The same holds especially true for Cuba.

Let’s say Iran races to a nuclear breakout or starts blocking Persian Gulf oil deliveries, and Trump loses re-election in 2020 – could his successor come in and resurrect the JCPOA in order to calm things down? Unlikely, as pro-Iran lobbies are not going to magically appear, nor will the anti-Iran lobbies disappear. That’s why even though a failed Iran policy from Trump theoretically implies that another presidential candidate could win votes via promoting detente with Iran, the “lobby reality” undermines this democratic possibility.

The idea that war-hawk Hillary would have rolled out a red Persian carpet for Iran is…absolutely untethered from reality or history. Iran and Cuba were the only two countries who Trump truly bashed during his election campaign, but even though Iranians knew more pain was coming many still believed, rightly, that Hillary would have been worse.

But blaming Trump for Iran’s current problems is simply what fake-leftist US Democrats do over and over: they cry bloody murder when conservative presidents follow the exact same policies as Democratic ones. Why didn’t Obama jump-start the Iran deal when he was in office through a myriad of executive orders? It was finally signed in July 2015, so he had half a year. Why did he wait so long to get the deal arranged in the first place? Why did Obama immediately undermine his similar deal with Cuba, via billion-dollar sanctions on European banks for working with Cuba (such sanctions are now the reason Europe won’t defy Washington with Iran)? The answer to both is simple: the US never has any intention of peace with Iran, Cuba or anyone else who is socialist-inspired and democratically revolutionary.

You shouldn’t have to be a Native American or an Iranian “hard-liner” (one person’s “hard-liner” is another’s “ardent revolutionary”) to know that the US never keeps its promises.

And this is why there is so much angst and instability in Iran right now: Iran is coming to terms with the reality – warned of by many in Iran – that the West will never compromise and never cooperate. The only way forward for Iran is more Cold War and…how can that not be frustrating? How can that not provoke anger, instability, resentment, scapegoating, etc. inside Iran – it was hard enough for Iranian revolutionaries to change Iran, but now they have to change the entire world, too?!

The fake-leftists in the West choosing to focus on women not attending football games or men not being able to parade in public wearing hot pants…do they really think the average Iranian is worried about that amid economic warfare and the prospect of continued Cold War? Do they really think Iranian women and men would gladly accept the coarsening and impoverishing of our society in return for such insignificant “rights”? But what can be done with fake-leftists…not much, of course.

The good leftists in the West, such as the World Socialist Web Site, whose 3-part pamphlet against my reporting on “Iranian Islamic Socialism” was the impetus for this series, made a major mistake last winter by assuming that sanctions-caused economic protests would somehow lead to (Trotskyist) socialist policies and revolution; their big mistake was not realising that the former has already existed from the beginning of the Iranian Islamic Revolution.

The larger problem is that Western leftists totally misunderstand Iran, and thus how could they properly support it? The goal of this series was to eliminate a ton of Western misconceptions via facts nobody can deny: about the state-run & socialist nature of the Iranian economy, about Iran’s almost unparalleled success in economic redistribution, about the falseness of using the words “privatization” and “Iran” in the same breath, about the undeniable socio-political redistribution of power caused by revolutionary ideas such as the Basij, about the way Shia Islam was philosophically reworked to incorporate modern socialist ideas far more than the any non-Iranian can probably even imagine.

I earnestly defy anyone to refute my long-standing claim that Iran is truly socialism’s ignored success story. I hope that I have given plenty of ideas to challenge and scrutinise in this 11-part series.

Back to reality, in which Iran is essentially unaffected by the lack of Western support: Because of the failure of the JCPOA Iran is not having “revolutionary doubts”, “revolutionary failure”,” or “counter-revolution” but “revolutionary fatigue”. This is caused by the Western war on Iran, as our current problems are unthinkable in an Iran which is not so persecuted.

But no matter: Accepted by the West, or not, “more revolution” is sure to come in Iran, and cannot but succeed, eventually.

Plan B is failed, but Plan C will eventually work

It seems as if Iran’s Plan B has also failed: winning over half of the West – Europe.

That would have been a historical sea-change…but European firms won’t risk sanctions to work with Iran – they saw what Nobel-winner Obama did with Cuba.

The EU absolutely could counter the US sanctions on their firms, but all 27 nations would have to sign off on that, per EU rules. The EU – it must always be remembered – was rushed through after the fall of the USSR and is the most undemocratic and neoliberal capitalist model in the world. Therefore they have no intention of doing the right thing for anyone but international stockholders, and certainly not for Iranian Islamic socialists.

France’s Total Oil has pulled out of the South Pars oil field project -the bellwether deal – and so have plenty of other top European corporations.

Compared to the US, Iran’s business is not so vital. Not just yet…and that bring us to Plan C – China.

If the West will not incorporate revolutionary Iran fairly into to the world economy, then Iran will just have to remain firmly revolutionary until China does it from the other end. This is, as I see it, the only solution for Iran following the end of the JCPOA.

And China is willing and able to do this, thanks to their Belt and Road Initiative (New Silk Road plan). Iran is the central hub in this plan which will allow the world’s two top economies – China and the EU – to trade. Europe will have to break with the US when that goes online. How can they lose out on the huge price savings and trade which China can offer over the US? Like I said, one must totally disregard any consideration but the purest (neoliberal) capitalism in the European Union project.

Why do you think the West is so desperate now? Once BRI goes online, the unprecedented power of the US-led sanctions – which have always been based on Europe going along with them – will be hugely diminished.

BRI won’t be fully completed until 2049, but it’s getting close to “now or never” for the US regarding Iran. Europe sees the writing on the wall and thus wants to work with Iran rather than keep losing out, but the US remains especially willing to do anything to maintain their faltering domination. The US simply had to blow up the JCPOA, as they are capitalists who do not believe in “mutually-beneficial cooperation” (like Iran & China). For a country which in 2003 was certain of dominating the Middle East, a Middle Eastern economy dominated by Iranian exports must be especially galling; it would also further increase Chinese influence, and also help the EU if they finally allied with Iran – there is no way the US allies with Iran as long as Iran remains anti-Zionist.

But it’s not all bad: the JCPOA, even in its failure, will be remembered as a way Iran started chipping away at the 40-year US-EU tag-team to topple Iran. Frankly, I’m surprised it even made it this far! I am quite skeptical about the diplomatic intentions of capitalist-imperialists….

You can’t miss what you never had, and Iran has never had Europe since 1979. It would be nice if Europe honoured the agreement, mainly to immediately reduce the banking pressures on Iran. But Iran and the EU had just $20 billion in trade in 2017 (and that was a very good year), whereas Iran and China have not just a 10-year plan worth $600 billion, but a 25-year strategic plan. What Iran needs from Europe is just a second supplier to keep China honest – that’s just capitalism (and just socialism, whether of the Chinese or Iranian Islamic variety). But they don’t need Europe in order to thrive. Heck, Iran has thrived without Europe just fine.

EU prestige has also been chipped away: The failure to uphold the Iran deal means – especially if Iran decides that their only solution is to get “break out” nuclear bomb capabilities, as stopping nuclear proliferation has been the main propaganda effort in Europe – that the EU’s political system will be even more gravely undermined at home. The “international prestige” Europe arrogantly assumes it has is all in their head (racists, hypocrites, egotists, imperialists & capitalists who remain cancers on the developing world is how they are viewed by the developing world), but failure to implement the JCPOA shows just how much of a lap dog the EU is to the US, and thus will undermine the EU’s image domestically. Not tremendously, of course – it’s not like Iran hasn’t been the victim of a huge propaganda campaign for 40 years and is a political persona non grata – but this is one of those little thorns in the skin (ignored Maastricht votes, Brexit, Catalonia, etc.) that will continue to nag, fester, annoy, frustrate and undermine the subconscious of Europe. It’s clearer than ever that there is no “European model” – the EU is becoming more like the US in every way, and not just Macron-led France.

Of course, this became the case long ago: examine the neoliberal, corrupt structure of the Eurozone and one finds an American system, not a European one.

So the failure to keep the JCPOA will hurt Europe more than it will Iran in the long run.

What the JCPOA’s failure means in Iran: back to business as usual

It’s the same old thing – denial of humanity to Iran, and the denial of Iran’s humanity.

Iran’s economic goals will remain the same either way: national development, increased economic & social justice at home, and the (obviously politically opposed) re-negotiation of its place in the global economic order as a producer rather than mere exporter of natural resources (with Islamic and socialist-inspired constraints self-imposed as well).

Iran has no illusions about what the West wants: they want us to go the Yugoslavia and Libya route, but that’s impossible for two reasons: Firstly, there is no “Croatia & Slovenia” nor “Benghazi-Eastern Libya” to demand secession – Iran’s minorities (Kurd, Arab, Baloch, etc.) are all incorporated into the socialist-multiethnic-patriotic ideology. Yes, they are continually targeted by Mossad, the CIA, et. al, and yes this “promote racism” plan has worked so well for the West in other parts of the world, but there is no comparison between the success of Kurdish integration (for example) in Iran as compared with any other nation with a Kurdish minority.

Secondly, the incredible growth and popularity of the Basij makes such splits impossible. Like them or not, it’s a rather genius idea for national stability. The Basij proved in 2009 that they will fight against counter-revolution / huge political changes and, as I detailed in the 4-part sub-series on them, the coming years will only see more Basiji students, more Basiji jobs, more Basiji members, more Basiji government workers, more Basiji parts of the economy – as I concluded: they are on a path akin only to the Communist Party in China.

And that’s why we have the economic and political Cold War – the only route available for the West is internal implosion.

Again, that’s just business as usual – only Iranians who are not paying attention miss this reality. The same goes for Western journalists, like those who missed US Secretary of State John Kerry accidentally (but finally!) admitting in Paris that the goal of Iran sanctions is to “try to implode” Iran- he says it right here in my 2013 Press TV report at the 0:58 mark.

So the JCPOA’s failure is not new and the answers for Iran are not new: they must maintain the same revolutionary course, which means more socialist redistribution of wealth in order to keep everyone as reasonably contented as possible amid near-wartime conditions.

Iran will need more protectionist economic policies, but combined with the economic reality that Iran now has even fewer customers to sell to and these customers want more favourable terms to sell their goods inside Iran. There is no way out of this, because Iran cannot eat oil; the idea that acquiescing to this reality means that Iran & President Rouhani have “gone neoliberal” is totally absurd, and I won’t debunk it again here – simply read Parts 2 & 3 of this series.

Iran doesn’t have to re-invent the wheel…although they will be forced to become early adopters of things like a national crypto-currency. They are already testing and planning to go full-bore on crypto, and unlike Venezuela they have the national unity and bureaucratic unity to really make it happen. Indeed, Iran will soon say “God bless crypto-currency”, as it is such an obvious boon to those who hate and who are hated by neoliberal capitalists.

Lastly, I will simply say that Iran does not need another modern revolution in response to the failure of the JCPOA – they just had one, after all. What they need to do is not make the concessions the West is demanding because that is CERTAIN to decrease social justice, increase inequality and increase instability – such concessions are inspired by capitalist-imperialists, after all!

It’s just like Khamenei just said, and I don’t parrot him because I work for PressTV: there will be no negotiations and no war. That’s business as usual, and only because the West is (as usual) making such insane, sovereignty-violating, capitulation-declaring demands in order to even start negotiations; negotiations are done because…they are done – it was called the JCPOA!

However, it should be clear that “no negotiations and no war” is a temporarily depressing formula for a country which hoped for the first detente in 40 years.

But it’s the only formula, because conceding to insane, immoral Western demands is never been an option…and at least it’s not war. Iran – unlike armchair hawks in America – appreciates that.

Modern class issues in Iran – it was easier when it was everyone versus the Shah!

The Green Movement of 2009 proved two important things within Iran: The Revolution had created a new middle class – yet not fully won them over (because their demands changed) – and the Revolution had greatly abolished – and also won over – the lower class.

Class solidarity is never a given thing, except for the 1%: They are always united in working to preserve their own interests.

What did not exist in pre-revolutionary Iran was a middle class: studies showed that in 1976 just 500,000 workers (5% of the employed workforce) could be considered middle class (and 80% of them worked for the state, making them essentially an extension of the 1% because that state was monarchical-reactionary). However, due to the socialist economic policies of the Revolution – which I detailed in parts 2 and 3, and also in the sub-series on the Basij – Iran’s middle class jumped to over 30%.

That represents not only a huge socialist success but the BEST socialist success: if socialists are not primarily defined by “empowering the average worker at work” then they are primarily defined by economic policy, and the first responsibility of socialists is to get people lifted out of the lower class. Again, given the nationalist insistence for decoupling from Western capitalism, the anti-capitalist mandates of revolutionary Shi’ism, and the hard facts of the Iranian economic structure post 1979 – this more than 600% increase in the size of the middle class was all achieved by Iranian Islamic Socialism, baby!

But I write that in 2009 Iran had “not fully won them over” because the rich truly are different: middle class demands are different from lower class demands.

What the middle class does is complain about secondary cultural issues, having largely secured answers to life’s main economic problems, which are education, health care, jobs, status, etc. Whether it’s the Democratic anti-Trumpers or the Greens in Iran, they pretend like they have gotten to their privileged position via their moral superiority and hard work when (in Iran’s case) it was due to socialist economic central planning and modern revolutionary structures. This narcissism is likely because such middle classes are largely influenced by Western capitalist culture, which unambiguously says on every billboard, magazine page and song lyric: be discontented, get more for yourself, forget solidarity with your “stupid, non-hustling” peers.

So the Green Movement in 2009 truly heralded the power of this new middle class – that’s good, and proof of huge success.

Unfortunately, they marched mainly in order to preserve their interests amid the the social justice policies of the Basiji Ahmadinejad, and also to do what the middle class does worldwide in modern, 21st century countries: complain about cultural issues and hold rather fake-leftist positions.

The good news for the government is: the middle and upper-middle classes don’t do counter-revolutions if the lower class has been won over. The middle and upper-class simply do not have the fire to overpower the numerically-larger lower class, and they eventually admit their existence is already pretty settled and good.

Look at Brazil: Roussef was a leftist president, but Brazil never had even a mild leftist revolution. This is why the lower classes did not take to the streets when Roussef was impeached and Temer installed – there was not that much for the lower class to defend! Venezuela had a much more than mild yet not-complete revolution, and in 2017 they had their version of a Green Movement, which was four times as deadly as Iran’s, but their lower classes got deadly because Chavismo did win over the lower classes, unlike in Brazil.

So the real risk for Iran post-JCPOA is like what happened in the USSR – betrayal by the upper-middle class, i.e. the biggest beneficiaries of the revolution: all polls in the late 1980s showed overwhelming, democratic, mass support for socialism and continuing the USSR, but their “talented 10th” betrayed it.

Regardless of one’s sympathy, or not, with the middle and upper-middle classes – Iran must win them over: That is what all governments are tasked with – winning over all citizens via good & responsive governance; that is the source of democratic legitimacy (or not).

To win over the middle and upper class, Iran will have to keep tweaking the balance between Revolutionary Shi’ism and personal freedom; keep tweaking the balance between a revolutionary culture-corrupting glasnost and allowing boundaries to be intelligently pushed. This is the domestic cultural war in Iran…but it takes a backseat to economic issues, and now more than any time since the end of the Iran-Iraq War due to the sanctions.

Iran really only resembles China & Vietnam in this sense, because Cuba & North Korea are not there economically : the challenge for modern, socialist-inspired countries is to combine the affluence of capitalism with a revolutionary spirit. Iran, having had their revolution 30 years after China, is obviously further behind in winning their Western Cold War and also in solidifying their affluence.

I would posit that, after their tantrum in 2009, the middle class is being won over.

Just look at recent polls, voter turnout and citizen participation in a 10-25 million person group like the Basij – Iranians support their government structure in a huge majority (and, certainly, there is no huge majority support for scrapping the constitution or inviting a Western puppet to rule). Furthermore, given the failure of the Arab Spring after 2011, there is increasing acceptance that the middle class will actually NOT prosper under a new government, as some may have thought previously. The US-EU-UN triple sanctions of 2012 are designed to make this class crazily desperate that they can’t Keep Up With The Kardashians, but it’s just not going to work.

But the only way to win over the middle class is: keep winning them over with good governance. That is life and that is politics….

The hard part in Iran is done (and this is the source of its revolutionary stability): winning over the working class

The working class is the opposite of the 1% – it’s the hardest class to truly inculcate class solidarity into, as it is so broad and thus full of differences. However, Iran has done exactly this, and that is no longer deniable.

Those who led (and the children of those who led) Iran’s “Revolution of the Barefooted”. or as I say an Iranian “Trash Revolution”, in 1979 proved in 2009 that the military does not need to get involved: there will be no counter-revolution. Therefore, 2009 proved who is really in charge in Iran: the working class – the democratic majority. Modern Iran is no military junta; and as I detailed in this series – the military has been weak in Iran for more than a century.

The West has not won over their lower class economically and politically (the Western lower class subsists and persists on the bigoted “I may be unempowered Trash, but at least I’m not a slave / colonised subject”), but China has. Both China and Iran have stated goals of classless societies and of immediately prioritising the poorest sections of their societies; Western neoliberal capitalism’s stated goal is to create just enough social welfare that people are not dying in the streets and in public view. Anybody who has needed to collect unemployment insurance or has cashed their grandparent’s social security check knows this – former Rothschild bankers who married chocolate heiresses, like Macron, have no idea.

By winning over the lower class, Iran’s government has shown that it does not have to keep tweaking the balance between Islam and democracy.

Indeed, the capitalist-imperialist Western desire to rewrite Iranian democracy is proof that my declaration is correct. The West, on the other hand, will only continue to strangle its citizens as long as it has such neoliberal & anti-democratic structures underpinning the Eurozone, and a woefully-outdated and uber-bourgeois structure still being worshipped like divine revelation in the US.

But in Iran it is clear that the democratic will is maintained and that social redistribution of power and money have taken place on a nearly unprecedented scale since 1980. This is the economic war, and Iran actually fights this war, unlike the West….

The Iranian lower class, having not reached the economic comfort of the middle and upper-middle class, will thus continue, with enormous governmental assistance, to work, agitate and organize in the manner they have done for 40 years. That explains why institutions like the Basij will continue to grow in influence, prominence and power as a result of the JCPOA’s failure – the “hard-liners” will reap the political benefits.

The Basij and other Iranian-state linked economic ideas are denigrated as “clientism” – LOL, as if this is a bad thing! Allegiance to the state is always a function of their ability to allocate resources properly – this is merely a modern retelling of China’s “Heavenly Mandate”.

Anyway, true “clientism” is unthinking support for the government produced by selfish self-interest: this underestimates the ability of Iranians to judge for themselves as well as the morality of individual Iranians. Considering the exceptionally high level of education in Iran, as well as the exceptionally higher level of moral-religious-spiritual education in Iran, I reject such charges as unfounded. Are there “opportunists” – of course; are they the overwhelming majority – no way; are the “true-believers” large enough to keep the revolution from turning into a counter-revolution – no doubt.

The only way to win over the working and lower classes is: keep winning them over with good governance. That is life and that is politics….

So to wrap up this article: Iran will have to wait for detente a bit longer. The alternative – appeasement – is sure to debase Iran in every way, and thus is not an option and we all know it and hear that reality every day.

The Basij, the working class and the Principlists (conservatives) will gain from the JCPOA’s failure: they have been proven right that the West cannot be trusted, and that protectionism and the unique (revolutionary) economic structures in Iran, which are misunderstood and derided as “clientism” by the ignorant, is the only possible way forward; they will argue economics must stay an intra-Iranian affair as much as possible & combined with the social justice of revolutionary Shi’ism; they will say that the cuts to the Basiji, whose only criterion is to support the government, cannot be justified morally and cannot be risked politically-culturally by the government.

Or to put it in modern Western terms: the incumbents, having failed, will give way to the opposition party, as usual. This is what few people get about Iran: the great news is that the incumbents were revolutionaries, too! Truly, marinate on that reality and you’ll understand Iranian politics much better.

In capitalism the goal is speed – to get rich quick. In Iran the goal has been to reach a destination – a society governed by a modern, socialist-justice obsessed ideology of Iranian Islamic Socialism and not neoliberal capitalism-imperialism.

The world does not, and should not, decide the goals of Iran – the torpedoing of the JCPOA by the US ultimately makes no difference to Iran.

Hopefully the world learns a bit more about Iran’s true goals, and why they should support them.

Series conclusion

What’s going on Iran is much bigger than just Iran: it always has been.

Just as the US, French and Russian revolution terrified privileged reactionaries thousands of kilometres away, so the Iranian Islamic Revolution is similarly frightening.

I say this as a completely objective journalist: it is obvious that even if Iran is not a “global revolution” like the three previously mentioned, it is an enormously important regional revolution – that region being the Muslim world.

For four decades Iran has been the leader of Muslim Trash Revolutions: should the West ever call off their war on Islamic democracy, other Muslim nations would surely follow the Iranian democratic model (with local adjustments), and that threatens Western neo-imperialism on a massive scale.

This is already happening in Iraq: You have Islamic nationalists allying with Iraqi communists and pro-Iranian groups in order to wipe away the US-linked comprador establishment. Afghanistan would be the same thing. In Syria Assad will likely push 100% nationalism when the terrorists are ousted, but in the end he will be fighting the same forces as his father – the democratic inevitability of Islamic Socialism.

Anti-imperialism, anti-capitalism, Islamic democracy – all of these things are anathema to the West…and yet Iran has pursued them successfully despite both hot, cold and perpetual war.

It is quite easy to blindly give statistics which show that Iran’s revolution has not achieved its socialist economic aims, and that too much money is still concentrated in too few hands. Hey, idiot: no nation has good statistics when it comes to standards such as these, as all nations are woefully far from economic equality on an absolute scale! Such analyses are political nihilism and lack both nuance and understanding.

But nobody who is actually familiar with Iran would deny that since 1979 a massive redistribution of wealth and power – one dreamed for if not centuries then certainly for decades – has taken place. The changes have been unbelievable – undoubtedly a Great Leap Forward. Come visit and see! Truly, preventing just such a Great Leap Forward in other Muslim nations has been the guiding light of the policies of Washington, London, Paris & Tel Aviv.

Iran is also not one of those tiny, unimportant, Arctic-touching, isolated, Scandinavian nations the Anglo-Saxon-led West so often points to as the world’s most superior model: Iran is at the heart of the world, filled with and surrounded by black gold – and foreign gold has made Westerners mad since Columbus returned with tales of riches. Confronted with a million more challenges than the Nordic nations, Iran thus has many policy solutions to modern political problems which the world could learn from and adapt to their own needs.

But when it comes to Western leftists and socialists who insist on forced atheism, Iran’s biggest sin is that it talks about sin – it is religious – and this renders irrelevant everything else about Iran. Yet Iran is far from being the “fanatics” – it is they who are guilty of that, not us!

Western leftists remind me of the delusional, paranoid, sexually-dysfunctional General Jack Ripper in the movie Dr. Strangelove: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, especially when he was finally confessing his rationale for unilaterally launching nuclear war. Permit me just one change:

“I can no longer sit back and allow Communist (religious) infiltration, Communist (religious) indoctrination, Communist(religious) subversion, and the international Communist (religious) conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.”

LOL, what?

We would feel sorry for General Ripper…were he not hell-bent on destroying the world rather than accept and tolerate a few ideas of the Communists. The Western (fake) left views Iran from a perspective which is similarly divorced from reality, but hopefully this series will change a few minds.

I react similarly to those Iranians who claim that Iran does not have revolutionary Shi’ism, but “clerical Shi’ism”. This denies the modern, democratic structures, the checks & balances, and the voter oversights of the Iranian political model. And, LOL, you must desire a LOT of “revolutionary Shi’ism” because you are apparently not content with the the MOST revolutionary Shi’ism government in world history?!!!

But this absurd “I’m-a-patriot-but-not-this-government” position – which is not any different from anti-Trumpers (who rarely know their elbow from their behind, politically) – is essentially fake-leftism. Playing the blame game – scapegoating – instead of examining structures and reasons for possible failures (cough cough US Democratic Party cough cough) hides not progressive politics but intolerant authoritarianism. Similarly, the refusal to accept Iran’s revolution(ary Shi’ism) – despite its imperfections and the huge handicaps placed on it by the West – when a vast majority of the Iranian nation does – makes such Iranians out of touch and obvious opponents of democracy. They are elitists, plain and simple, who know better and who should rule over us Trash.

I would like to thank the World Socialist Web Site for their 3-part series, as it was informative, albeit in a very blinkered and limited way; it was not really dedicated to “anti-Ramin Mazaheri thought” but their claim that “Islamic socialism is a sham”. I wonder what they think after reading this 11-part series? I humbly suggest that they did not know much of what I related, and that is not really the fault of non-Iranians: after all, in the Western languages one never hears anything about the Basij, the bonyads, supporting the 1B Sector, the progressive political goals of Imam Ali, or nearly any of the many other points I raised. Westerners are not just denied balanced media on Iran but are bludgeoned with three main propaganda lines: religious fanatics, terrorists, hijab law. I hope my series gave a fuller picture of modern Iran, especially in the economic and socio-political arenas.

I am certainly eager to hear anyone’s rebuttal…but I predict that any such rebuttal ignores concrete economic and political facts – which has been the Western leftist tactic for 40 years – in favor of redrawing the definition of “socialism” according to their preference and experience.

This enforced stultification of “what is socialism” perhaps explains why the Western left has been in such an atrociously bad state ever since 1979; “Socialism” must grow, must change, must adapt – because otherwise it loses the war waged on it by capitalism-imperialism.

I think the most useful part of this series was the discussion of the Basij – a 10-25 million organisation which the West knows nothing about simply had to be talked about. It’s crazy that I am the first to give an objective accounting. And, of course the West doesn’t talk about it: the Basij has undeniable components of economic and socio-political redistribution – the West NEVER talks about such ideas. But 2009 proved the Basij is the decider in Iranian politics – if they go the “Chinese Communist Party-dominance of the government” route, well, that’s going to lead to unprecedented (revolutionary) results. The first good accounting of the Basij but likely not the last…

I reiterate my neutrality on the Basij as being good or bad – all I did was relate facts, structures and ideological motivations. The Basij as a vehicle for redistributing money, power and influence to the lower classes of society simply cannot be denied logically. It is also undeniable, logically, that the Basij was not produced by the ideals of revolutionary Iranian Shi’ism. But whether or not the Basij achieves those ideals is a question which I will not answer, and leave up to the reader, and that is truly the most important question.

The JCPOA…Iran will get over that – the fake-politics of the West are nothing new, after all.

The real question is: Who will take over for Khamenei when he passes? From a purely objective point of view as a journalist: no leader in the Muslim world has been as successful as he has since in 1989 (it’s rather a landslide, too).

One certainly believes that Khamenei’s success is due to the revolutionary structure of Iran as a whole, of course, but will his replacement have the revolutionary gravitas to be the Supreme Leader – who is also the only leader of the Basij – and will he have the human depth to be the “soul of the government?” Iran will be much like Cuba in 2018, when Raul Castro stepped down as president.

I have good news on that front, as I reported from there during that process: I cannot recall meeting even one person who did not support and who was not truly happy about the election of Miguel Diaz-Canel. Cuba is much poorer and even more sanctioned than Iran – if they can survive amid even worse hardships, Iran surely can make it. Diaz-Canel was a very well-known quantity, and a bureaucrat who rose up through the ranks thanks to repeated success in governance; he was not just a king’s son, a lobbyist’s puppet or an advertising agency’s creation, after all.

So I think that the new Supreme Leader will be similarly selected and similarly welcomed. Certainly, when Khamenei does pass on Iran’s intense nationalism will kick in like a lead boot across the country, LOL. Iran will be 100% on guard as well, as the West will be salivating for signs of discord. But Iranians are also more wilfully contrarian than Cubans, so far as I can tell – perhaps Iran should move 100 kilometres from the Imperial homeland and see what one risks by playing “devil’s advocate”?

In the end – and I toss this in as a reward for anyone who read this far – I have always felt that what makes Iran truly different, and often not understandable to the West, is that there is a huge difference between “public” and “private” for Iranians.

Americans walk around in public exactly how they walk around their own living room – there is no concept of boundaries. West Europeans can’t imagine not insisting on their “rights” to do anything they want in public as long as it does not result in immediate violence – it’s not that life is a beer garden to them, but that they seemingly want people to know that they are on the very precipice of discovering a new “right”, and one which they seemingly hope will make you uncomfortable. The Catholic Western nations are a bit more formal, I’ll grant, but they have a love of making a spectacle out of personal drama and tension which is truly abhorrent to the Asian mentality – the end of summer weather in Paris means the weekend-night spats between wife and husband or boyfriend and girlfriend must now move indoors, mercifully.

Iran is not like that. There is home life, and then there is social life, and never the twain should meet. Iranian culture fundamentally insists that there must be a difference in one’s behaviour in these two different realms. To give an extreme, but quick, example: Some women in Iran wear the hijab in public but short skirts at home, and they would do this even if wearing the hijab in public was not the law…and no Iranian would deny this is true. This is the “public face / private face” nature of Iranian culture.

This makes Iran fairly subject to accusations of hypocrisy – I can’t deny that. However, it also implies a level of public courtesy, respect, generosity and consideration via the virtues of self-denial and self-sacrifice. This virtues are denied by many Westerners, but mainly because Westerners don’t perceive or look for such things anymore, I think. As is usually the case in life – the good and the good are both true at varying degrees…and hopefully the scale is balanced positively in Iran’s favor.

What is certain is that something like Iranian Islamic Socialism has been created via the decades-long discovery, installation and victory of Iranian Revolutionary Shi’ism, and this progressive political advancement remains open to the world. The rejection of monarchy, imperialism and capitalism is not limited to Iranians, nor to Shia Muslims, nor to Muslims, nor to Middle Easterners, nor to anyone else.

However, one needs an open mind, first! That is difficult, given the decades of anti-Iranian propaganda – I hope this series definitively defeated that for some readers.

Perhaps what is required is the smashing of the final irreligious idol – the Western concept of “unfettered individualism”, which is the foundation of anti-social, immoral & destructive imperialist-capitalism. Certainly, if the West cared anything about someone besides themselves and their ideas, Iran would be allowed to follow their unique & revolutionary model in peace, finally.

One day, Inshallah. Peace to all.


This is the last article in an 11-part series which explains the economics, history, religion and culture of Iran’s Revolutionary Shi’ism, which produced modern Iranian Islamic Socialism.

Here is the list of articles which have been published, and I hope you will find them useful in your leftist struggle!

The WSWS, Irans economy, the Basij & Revolutionary Shiism: an 11-part series

How Iran Got Economically Socialist, and then Islamic Socialist

What privatisation in Iran? or Definitely not THAT privatisation

Parallels between Irans Basij and the Chinese Communist Party

Irans Basij: The reason why land or civil war inside Iran is impossible

A leftist analysis of Irans Basij – likely the first ever in the West

Irans Basij: Restructuring society and/or class warfare

Cultural’ Permanent Revolution’ in Iranian Revolutionary Shiism

Martyrdom and Martyrdom’ & martyrdom: understanding Iran

The Death of Yazdgerd: The greatest political movie ever explains Irans revolution (available with English subtitles for free on Youtube here)

Iran détente after Trump’s JCPOA pull out? We can wait 2 more years, or 6, or…

Ramin Mazaheri is the chief correspondent in Paris for PressTV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. His work has appeared in various journals, magazines and websites, as well as on radio and television. He can be reached on Facebook.


واشنطن تضغط على العبادي: أسقِط المهندس

رسائل «الحرس» ــ واشنطن: من «عُبوات» 2010 إلى انتظار الردّ

الجمعة 10 آب 2018

 رسائل «الحرس» ــ واشنطن: من «عُبوات» 2010 إلى انتظار الردّ
من زيارة أبو مهدي المهندس وقيادات «الحشد» والمقاومة لموقع الغارة الأميركية في منطقة البوكمال (خاص «الأخبار»)

لا يحيد استهداف مجموعة من قوات «الحشد الشعبي» بغارة على الحدود المشتركة مع سوريا عن سياق الكباش السياسي والأمني الذي تخوضه هذه القوى وحلفاؤها في مواجهة واشنطن ومشاريعها في المنطقة. المعارك في مواجهة «داعش» تحيلنا إلى اختلاف «الأجندات» على نحو واضح لا يفكّه حتى أولوية درء الخطر عن الناس. في بعض المواجهات كانت قوات «الحشد» تقتنص بقوة الأمر الواقع فتح معركة هنا أو فرض المشاركة في أخرى، لأن الأميركي لديه حساباته السياسية قبل العسكرية (في معركة محيط الرمادي والسجارية مثلاً، توجّهت القوات الأمنية وقوة من «الحشد» إلى بيجي وفصائل المقاومة إلى الرمادي، حينها اعترض الأميركي على معركة الرمادي ومارس ضغطاً سياسياً وميدانياً يمنع فصائل المقاومة من بدء المعركة، إلا أنّ الأخيرة حَسمت المعركة بأقل من أسبوع وحاصرت مدينة الرمادي).

بعد القضاء على «داعش» وتحوّل عناصر التنظيم إلى فلول في الجبال والغوار وخلايا في مناطق أخرى، انقلب المشهد نحو «المواجهة المباشرة» بين قوات المقاومة العراقية والأميركيين. أصبحت واشنطن تغذّي فكرة عدم الحاجة لـ«الحشد» وتعمل على حلّه بكافة الطرق الممكنة. في المقابل، أحسن «الحشد» إدارة ظهوره السياسي عبر الانتخابات البرلمانية، ليظهر أن له حاضنة شعبية كبيرة تظهّرت في كتلة نيابية وازنة.

خلال مرحلة تحرير جزء أساسي من الحدود العراقية ــ السورية، أو ما عرف بتحرير البوكمال من الجهة السورية وناحية القائم من الجهة العراقية، كانت واشنطن تتوجّس من سيطرة «الحشد» والمقاومة العراقيين والجيش السوري وحلفائه على الحدود. العملية التي بدأت بالسيطرة على منطقة عكاشات في الجنوب الغربي للعراق عند مثلث الحدود العراقية السورية الأردنية، وفي مقابل قاعدة التنف الأميركية، عملت واشنطن حينها على الضغط على الجيش العراقي لمنع تقديم أي مساعدة في المعركة بحجة أن لا قرار من القائد العام للقوات المسلحة في تحرير هذه المناطق. في المقابل، شكّل إصرار فصائل المقاومة لتحرير هذه المنطقة عملية فتح الأبواب أمام تحرير القائم.

ضاعف «الحشد» عدد القوات في المنطقة الحدودية وأضاف نقاطاً جديدة على الطريق بين بغداد والقائم

الرسالة للأميركي في عملية الحدود ليست في السيطرة على مدينة القائم بل بالسيطرة على الشريط الحدودي مع سوريا والأردن، وبالتالي عزل قاعدة التنف التي باعتقاد قوى المقاومة هي من تغذّي الإرهابيين. في الأثناء خرج تصريح علني من قوى المقاومة يهدّد الأميركيين في حال تدخّلهم. مضت فترة وجيزة، لتصل رسالة أميركية عبر العُمانيين إلى طهران قبيل استكمال تحرير «البوكمال ــ القائم». كان المطلوب أن تصل الرسالة إلى يد قائد «قوة القدس» اللواء قاسم سليماني. رفض الأخير تسلّمها. بعد فترة عُلم أنّ في الرسالة استفساراً حول «جدية تهديدات المقاومة العراقية بضرب المصالح الأميركية في المنطقة». تعامل «الحرس» مع الرسالة كأنها لم تصل. ثم تواصلت الرسائل المعلنة من قيادات في الجيش و«الحرس» الإيرانيين بسقف عالٍ يتخطى حدود «تهديد المصالح الأميركية في المنطقة». هذه الرسالة وغيرها لم تأتِ من فراغ. حاولت واشنطن بعد تحرير البوكمال والقائم أن تُفرغ هذا الانتصار من مضمونه. عملت أولاً عبر الضغط على الحكومة العراقية لتتسلّم شركة أمنية تابعة للأميركيين «الحفاظ على الأمن» على طول الطريق الواصل بين بغداد والبوكمال. لكن «الحشد» وحلفاءه استطاعوا إفشال الخطة الجديدة الممررة عبر طرق «رسمية». ثم استغنى الأميركيون عن الفكرة مقابل تطويع عراقيين لكن أيضاً أُفشل مسعاهم. كانوا يريدون الطريق بأي ثمن. في النتيجة، الطريق اليوم في عهدة الجيش العراقي و«الحشد».

إذاً، تحرير الحدود العراقية والسورية وفتح الحدود بين البلدين بما يناسب محور المقاومة وإفشال مخططات «كسر» هذا الطريق، أخذت الأميركي نحو مرحلة أخطر من التصعيد: غارة البوكمال في 17 حزيران الماضي.

وعلى رغم أن واشنطن عملت في العلن وعبر إعلامها على التهرّب من مسؤولية الضربة ولصقها بإسرائيل فإن القوى المناوئة لها تتهمها بالمسؤولية بوضوح. (تحرّك السفير الأميركي في بغداد ليروّج أن الضربة إسرائيلية، كذلك سرّبت قناة «الحرة» الأميركية، نقلاً عن «مسؤول حكومي أميركي» بأن الغارة نفذها سلاح الجو الإسرائيلي، وأن «هناك إصراراً إسرائيلياً على قطع الطريق التي يرغب الإيرانيون في فتحها من طهران إلى بيروت»).

بعد الغارة التي راح ضحيتها عشرات الشهداء والجرحى، انتقلت واشنطن لمحاولة قطف الثمار عملياً. غطّ مبعوث الرئيس الأميركي لشؤون التحالف الدولي، بريت ماكغورك، في بغداد. كان في جعبته رسالة من بند واحد لرئيس الوزراء حيدر العبادي: يجب عزل أبو مهدي المهندس. لم يفاتح العبادي نائب رئيس هيئة الحشد الشعبي بالمسألة، لكن المهندس علم بالطلب الأميركي، وأجاب على طريقته ضمن لقاء في بغداد: «نحن الذين حافظنا على الدولة… وأنتم لم تحافظوا على أسئلة الامتحانات لتحافظوا على دولة».

بعد فترة وجيزة، خلال تفقّده لموقع الغارة الأميركية وبعد اجتماع مع القيادات العسكرية والأمنية في «الحشد» والمقاومة في إحدى النقاط الحدودية، جرى الاتفاق على مضاعفة عدد القوات في المنطقة الحدودية، وإضافة نقاط جديدة وتعزيز الانتشار على الطريق بين بغداد والقائم. في هذا الاجتماع قال المهندس: «هنا هي المعركة». أما الأميركي فهو متيّقن من ردّ ما يقترب، كما زاد من عدد قواته في المنطقة الخضراء حيث سفارته، وقلّل التحركات والوجود في الحواجز المشتركة، وأصبح أكثر اعتماداً على التنقل الجوي بدل البري.

موفد «الانسحاب»

الرسالة الأميركية الأخيرة إلى القيادة العسكرية الإيرانية ليست جديدة في ملف التعاطي «الأمني» بين الطرفين. في العام 2010 أوصل مسؤول عراقي كبير رسالة من الأميركيين إلى الجانب الإيراني، يطالبون فيها بإيقاف عمليات المقاومة ضد الجنود الأميركيين. كانت واشنطن في مرحلة بحث الانسحاب من العراق، وكانت تقول لرئيس الوزراء حينها نوري المالكي إن «وقف العمليات مقابل مفاوضات الانسحاب». كان الجواب الإيراني أن هذه المسألة تخص الفصائل العراقية كما في الوقت نفسه كان المالكي يستفيد من هذه العمليات على طاولة المفاوضات في سبيل التسريع في الانسحاب.

المسؤول العراقي نفسه عاد إلى إيران برسالة ذات سقف منخفض، إذ طالبت فيها واشنطن الإيرانيين الضغط لإيقاف الصواريخ فقط من دون العبوات، مؤكدة في رسالتها أنها في نهاية المطاف ستسحب قواتها من العراق.

عملياً، في تلك الفترة كانت قوات الاحتلال الأميركي قد استطاعت «السيطرة على العبوات» والتعامل معها وتجنّبها، لكن المفاجأة أنّ المقاومة العراقية انتقلت بعدها لما تسمّيه «الجيل الرابع» من تطوير عمل العبوات، لتعود بوتيرة مرتفعة وأسلوب مختلف (400 عبوة في أيلول 2011 على سبيل المثال).

رسالة الحبانية

قبل انطلاق معركة السجارية (الرمادي) أرسل الأميركيون وفداً محمولاً جواً إلى قاعدة الحبانية حيث كان يوجد عدد من ضباط قيادة عمليات الأنبار بقيادة قاسم المحمدي. طلبوا من الأخير إيصال رسالة إلى «مسؤول المحور» بأنهم يريدون مقابلته. أوصل المحمدي الرسالة. مرّت دقائق لينتقل «المسؤول» عبر رتل عسكري تحرّك باتجاه المقر. فهم الأميركي الجواب، ليغادر الوفد سريعاً.

من ملف : أميركا تريد رأس «الحشد»

Related Videos

Related Articles

AngloZionist attack options against Iran

The Saker

August 03, 2018

[This analysis was written for the Unz Review]

In the past few days, the Internet has been flooded with a frankly silly rumor about the US soliciting Australia’s assistance in preparing an attack on Iran.  Needless to say, that report does not explain what capabilities Australia would possess which the USA would lack, but never-mind that.  Still, the report was picked up in too many places (see herehere and here ) to be ignored.  In one of these reports, Eric Margolis has described what such a US attack could look like.  It is worth quoting him in full:

Outline of a possible AngloZionist attack on Iran

The US and Israel will surely avoid a massive, costly land campaign again Iran, a vast, mountainous nation that was willing to suffer a million battle casualties in its eight-year war with Iraq that started in 1980. This gruesome war was instigated by the US, Britain, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to overthrow Iran’s new popular Islamic government.

The Pentagon has planned a high-intensity air war against Iran that Israel and the Saudis might very well join. The plan calls for over 2,300 air strikes against Iranian strategic targets: airfields and naval bases, arms and petroleum, oil and lubricant depots, telecommunication nodes, radar, factories, military headquarters, ports, waterworks, airports, missile bases and units of the Revolutionary Guards.

Iran’s air defenses range from feeble to non-existent. Decades of US-led military and commercial embargos against Iran have left it as decrepit and enfeebled as was Iraq when the US invaded in 2003. The gun barrels of Iran’s 70’s vintage tanks are warped and can’t shoot straight, its old British and Soviet AA missiles are mostly unusable, and its ancient MiG and Chinese fighters ready for the museum, notably its antique US-built F-14 Tomcats, Chinese copies of obsolete MiG-21’s, and a handful of barely working F-4 Phantoms of Vietnam War vintage.

Air combat command is no better. Everything electronic that Iran has will be fried or blown up in the first hours of a US attack. Iran’s little navy will be sunk in the opening attacks. Its oil industry may be destroyed or partially preserved depending on US post-war plans for Iran.

The only way Tehran can riposte is by staging isolated commando attacks on US installations in the Mideast of no decisive value, and, of course, blocking the narrow Strait of Hormuz that carries two-thirds of Mideast oil exports. The US Navy, based nearby in Bahrain, has been practicing for decades to combat this threat.

There is a lot of interesting material in this description and I think that it is worth looking into it segment by segment.

First, I can only agree with Margolis that neither the USA nor Israel want a ground war against Iran: the country is too big, the Iranians too well prepared and the size of the force needed for such a campaign way beyond what the Empire can currently muster.

Second, Margolis is absolutely correct when he says that Iran does not have the means to stop a determined AngloZionist (missiles and aircraft) attack. Iran does have some modern air-defense capabilities, and the attackers will sustain a number of losses, but at this point, the size disparity is so huge that the AngloZionists will achieve air superiority fairly soon and that will give them an opportunity to bomb whatever they want to bomb (more about that later).

[Sidebar: assessing Iranian air defenses is not just a matter of counting missiles and launchers, however, and there is much more to this.  According to one Russian source Iran has 4 long range anti-aircraft missile S-300PMU-2 systems (with 48Н6Е2 Mach 6,6 interceptor missiles), 29 military anti-aircraft self-propelled missile complexes Tor-M1, some fairly advanced anti-aircraft missile complexes like the Bavar-373, a passive electronically scanned array radar (whose illumination and guidance system almost certainly includes modern Chinese electronics) and an impressive number of radar systems early warning radar of the Russian, Chinese and Iranian manufacture.   This category includes systems like the high-potential long-range radar detection and target designation Najm-802 radar (has 5120 receiving and transmitting modules, operates in the decimeter S-range and is designed to detect ballistic targets and small elements of high-precision weapons), the Russian meter radar “Nebo-SVU” advanced early warning and control system with a fixed-array radar, as well as a meter range early warning radar of the type “Ghadir” .  Most importantly, these radars are all integrated into the network-centric missile defense system of Iran. For example, the “Ghadir” radar is able to detect not only the tactical fighters of the USAF, the KSA and Israel, but also ballistic missiles immediately after launch (at a distance of about 1100 km). As a result, the presence of Iranian radio engineering units of multi-band radar detection facilities in the Western direction (the Persian Gulf) will allow the Iranians to prepare a flexible echeloned air defense to defend against high-intensity missile strikes.  And yet, no matter how much the Iranians have improved their air defenses, the sheer number of of missiles (including the new advanced AGM-158 JASSM (Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile) low observable standoff air-launched cruise missile delivered by B-1B bombers) means that the Iranian defenses will inevitably be overwhelmed by any massive attack.]

I therefore also agree with Margolis that the Iranian oil industry cannot be protected from a determined US/Israeli attack.  In fact, the entire Iranian infrastructure is vulnerable to attack.

Margolis’ final paragraph, however, makes it sound like Iran does not have credible retaliatory options and that I very much disagree with.

Example one: Iranian capabilities in the Strait of Hormuz

For one thing, the issue of the Strait of Hormuz is much more complicated than just “the US Navy has practiced for years to combat this threat“.  The reality is that Iran has a very wide range of options to make shipping through this strait practically impossible.  These options range from underwater mines, to fast craft attacks, to anti-shipping missiles, to coastal artillery strikes, etc.

[Sidebar: Therein also lies a big danger: the Israelis and or the US could very easily organize a false flag attack on any ship in the Strait of Hormuz, then accuse Iran, there would be the usual “highly likely” buzzword from all the AngloZionst intelligence agencies and, voilà, the Empire would have a pretext to attack Iran.]

In fact, the mere fact of issuing a threat to shipping through this narrow body of water might well deter insurances from providing coverage to any ships and that might stop the shipping all by itself.  Should that not be enough, Iran can always lay even a limited amount of mines, and that will be enough (please keep in mind that while the USN could try to engage in mineclearing operations, to do so right off the coast of Iran would expose USN minesweepers to an extreme danger of attack).

Margolis does mention this issue when he writes:

While Iran may be able to interdict some oil exports from the Arab states and cause maritime insurance rates to skyrocket, it’s unlikely to be able to block the bulk of oil exports unless it attacks the main oil terminals in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf with ground troops. During the Iran-Iraq war, neither side was able to fully interdict the other’s oil exports.

However, I believe that grossly under-estimates the Iranian capabilities in this context.  Let’s take one example, the Iranian submarine force.

The Iranian submarine force is a highly specialized one.  According to the 2018 Edition of the IISS’s Military Balance, the Iranians currently have 21 submarines deployed:

  • 3 Taregh-class diesel-electric submarine  (Russian Kilo-class Project-877EKM)
  • Fateh-class coastal submarine
  • 16 Ghadir-class midget submarines
  • Nahand-class midget submarine

When most people hear “diesel-electric,” they think of old diesel trucks, and are not impressed, especially when these are contrasted with putatively “advanced” nuclear attack submarines. This is, however, a very mistaken opinion because submarines can only to be assessed in the environment they are designed to operate in. Naval geography is typically roughly divided into three types: blue water (open ocean), green water (continental shelves) and brown water (coastal regions). Nuclear attack submarines are only superior in the blue water environment where autonomy, speed, diving depth, weapon storage capacity, advanced sonars, etc. are crucial. In comparison, while diesel-electric submarines are slower, need to resurface to recharge their batteries and are typically smaller and with fewer weapons onboard, they are also much better suited for green water operations. In shallow brown water, midget submarines reign, if only because nuclear attack submarines were never designed to operate in such an environment. Now take a quick look at the kind of environment the Strait of Hormuz constitutes:


Notice the interesting combination of very shallow and shallow depth typical of brown water and then the green water type of environment when going further into the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea.  With this in mind, let’s see what kind of submarine force Iran has acquired/developed:

For brown water operations (Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz) Iran has a relatively large and capable fleet of midget submarines. For green water operations (the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea), Iran has three formidable Taregh/Kilo-class submarines (which are even capable of limited blue water operations, though with much less autonomy, speed, armament or sonar than a nuclear attack submarine).  Just like “diesel-electric”, the term “midget” submarine makes it sound that we are talking about a toy or, at best, some primitive third world hack which, at best, could be used to smuggle drugs. In reality, however, the Iranian “midgets” can carry the same heavyweight torpedoes (533 mm) as the Kilos, only in smaller quantities. This also means that they can carry the same missiles and mines. In fact, I would argue that Iranian Ghadir-class “midget” submarines represent a much more formidable threat in the Persian Gulf than even the most advanced nuclear attack submarines could.

[Sidebar: the USA has stopped producing diesel-electric submarines many years ago because it believed that being a hegemonic power with a typical (aircraft carrier-centric) blue water navy it had no need for green or brown water capabilities. Other countries (such as Russia, Germany, Sweden and others) actively pursued a diesel-electric submarine program (including so-called “air-independent propulsion” – AIP – ones) because they correctly understood that these submarines are much cheaper while being also much better suited for coastal defensive operations.  Ditching diesel-electric submarines was yet another major mistake by US force planners; see this article on this topic.  The new Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) and the Zumwalt-class guided missile destroyer were supposed to partially palliate to this lack of green and brown capabilities, but both turned out to be a disaster]

Ghadir-class submarine

The Russian Kilo-class submarines are some of the most silent yet heavily armed submarines ever built, and they could potentially represent a major threat to any US naval operations against Iran.  However, we can be pretty sure that the USN tracks them 24/7 and that the Kilos would become a prime target (whether in port or at sea) at the very beginning of any AngloZionist attack. But would the USN also be capable of keeping track of the much smaller (and numerous) Iranian midget submarines? Your guess is as good as mine, but I personally very much doubt that, if only because these relatively small subs are very easy to hide. Just take a look at this photo of a Ghadir-class submarine and imagine how easy it would be to hide them or, alternatively, create decoy looking just like the real thing. Yet this midget submarine’s torpedoes could sink any vessel in the Persian Gulf with a single torpedo.

While the US definitely has a lot of very capable reconnaissance and intelligence capabilities available to try to locate and then destroy these threats, we also know that the Iranians have had decades to prepare for this scenario and that they are truly masters at what is called maskirovka in Russian military terminology: a combination of camouflage, concealment, deception, and misdirection. In fact, the Iranians are the ones who trained Hezbollah in Lebanon in this art and we all know what happened to the Israelis when they confidently waltzed into southern Lebanon only to find out that for all their reconnaissance/intelligence capabilities they were unable to deal with even a relatively primitive (technologically speaking) Hezbollah missile capability. For all the patriotic flag-waving, the truth is that if the Iranians decide to block the Strait of Hormuz the only option left for the US will be to land a force on the Iranian shore and engage in a limited but still extremely dangerous offensive land-attack operation. At this point, whether this counter-attack is successful or not will be irrelevant, as there will be so much combat activity in this narrow bottleneck that nobody will even consider to bring ships through it.

I also believe that Margolis is wrong when he writes that all Iran could do would be to stage “isolated commando attacks on US installations in the Mideast of no decisive value“.  One very real Iranian option would be to strike US targets (of which there are plenty in the Middle-East) with various missiles.  Furthermore, Iran can also launch missiles at US allies (Israel or the KSA) and interests (Saudi oil fields).

Example two: Iranian missile capabilities

I would not trust everything the CSIS writes (they are a very biased source, to put it mildly), but on this page, they posted a pretty good summary of the current Iranian missile capability:

On the same page, CSIS also offers a more detailed list of current and developed Iranian missiles:

(You can also check on this Wikipedia page to compare with the CSIS info on Iranian missiles)

The big question is not whether Iran has capable missiles, but how many exactly are deployed.  Nobody really knows this because the Iranians are deliberately being very vague, and for obvious and very good reasons.  However, judging by the example of Hezbollah, we can be pretty sure that the Iranians also have these missiles in large enough numbers to represent a very credible deterrent capability.  I would even argue that such a missile force not only represents a capable deterrent capability, but also a very useful war-fighting one.  Can you imagine what would happen if US bases (especially airbases and naval facilities) in the region came under periodic Iranian missile attacks?  Judging by the Israeli experience during the First Gulf War or, for that matter, the recent Saudi experience with the Houthi missiles, we can be pretty sure that the US Patriots will be useless to defend against Iranian missiles.

Oh sure, just like the US did during the First Gulf War, and the Israelis did in 2006, the AngloZionists will start a massive hunt for Iranian missile sites, but judging by all the recent wars, these hunts will not be successful enough and the Iranians will be able to sustain missile strikes for quite a long time.   Just imagine what one missile strike, say, every 2-3 days on a US base in the region would do to operations or morale!

Reality check: the US is vulnerable throughout the entire Middle-East

Above I only listed two specific capabilities (subs and missiles), but the same type of analysis could be made with Iranian small speedboat swarms, electronic warfare capabilities or even cyber-warfare.  But the most formidable asset the Iranians have is a very sophisticated and educated population which has had decades to prepare for an attack by the “Great Satan” and which have clearly developed an array of asymmetrical options to defend themselves and their country against the (probably inevitable) AngloZionist attack.

You have probably seen at least one map showing US military installations in the Middle-East (if not, see herehereor here).  Truth be told, the fact that Iran is surrounded by US forces and bases presents a major threat to Iran.  But the opposite is also true. All these US military facilities are targets, often very vulnerable ones.  Furthermore, Iran can also use proxies/allies in the region to attack any of these targets.  I highly recommend that you download this factsheet and read it while thinking of the potential of each listed facility to become the target of an Iranian attack.

The usual answer which I often hear to these arguments is that if the Iranians actually dared to use missiles or strike at the US bases in the region, the retaliation by the USA would be absolutely terrible.  However, according to Eric Margolis, the initial and main goal of a US-Israeli attack on Iran would be to “totally destroy Iran’s infrastructure, communications and transport (including oil) crippling this important nation of 80 million and taking it back to the pre-revolutionary era“.  Now let me ask you this simple question: if Margolis is correct – and I personally believe that he is – then how would that outcome be different from the “absolutely terrible” retaliation supposedly planned by the USA in case of Iranian counterattack?  Put differently – if the Iranians realize that the AngloZionists want to lay waste to their country (say, like what the Israelis did to Lebanon in 2006), what further possible escalation would further deter them from counter-attacking with the means available to them?

To answer this question we need to look again at the real nature of the “Iranian problem” for the AngloZionists.

Real AngloZionist objectives for an attack on Iran

First and foremost, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Iran has any kind of military nuclear program.  The fact that the Israelis have for years been screaming about this urbi et orbi does not make it true.  I would also add that common sense strongly suggests that the Iranians would have absolutely no logical reason to develop any kind of nuclear weapons.  I don’t have the time and space to argue this point again (I have done so many times in the past), so I will simply refer to the US National Intelligence Estimate’s conclusion that Iran had “halted its nuclear weapons program” and leave it at that.

[Sidebar: I don’t believe that the Iranians ever had a nuclear weapons program either, but that is irrelevant: even if they once had one, that would put them on par with many other countries which took some initial steps in the development of such a capability and then gave it up.  The only point is that it is the official US position that there is no current military nuclear program in Iran.]

The real problem of Iran is very simple.  Iran is the only country in the world which is:

  1. Islamic and leads the struggle against the Saudi/Daesh/ISIS/al-Qaeda/etc. ideology of takfirism and the terrorism they promote
  2. Openly anti-Zionist and anti-Imperialist and combines conservative religious values with progressive social policies
  3. Successful politically, economically and militarily and thereby threatens the monopoly of power of Israel in the region

Any one of those features by itself would already constitute a grievous case of crimethink from the point of view of the Empire and would fully deserve a reaction of absolute hatred, fear and a grim determination to eliminate the government and people which dare to support it.  No wonder that by combining all three Iran is so hated by the AngloZionists.

This entire canard about some Iranian nuclear a program is just a pretext for a hate campaign and a possible attack on Iran.  But in reality, the goals of the AngloZionists is not to disarm Iran, but exactly as Margolis says: to bomb this “disobedient” country and people “back to the pre-revolutionary era”.

Here is the key thing: the Iranians perfectly understand that. The obvious conclusion is this: if the purpose of an AngloZionist attack will be to bomb Iran back into the pre-revolutionary era, then why would the Iranians hold back and not offer the maximal resistance possible?

Because of the threat of a US nuclear retaliation?

US nuclear attack options – not much of an option in reality

Here again, we need to look at the context, not just assume that the use of nuclear weapons is some kind of magical panacea which immediately forces the enemy to give up the fight and to unconditionally surrender. This is far from being the truth.

First, nuclear weapons are only effective when used against a lucrative target.  Just murdering civilians like what the USA did in Japan does absolutely no good if your goal is to defeat your opponent’s armed forces.  If anything, nuking your opponents “value” targets will might only increase his determination to fight to the end.  I have no doubt that, just as during the first Gulf War, the USA has already made a typical list of targets it would want to strike in Iran: a mix of key government buildings and installations and a number of military units and facilities.  However, in most cases, those could also be destroyed by conventional (non-nuclear) weapons.  Furthermore, since the Iranians have had decades to prepare for this scenario (the USA has always had Iran in its sights since the 1979 Revolution), you can be quite sure that all the peacetime facilities have been duplicated for wartime situations. Thus while many high-visibility targets will be destroyed, their wartime counterparts will immediately take over.  One might think that nukes could be used to destroy deeply buried targets, and this is partially true, but some targets are buried too deep to be destroyed (even by a nuclear blast) while others are duplicated several times (say, for 1 peacetime military headquarters there would be 4, 5 or even 6 concealed and deeply buried ones).  To go after each one of them would require using even more nukes and that begs the question of the political costs of such a campaign of nuclear strikes.

In political terms, the day the USA uses a nuclear weapon against any enemy it will have committed a political suicide from which the Hegemony will never recover. While a majority of US Americans might consider that “might makes right” and “screw the UN”, for the rest of the world the first use of nuclear weapons (as opposed to a retaliatory counter-strike) is an unthinkable abomination and crime, especially for an illegal act of aggression (there is no way the UNSC will authorize a US attack on Iran). Even if the White House declares that it “had to” use nukes to “protect the world” against the “nuclear armed Ayatollah”, the vast majority of the planet will react with total outrage (especially after the Iraqi WMD canard!). Furthermore, any US nuclear strike will instantly turn the Iranians from villains into victims. Why would the US decide to pay such an exorbitant political price just to use nuclear weapons on targets which would not yield any substantial advantage for the US? Under normal circumstances, I would think that this kind of unprovoked use of nuclear weapons would be quite unthinkable and illogical. However, in the current political context in the USA, there is one possibility which really frightens me.

Trump as the “disposable President” for the Neocons?

The Neocons hate Trump, but they also own him.  The best example of this kind of “ownership” is the US decision to move its embassy to Jerusalem which was an incredibly stupid act, but one which the Israel Lobby demanded.  The same goes for the US reneging on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or, for that matter, the current stream of threats against Iran.  It appears that the Neocons have a basic strategy which goes like this: “we hate Trump and everything he represents, but we also control him; let’s use him to do all the crazy stuff no sane US President would ever do, and then let’s use the fallout of these crazy decisions and blame it all on Trump; this way we get all that we want and we get to destroy Trump in the process only to replace him with one of “our guys” when the time is right“.   Again, the real goal of an attack on Iran would be to bomb Iran back into a pre-revolutionary era and to punish the Iranian people for supporting the “wrong” regime thus daring to defy the AngloZionist Empire.  The Neocons could use Trump as a “disposable President” who could be blamed for the ensuing chaos and political disaster while accomplishing one of the most important political objectives of Israel: laying waste to Iran.  For the Neocons, this is a win-win situation: if things go well (however unlikely that is), they can take all the credit and still control Trump like a puppet, and if things don’t go well, Iran is in ruins, Trump is blamed for  a stupid and crazy war, and the Clinton gang will be poised to come back to power.

The biggest loser in such a scenario would, of course, be the people of Iran. But the US military will not fare well either. For one thing, a plan to just “lay waste” to Iran has no viable exit strategy, especially not a short-term one, while the US military has no stomach for long conflicts (Afghanistan and Iraq are bad enough). Furthermore, once the USA destroys most of what can be destroyed the initiative will be in the Iranians’ hands and time will be on their side. In 2006 the Israelis had to fold after 33 days only, how much time will the US need before having to declare victory and leave? If the war spreads to, say, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Syria, then will the US even have the option to just leave? What about the Israelis – what options will they have once missiles start hitting them (not only Iranian missiles but probably also Hezbollah missiles from Lebanon!)?

Former Mossad head Meir Dagan was fully correct when he stated that a military attack on Iran was “the stupidest thing I have ever heard”.  Alas, the Neocons have never been too bright, and stupid stuff is what they mostly do.  All we can hope for is that somebody in the USA will find a way to stop them and avert another immoral, bloody, useless and potentially very dangerous war.

The Saker

The Essential Saker II
The Essential Saker II: Civilizational Choices and Geopolitics / The Russian challenge to the hegemony of the AngloZionist Empire
The Essential Saker
The Essential Saker: from the trenches of the emerging multipolar world

الخشية الإسرائيلية من الحرب على جبهتين.. والخطأ الاستراتيجي القاتل!

يوليو 16, 2018

محمد صادق الحسيني

بعد تأنيب وتعنيف وزير الدفاع الروسي شويغو لوزير الحرب الإسرائيلي والحارس الليلي السابق في أحد ملاهي موسكو واستدعاء واشنطن لرئيس هيئة أركان حكومة نتن ياهو المتخبطة وتحذيرها من أي رد فعل غير محسوب على زحف الجيش العربي السوري وحلفائه في الجنوب السوري لتطهيره كاملاً من المجموعات المسلحة الارهابية، تعيش القيادة الإسرائيلية تخبطاً كبيراً في توجهاتها المستقبلية، هل تقبل بالفشل الاستراتيجي على هوان وتدس رأسها بالتراب وكأن شيئاً لم يكن أم تخرج الى جبهة غزة الرخوة في الظاهر، لكنها المتحركة كرمال شواطئ شباب طياراتها الورقية!…

بين هذا وذاك وتعليقاً على موجة التصعيد العسكري الإسرائيلي الحاليّة ضد قطاع غزة، قال احد كبار ضباط الأركان الإسرائيلية، طالباً عدم ذكر اسمه، لأحد الصحافيين الاستقصائيين ما يلي :

إن الجيش الإسرائيلي قد ارتكب خطأً فادحاً، عندما سمح لحزب الله والحرس الثوري الإيراني، سنة 2013، بالتدخل في سورية دعماً للرئيس بشار الأسد، ما أدى الى وصول قوات الجيش السوري وحزب الله والقوات الإيرانية الى حدود الجولان، كما هو الحال اليوم وبروز تهديد مباشر وخطير لأمن «إسرائيل».

إن هذا التهديد المباشر، على الجبهة الشمالية، هو مَن يجعل الجيش الإسرائيلي مكتوف اليدين على الجبهة الجنوبية وغير قادر على زيادة التصعيد ضد الفصائل الفلسطينية المسلحة هناك. وذلك بسبب حجم التهديد والتحديات الأكثر خطورة والتي تواجهه على الجبهة الشمالية. الأمر الذي سيضطره للقتال على جبهتين في آن واحد إذا تدحرجت الأوضاع الى مواجهة أوسع مع قطاع غزة .

اعتبر احد الجنرالات الأوروبيين، المختصين في تدريس مادة اسمها: «حدود القوة»، في جامعات أوروبية عدة، ان هذا الكلام هو ترجمة للواقع ويعكس محدودية قوة الجيش الإسرائيلي، بمعنى محدودية الفعل والتأثير لقوته العملاقة، بسبب خلل فادح في طريقة التفكير والتخطيط الاستراتيجيين لدى الخبراء العسكريين الإسرائيليين المعنيين بذلك .

أي بسبب عجزهم عن التخطيط في إطار تصوّر شامل، لموازين القوى في دوائر الفعل المحيطة بهم محلياً وإقليمياً ودولياً. الأمر الذي أسفر عن دخولهم في أزمة استراتيجية حقيقية في الوقت الحالي، ما جعل من تفوقهم العسكري في مجال الاسلحة، بمختلف صنوفها، بلا محتوى حقيقي، اذ ان لديهم رصيداً عسكرياً ضخماً دون المقدرة على استثماره لتحقيق أهداف «إسرائيل» السياسية. وهو ما يعني فشلاً سياسياً مدوياً للسياسيين والعسكريين الإسرائيليين من الصعب تلافيه او مواجهة تداعياته دون دفع الأثمان التي ستترتّب على هذا الفشل .

إنه الخطأ الاستراتيجي القاتل.

بعدنا طيبين قولوا الله.

Related Videos


من هرمز إلى درعا وبالعكس

يوليو 6, 2018

ناصر قنديل

– قبل عشر سنوات كان كل شيء في درعا وفي كل سورية طبيعياً. وكان عنوان المواجهة الدائرة في المنطقة ماذا لو أغلق مضيق هرمز في مواجهة أميركية إيرانية؟ وكانت عشرات الدراسات الأميركية والغربية تدور في محاولة الجواب عن هذا السؤال، بعدما بدا أن الفشل الأميركي في حربي أفغانستان والعراق يعود بنسبة كبيرة للعجز عن تطويع إيران. كما كانت الحرب فشلاً بذاتها لمشروع التطويع الذي شكل أحد أهدافها. وجاءت حرب تموز 2006 على لبنان وحرب غزة في 2008 لتقولا أن سيناريو الحرب على إيران لن يكون نزهة، وأن استبعاد خيار الحرب على خلفية السعي لتطويق إيران وإضعافها، واحتواء ملفها النووي وسلاحها الصاروخي، يجب أن تستمر بطرق لا تنتهي بالذهاب للحرب.

– في مقدمة هذه المساعي كان البحث عن جواب لسؤال ماذا لو أغلقت إيران مضيق هرمز، أو أغلق كنتيجة للتصعيد الأميركي الإيراني المتبادل؟ وتحفل كل الوثائق التي تناولت الحرب على سورية ومقدّماتها بمكانة مرموقة للحديث عما توفره السيطرة على سورية من بديل لمضيق هرمز كممرّ إجباري لربع ما يستهلكه العالم من النفط يومياً، وكيف أن الفوز بحرب تستهدف سورية ولو تحت مسمّيات مموّهة كالثورة، ستتيح تأمين ممرات آمنة لخطوط أنابيب النفط والغاز من الخليج نحو أوروبا وتهمّش مكانة مضيق هرمز في التجارة الدولية النفطية منها خصوصاً، كما لم يعُد سراً أن الكثير من التحالفات الدولية والإقليمية التي تمّ استقطابها لخيار الحرب على سورية، خصوصاً الثنائي التركي القطري، شكّل الحافز المرتبط بأنابيب النفط والغاز عبر سورية أحد العناصر الهامة في رسم التحالفات، فيما لم يعد خافياً كم من المقالات والكتب تحدّثت عن الحرب على سورية وفيها كوجه من وجوه حروب أنابيب النفط والغاز، كجزء من حرب عالمية للسيطرة على منابع وممرات سوق الطاقة.

– بدأت الحرب على سورية من مدينة درعا، وها هي درعا تطلّ بعد سنوات من الغياب عن قاموس الحرب كعنوان لانتصارات الجيش السوري، الذي حظي بدعم إيران وقوى المقاومة وروسيا، الذين تشكّل منهم وفقاً لقراءات كثيرة رائجة في الغرب، حلف مضاد للحلف الغربي الخليجي في سوق أنابيب النفط والغاز. وبصورة سوريالية غامضة يعيد التاريخ كتابة العلاقة بين درعا وهرمز في طريق الذهاب وطريق الإياب، فكما شكل تجاهل مقدرات سورية على الصمود واستنهاض الحلفاء للفوز في أضخم وأشرس حرب شهدها العالم منذ الحرب العالمية الثانية، سبباً لنسيان هرمز من ذاكرة حاملي مفردات جغرافيا المواجهة مع إيران، فصارت درعا في الواجهة. تطوي درعا صفحتها في ذاكرة الحرب، بينما يستعدّ الجيش السوري لإنهاء جيوب المسلحين فيها، واصلاً للحدود مع الأردن، بينما يستردّ مضيق هرمز مجدداً مكانته في التذكير، أن عودة إيران للتخصيب المرتفع لليورانيوم هو مورد قوة لاحق لما توفره الجغرافيا في معادلة مضيق هرمز، وأن الأصل في القلق التفاوضي مع إيران، كما في قلق قرار الحرب، هو ماذا سيحدث إن أقفلت إيران مضيق هرمز؟

– المعادلة اليوم مرعبة رغم بساطتها. فالتهديد الأميركي لإيران بإقفال الممرات المالية التي تمسك بها واشنطن لحرمان إيران من فرص الضخ في السوق النفطية، معرّض للمواجهة بسلاح من النوع السيادي ذاته، هو التهديد الإيراني بإقفال الممرات المائية التي تمسك بها لحرمان غيرها من فرص الضخ في هذه السوق النفطية. ومصدر الرعب ليس الدخول في مخاطرة الحرب المستبعَدة، بل في أن مجرد الدخول في سجال التهديدات والتداول بالفرضيات سيحقق الكثير من النتائج التي يخشاها خصوم إيران على السوق النفطية، ارتفاعاً في الأسعار، وتقلباً في حركة الطلب التجاري، والبحث عن بدائل أكثر استقراراً من مصادر النفط الملزمة بالعبور من مضيق هرمز، وإيران أقلّ المتضررين.

– ثنائية درعا – هرمز كانت في البداية، وها هي تعود. كان التفجير في درعا بديلاً للمواجهة في هرمز. وها هي المواجهة في هرمز تذكّرهم بأنها لا تزال حاضرة وقادرة على النهوض مجدداً، وقد أقفلت دفاتر الرهانات على الحرب في درعا، وبات المراهنون على الربح فيها خاسرون فعليون يجرّون أذيال الخيبة وبعض فقدان الذاكرة. فكان لا بدّ من تذكيرهم بأن الأصل كان ويعود، ماذا ستفعلون إن أقفل مضيق هرمز، أو جرى مجرد التلويح بإقفاله؟

Related videos

Related Articles

إيران تخلط أوراق الحرب والسلام وترامب يتجرّع السم في هلسنكي

يوليو 6, 2018

محمد صادق الحسيني

انتصارنا الاستراتيجي الذي بدأناه في حلب يكتمل في الساعات المقبلة بالوصول لحدود الجولان المحتلّ وانهيار أدوات الحرب بات أمراً محققاً ناهيك عن استعدادنا للصعود والدخول إلى الجولان والجليل الأعلى عند الضرورة!…

ومع ذلك ليست الحرب أبداً على الأبواب ولا قدرة لعدوّنا على خوضها مطلقاً. وهو الأكثر ضعفاً وتقهقراً وتراجعاً من أي وقت مضى رغم ما يتناقله من أنباء :

أميركا تتمنى جرّ دول المنطقة والعالم إلى مواجهة مع إيران، وذلك بمنع دول العالم من شراء النفط الإيراني بقصد خنق اقتصاد طهران وإن أي دولة تقوم بشراء النفط الإيراني ستقوم أميركا بمعاقبتها..!

والرئيس الإيراني يردّ بعنف :

إذا منعتم إيران من تصدير نفطها فسيتمّ منع الآخرين من تصدير نفطهم ومَن لا يريد أن يصدق هذا الكلام فليجرّب !

وأميركا تردّ :

سنجابه إيران وسنحمي واردات النفط من دول الخليج !…

وإيران تردّ :

فلتجرّب أميركا المواجهة مع إيران وسنجعلها تندم!…

فهل نحن أمام سيناريو حرب أميركية إيرانية؟!…

كل هذا لن يحصل بالتأكيد. لسبب بسيط، لكنه مهم جداً وهو أن الإدارة الأميركية غير معنية بالحرب وإن أرادها غيرها لها. فهي غير قادرة على تنفيذ تهديدها للأسباب التالية:

سيرتفع سعر النفط في الأسواق العالمية إلى قرابة الـ 300 دولار، ما سيترتب عليه كارثة اقتصادية عالمية. أول المتضررين منها الولايات المتحدة نفسها. وهي التي أمرت تابعها السعودي لتوّه لزيادة الإنتاج لمنع جزء بسيط من هذا…!

ستندلع حرب ناقلات في المياه الدافئة يتورّط فيها الأميركي. وهو العاجز عن دخولها لعجز أسطوليه البحري والجوي في خوض حروب كهذه في عهد ترامب المنسحب إلى الداخل الأميركي..!

إلى جانب أن ترامب ليس من منظّري الحروب الخارجيه لتفكيك الدول «الشرق أوسطية» وإنما من دعاة إعادة عظمة أميركا. وبالتالي فإنما يهمّه هو تغيير الوجه الداخلي لأميركا لرفع شأنها في العالم وذلك بالعودة إلى مشارب الحزب الجمهوري السياسية. وهذا هو بالضبط معنى شعار ترامب الحالي أميركا فيرست America First ، الذي رفعه ترامب في حملته الانتخابية ولا يزال. إذن هو ضد الحروب الخارجية وما يهمّه هو تأمين الموارد من أجل تطوير الداخل الأميركي …!

فكيف إذا علمت الإدارة الأميركية هذه بأن قرارها هذا إذا ما نفّذ فسيعني إضافة إلى ما تقدّم حصول ما هو أدهى وأمرّ:

– حزب الله يعلن تجهيز 10000 صاروخ سيتمّ إطلاقها على «إسرائيل» ما يجعل أميركا و«إسرائيل» والغرب يندمون…!

– أحزاب المقاومة العراقية تنفّذ تهديداً مفاده :

سنضرب جميع القوات الأميركية في العراق وسنجعلها تغادر العراق قسراً…!

حماس والجهاد الإسلامي ينفّذون ما يتمنّونه :

إذا حصلت مواجهة بين أميركا وإيران فستكون ساعتنا المفضلة لإشعال الجبهة مع العدو الصهيوني من النقب حتى الناقورة …!

الجيش اليمني واللجان الشعبية يقومون بإغلاق مضيق باب المندب وزرعه بمليون لغم بحري ومنع السفن الحربية وناقلات النفط المتجهة لأميركا والغرب من استيراد نفط دول الخليج!…

الحرس الثوري الإيراني ينفذ وعده بإغلاق مضيق هرمز، وذلك بإغراق ناقلة نفط عملاقة فيه ويهدّد بمنع أي بوارج عسكرية أميركية وغيرها من دخول المضيق، ومنع أي ناقلة نفط من الخروج منه!…

الحرس الثوري الإيراني يهدّد دول الخليج من الانسياق وراء الإرهاب الأميركي الصهيوني بأن أي عمل عسكري أميركي إسرائيلي ضد إيران يصدر من أي دولة من دول الجوار، فسيتمّ ضرب جميع المناطق الحيوية فيها بما فيها محطات تحلية المياه ومحطات الكهرباء وانه سيتم تدمير كل ما هو حيوي عندهم !

لذلك ولغيره الكثير، ولأن الأميركي المهزوم يتوجس خيفة من انهيار الجبهة الداخلية للعدو الصهيوني وتعرُّض قاعدته الإمبريالية المتقدمة المزروعة على اليابسة الفلسطينية لخطر التفكك والتصفية أي زوال الكيان المسمّى بـ «إسرائيل»!..

لذلك كله، فإن الرئيس دونالد ترامب سيضطر لتقديم تنازلات مؤلمة لا بد منها للقيصر الروسي في هلسنكي، باعتباره المنتصر الأكبر دولياً في الحرب الكونية على سورية، وباعتباره أي ترامب شارب سم الهزيمة التي لحقت بسلفه أولاً وها هي تسجّل باسمه وهو يلعق السم ذاته في الجنوب السوري المتاخم للجولان العربي السوري المتحرّر قريباً!..

هي السنن الكونية التي تتأكّد مرة أخرى على يد رجال الجيش العربي السوري وحلفائه والقادم أعظم وأكثر مفاجأة. فانتظروا إنّا معكم لمنتظرون. والأمر لنا من قبل ومن بعد…!

بعدنا طيبين قولوا الله.

Related videos

Related Articles


إغلاق مضيق هرمز

‫خنق إيران نفطياً: عقل إسرائيلي… وعضلات أميركية

خنق إيران نفطياً: عقل إسرائيلي... وعضلات أميركية

لم ينتظر قائد فيلق القدس، قاسم سليماني، رئيسه «المعتدل» حسن روحاني في خطاب المحارب الذي استحق عليه وعداً بتقبيل يديه. روحاني هدّد ألا يتمكن أحد «من تصدير نفطه إذا لم تتمكن إيران من ذلك» وإذا ما توصّلت الولايات المتحدة إلى خنق إيران نفطياً

‫العالم تغيّر لدى الرئيس حسن روحاني، والعالم الذي تحاول إدارته الولايات المتحدة وإسقاط النظام في إيران تغيّر أيضاً. هو العالم الذي أدارته خلال الحرب الباردة ومكّنها مطلع التسعينات، وفي منتهى أكثر من سبعين عاماً، من إسقاط النظام السوفياتي في استراتيجية باتت تعرف بـ«عقيدة ريغان». يذهب مستشار الأمن القومي، جون بولتون، إلى حد «التفاؤل» بأن يعيد التاريخ نفسه، دونما أدنى شك، والتنبؤ أن يكون عام ٢٠١٩، عام سقوط النظام الإيراني. أما وزارة الخارجية والبيت الأبيض، فيطلقان العد التنازلي للسقوط الإيراني المقبل بإعلان الرابع من تشرين الثاني المقبل، موعداً نهائياً، لإغلاق التعاملات النفطية والاقتصادية مع إيران، وإشعال الداخل الإيراني.

فخلف الهجوم الذي بدأته الولايات المتحدة يكمن شيء من ذلك الاعتقاد أنه بوسعها أن تفعل في إيران ما فعلته بالاتحاد السوفياتي، فتسقط طهران من دون تعكير مياه الخليج أو تطلق رصاصة واحدة، كما سقط السوفيات آنذاك. فما يتوسله أميركيون وإسرائيليون معاً لإسقاط النظام في طهران لا حرب نجوم فيها، ولا سباق إلى أسلحة تستنزف مداخيل الدولة الإيرانية، كما استنزفت السوفيات. وبدلاً من ذلك تستل الولايات المتحدة سلاح «الدمار النفطي الشامل» لإغلاق الأسواق أمام ٢،٤ مليون برميل من النفط الإيراني يومياً، وتجفيف عائداته المتوقع أن تتجاوز ٥٠ مليار دولار، والتي لا تزال تشكّل أكثر من ٧٥ في المئة من العائدات النقدية لموازنة طهران، فتنفجر عندئذ إيران من الداخل.

لا يباشر الأميركيون مشروعهم «الريغاني» الجديد في الألفية الثالثة وحدهم، كما لا يباشرونه بما يمكن أن يطلق عليه استراتيجية متكاملة ولدت من بنات أفكارهم. فإذا كانت عضلات الهجوم أميركية إلا أن عقله إسرائيلي.

فقد تكون عمليات التطهير التي قادها مايك بومبيو في أروقة «لانغلي» من المحللين وخبراء الشؤون الإيرانية، قبل انتقاله إلى وزارة الخارجية، قد أسهمت في إخضاع دولة الأمن القومي للمجموعة الجديدة التي تحيط بالرئيس دونالد ترامب، ومهدت للاتجاه الجديد بجعل إيران أولوية الأولويات.

يفتقر الأميركيون على جبهة محاصرة إيران اليوم إلى استراتيجي من معدن جورج كينان صانع احتواء السوفيات، ليرسم استراتيجية متكافئة ومتجانسة، ولا يجعل من الهجوم الجديد ارتجالاً يستند إلى أفكار متفرقة لا قوام لها، على ما يقوله خبير عربي في واشنطن، والتي تملأ فراغ ذات اليد من الاستراتيجية المتجانسة الممكنة التحقق، بأفكار إسرائيلية المنشأ، بعد أن اختارت الإدارة الجديدة تل أبيب شريكاً لها في التخطيط لعملية «الانقلاب» الثنائية الجارية ضد النظام في طهران. في هذا السياق، كشفت صحيفة «معاريف» أنّ «فريقاً أميركياً – إسرائيلياً جرى تشكيله منذ اندلاع الاحتجاجات في إيران لدعم المعارضين». عرض الجنرال عاموس يدلين، ما يشبه إلى حد بعيد، الأفكار التي تقود خطاب الإدارة الترامبية، كما عبّر عنها حرفاً بحرف، المسؤولون في البيت الأبيض ووزارة الخارجية. ففي مقابلة في «لو موند» الفرنسية، ومقالة في مجلة «ذا أتلاتنيك» أسهب رئيس الاستخبارات العسكرية السابق في الحطّ من فائدة أي خيار عسكري ضد إيران، وما قد يؤدي إليه من نتائج عكسية من توحيد الإيرانيين خلف النظام. وأشار على الأميركيين بتشديد العقوبات الاقتصادية وتحميل الإيرانيين عواقب حصار جديد، وتدمير اقتصادهم اليومي وضرب مدخراتهم، وتقويض تجارتهم… وتشتعل إيران.

يرتبط نجاح الهجوم الأميركي ــ الإسرائيلي على إيران إلى حد كبير بإغلاق شرايين النفط بموقف مستوردين رئيسيين هما الهند والصين من العقوبات الأميركية المعلنة. ففي امتناعهما أو موافقتهما على مواصلة شراء وتقاسم مليون و٣٠٠ ألف برميل يومياً، بالتساوي تقريباً، يتحدد مصير خمسين في المئة من العائدات النفطية الإيرانية التي يوفرها بيع مليونين وستمائة ألف برميل من النفط يومياً، إلى عشر دول أوروبية وآسيوية. والسؤال الذي يبدو ملحّاً هو ما إذا كانت الصين أو الهند ستنصاع أم لا للعقوبات الأميركية. يسود لدى المحللين الأميركيين الاعتقاد بأن الصين ستتخلى عن إيران في مواجهة الولايات المتحدة.

لكن خبير الشؤون الصينية، ليونيل فيرون، يقول إنّ الصينيين يتدارسون الموقف قبل اتخاذ قرار حاسم في شأن نفطهم الإيراني، ويبحثون عن استراتيجية تحافظ في وقت واحد على مصالح شركاتهم التي لا ينبغي أن تخضع للعقوبات الأميركية، كما تحافظ على العلاقة الاستراتيجية التي تربطها بإيران. يتقاسم الصينيون مع الهند تقييماً مشابهاً، فالمقاربة الصينية – الهندية واحدة لخطر الانصياع للمطالب الأميركية بوقف مشترياتهم من إيران، والخوف واحد من أن يؤدي ذاك حكماً إلى وضع الأمن الطاقي (والقومي استطراداً) بيد الولايات المتحدة، وهو ما لا يمكن لأي من البلدين المخاطرة بالسير به. إذ لا تنظر الصين إلى إيران باعتبارها فقط المصدر الخامس للنفط إليها أو جزءاً من المدى الحيوي لتوسعها الاقتصادي فحسب، بل تعتبر إيران ركناً استراتيجياً في تأمين تدفق النفط اليها بصفتها مصدراً نفطياً آمناً لاستقلاله عن الولايات المتحدة، بعكس الدول الخليجية التي تخضع سياستها الخارجية والنفطية للإملاءات الأميركية.

وللمفارقة، تعتبر الصين أن خروج الشركات النفطية الأوروبية من المشاريع الإيرانية بفعل الضغوط الأميركية، فرصة للشركات المحلية للحلول محلها، لا سيما بعد خروج «توتال» من مشروع تطوير حقل «بارس٢». ويقول ليونيل فيرون إن هناك احتمال أن تتوقف الشركات المتوسطة والصغرى عن التعامل مع إيران خوفاً من العقوبات الأميركية، لكن الشركات الصينية النفطية الكبرى، «سي أن بي سي» و«سينوبك» و«بترو تشاينا»، التي تؤمن أكثر من ٩٠ في المئة من مشتريات الصين من النفط الإيراني، لا تخشى هذه العقوبات، وستواصل التعامل مع إيران عبر مصرف «كونلون» الصيني الذي أُنشئ في مرحلة العقوبات الأميركية الماضية لتنظيم العلاقات التجارية مع إيران عبر الدفع بـ«اليورو» أو «اليوان».

تنتظم أهمية إيران مع الهند لتتساوى مع المطالب الاستراتيجية الصينية نفسها في تأمين مصادر الطاقة والاستقلال الاستراتيجي عن الولايات المتحدة وغيرها. تؤمن العلاقة للهند مع إيران توازناً مع الانتشار الصيني الذي يطوقها في باكستان وسريلانكا والمالديف ونيبال، وتحفظ للهند ممرها البري الرئيسي والوحيد نحو آسيا الوسطى وأفغانستان، وروسيا عبر شبكة من ٧ آلاف كيلومتر من الطرق البرية انطلاقاً من مرفأ «تشابهار» الإيراني. وكانت اتفاقية مشتركة وقعت قبل عامين مع طهران قد وضعت جزءاً منه تحت إدارة هندية لمدة عام ونصف العام. يمثل «تشابهار» ممراً استراتيجياً يبعد ١٤٧ كيلرمتراً من مرفا «غوادار» الذي تموّل الصين بناءه في باكستان في شبكة من الطرقات تشق باكستان من الشمال إلى الجنوب بطول ٣ آلاف كيلومتر.

وإيران هي مصدر الهند الثالث من النفط، التي تقوم أيضاً بتشغيل مصافي التكرير الهندية الكبيرة. والأرجح أن تعود الهند هي أيضاً من أجل الحفاظ على تدفق النفط الإيراني إليها إلى تفعيل اتفاقية سابقة مع إيران للدفع بالروبيه بديلاً من الدولار لحماية مشتريات شركاتها من العقوبات الأميركية.

قد تنجح الولايات المتحدة في إلزام حلفائها الغربيين بالسير في مغامرتها الجديدة ضد إيران لكن القوى الآسيوية الصاعدة التي باتت بمثابة قلب الاقتصاد العالمي، لن تنساق خلفها حفاظاً على مصالحها الاستراتيجية الحيوية.

الحرس الثوري الإيراني يهدد بقطع النفط من الخليج

التعليق السياسي

يوليو 5, 2018

ـ المعادلة الجديدة التي أطلقها الرئيس الإيراني حسن روحاني بسيطة وتقوم على قاعدة أنّ واشنطن تهدّد بمنع شراء النفط الإيراني بوضع كلّ من يدفع ثمن هذا النفط بوضع مصارفه على اللائحة السوداء وتعتبر واشنطن هذا الأمر شأناً سيادياً أميركياً ومثلها ستفعل إيران بمنع مرور ناقلات النفط في المياه الإقليمية الإيرانية في مضيق هرمز الذي لا مجال لعبوره إذا قرّرت إيران إغلاقه، فالسيادة عليه ثنائية لإيران وعمان ووحدهما تطلان عليه وتملكان منفردتين حق إغلاقه بينما إتاحة العبور قرار ثنائي.

ـ ترامب يعلن حرباً تجارية على إيران ويريد أن تتلقاها وتتقبّلها إيران وفقاً لقواعده واليوم سيكون أمامه أن يتوقع الكثير فلم تضع إيران كل ما بين يديها دون دخول الحرب العسكرية فبيدها الذهاب للعودة للتخصيب المرتفع لليورانيوم كمثل ما تقدر على إقفال مضيق هرمز وعلى من يعترض أن يأتي هو بقرار الحرب العسكرية إن كان قادراً.

ـ يقول ترامب وتقول إدارته إن سلفه باراك أوباما كان متخاذلاً بقبول التفاهم النووي، ويردّ أوباما أنه تفادى قرار حرب مدمّرة بلا جدوى وعلى ترامب كي لا يتبيّن أنه أحمق وغبي أن يظهر أن بيده خيارا غير الحرب المحكومة بالفشل لمحاصرة إيران وها نحن نقترب من اللحظات الفاصلة.

» إيران تهدّد بإقفال مضيق هرمز أمام الصادرات النفطية إذا حُرمَتْ من بيع نفطها


كتب المحرّر السياسي

فيما فشلت مساعي التوصل لتسوية تنهي القتال في جنوب سورية، بتسليم الجماعات المسلّحة لسلاحها، وتسهيل انتشار الجيش السوري حتى الحدود الأردنية، ودخوله أحياء مدينة درعا وقرى وبلدات ريفها، عادت المعارك إلى الواجهة كخيار وحيد لحسم المشهد، بينما تبدو واشنطن خلف الكواليس تلعب لعبة كسب الوقت لبلوغ قمة هلسنكي بين الرئيسين الأميركي دونالد ترامب والروسي فلاديمير بوتين، قبل أن يكون الوضع في جنوب سورية قد حُسِم.

استحقاق ثانٍ يداهم مفكرة الرئيس الأميركي يتصل بكيفية تصرّف إيران تجاه العقوبات الأميركية في حال فشل أوروبا بتقديم الضمانات اللازمة التي تطلبها إيران للبقاء في قلب التفاهم النوويّ. والضمانات تعني هنا بوضوح إحباط المسعى الأميركي لحرمان إيران من تسويق نفطها، وحرمانها من موارد العملات الصعبة والتبادل المصرفي. وفشل أوروبا بات يعني وفقاً للمواقف التي أطلقها الرئيس الإيراني وقادة الحرس الثوري، والجنرال قاسم سليماني، ما هو أبعد من عودة إيران للتخصيب المرتفع لليورانيوم، بعدما صار إغلاق مضيق هرمز أمام ناقلات النفط التي تخرج بقرابة عشرة ملايين برميل يومياً من الخليج، موضوعاً على الطاولة كواحد من الإجراءات التي قد تسلكها إيران، ما يضع إدارة الرئيس الأميركي أمام تحدٍّ فوري، في ظل مبادرته لإعلان الحرب التجارية والمالية على إيران، باستخدام نقاط القوة التي تتموضع فيها مصارفه في النظام المالي العالمي، مقابل تهديد إيراني بالردّ باستخدام نقاط قوتها التي تتموضع فيها جغرافيتها في الممرات المائية الحيوية لنقل الطاقة.

من ضمن الانتظارات التي تفرضها قمة هلسنكي تبدو الانتظارات اللبنانية لمصير الحكومة الجديدة، مع المواقف الصادرة عن الأطراف المعنية بالعقد الحكومية، حيث تبدّدت بسرعة مناخات التفاؤل التي انطلقت مع لقاء رئيس الجمهورية العماد ميشال عون بكل من رئيس حزب القوات اللبنانية سمير جعجع ورئيس الحزب التقدمي الاشتراكي وليد جنبلاط. فجاء كلام جنبلاط بعد لقائه عون عن التمسك بالمواقف السابقة تجاه التشكيل الحكومي، مشابهاً لمواقف أطلقها رئيس التيار الوطني الحرّ وزير الخارجية جبران باسيل ليلاً تجاه التمثيل القواتي والاشتراكي.

Related Videos

Related Articles


%d bloggers like this: