Western Countries Ordered Spread of Wahhabism: Saudi Crown Prince

Alwaght- The Wahhabi extremist ideology was spread by Saudi Arabic across the world at the request of Western countries, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman has revealed.

Speaking to Washington Post, bin Salman said that Saudi Arabia's Western allies urged the country to invest in mosques and madrassas (religious schools) overseas during the Cold War, in an effort to prevent encroachment in Muslim countries by the Soviet Union.

He added that successive Saudi regime had lost track of that effort, saying "we have to get it all back." Bin Salman also said that funding now comes mostly from Saudi-based "foundations," rather than from the ruling regime.

Saudi Arabia is widely believed to be a key sponsor of the Takfiri terrorists, who have been operating to topple the Syrian government since 2011. Takfirism is largely influenced by Wahhabism, the extremist ideology officially practiced in Saudi Arabia and freely preached by the regime-paid clerics. All leading Takfiri terrorist groups in the world such as ISIS, Taliban, al-Qaeda, al-Shabaab and Boko Haram adhere to the Wahhabi ideology.

The crown prince’s 75-minute interview with the Washington Post took place on March 22, the final day of his US tour. Another topic of discussion included a previous claim by US media that bin Salman had said that he had White House senior adviser Jared Kushner "in his pocket."

Bin Salman, who is the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia, denied reports that when he and Kushner – who is also Donald Trump's son-in-law – met in Riyadh in October, he had sought or received a greenlight from Kushner for the massive crackdown on alleged corruption which led to widespread arrests in the kingdom shortly afterwards. According to bin Salman, the arrests were a domestic issue and had been in the works for years.

The crown prince also spoke about the four-year aggression on Yemen, where a Saudi-led coalition continues to launch a bombing campaign against Ansarullah movement in an attempt to reinstate ousted Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi as president. The conflict has killed over 14,000 Yemeni’s mostly women and children, displaced many more, driven the country to the brink of famine, and led to a major cholera outbreak.

The interview with the crown prince was initially held off the record. However, the Saudi embassy later agreed to let the Washington Post publish specific portions of the meeting.

Christian Zionism: The New Heresy that Undermines Middle East Peace

Dr Stephen Sizer

At least one in four American Christians surveyed recently by Christianity Today magazine said that they believe it is their biblical responsibility to support the nation of Israel. This view is known as Christian Zionism

The Pew Research Center put the figure at 63 per cent among white evangelicals. Christian Zionism is pervasive within mainline American evangelical, charismatic and independent denominations including the Assemblies of God, Pentecostals and Southern Baptists, as well as many of the independent mega-churches. It is less prevalent within the historic denominations, which show a greater respect for the work of the United Nations, support for human rights, the rule of international law and empathy with the Palestinians.

The origins of the movement can be traced to the early 19th century when a group of eccentric British Christian leaders began to lobby for Jewish restoration to Palestine as a necessary precondition for the return of Christ. The movement gained traction from the middle of the 19th century when Palestine became strategic to British, French and German colonial interests in the Middle East. Proto-Christian Zionism therefore preceded Jewish Zionism by more than 50 years. Some of Theodore Herzl’s strongest advocates were Christian clergy.

Christian Zionism as a modern theological and political movement embraces the most extreme ideological positions of Zionism. It has become deeply detrimental to a just peace between Palestine and Israel. It propagates a worldview in which the Christian message is reduced to an ideology of empire, colonialism and militarism. In its extreme form, it places an emphasis on apocalyptic events leading to the end of history rather than living Christ’s love and justice today.
Followers of Christian Zionism are convinced that the founding of the State of Israel in 1948 and the capture of Jerusalem in 1967 were the miraculous fulfillment of God’s promises made to Abraham that he would establish Israel as a Jewish nation forever in Palestine.

Tim LaHaye’s infamous Left Behind novels, together with other End Times speculations written by authors such as Hal Lindsey, John Hagee and Pat Robertson, have sold well over 100 million copies. These are supplemented by children’s books, videos and event violent computer games.

Burgeoning Christian Zionist organizations such as the International Christian Embassy (ICEJ), Christian Friends of Israel (CFI) and Christians United for Israel (CUFI) wield considerable influence on Capitol Hill, claiming a support base in excess of 50 million true believers. This means there are now at least ten times as many Christian Zionists as Jewish Zionists. And their European cousins are no less active in the Zionist Hasbarafia, lobbying for Israel, attacking its critics and thwarting the peace process. The United States and Israel are often portrayed as Siamese twins, joined at the heart, sharing common historic, religious and political values.

Pastor John Hagee is one of the leaders of the Christian Zionist movement. He is the Founder and Senior Pastor of Cornerstone Church, a 19,000-member evangelical church in San Antonio, Texas. His weekly programmes are broadcast on 160 TV stations, 50 radio stations and eight networks into an estimated 99 million homes in 200 countries. In 2006 he founded Christians United for Israel admitting,
“For 25 almost 26 years now, I have been pounding the evangelical community over television. The Bible is a very pro-Israel book. If a Christian admits ‘I believe the Bible,’ I can make him a pro-Israel supporter or they will have to denounce their faith. So I have the Christians over a barrel, you might say.”

In March 2007, Hagee spoke at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) Policy Conference. He began by saying:

“The sleeping giant of Christian Zionism has awakened. There are 50 million Christians standing up and applauding the State of Israel…”

As the Jerusalem Post pointed out, his speech did not lack clarity. He went on to warn:

“It is 1938. Iran is Germany, and Ahmadinejad is the new Hitler. We must stop Iran’s nuclear threat and stand boldly with Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East… Think of our potential future together: 50 million evangelicals joining in common cause with 5 million Jewish people in America on behalf of Israel is a match made in heaven.”

Christian Zionists have shown varying degrees of enthusiasm for implementing six basic political convictions that arise from their ultra-literal and fundamentalist theology:

1. The belief that the Jews remain God’s chosen people leads Christian Zionists to seek to bless Israel in material ways. However, this also invariably results in the uncritical endorsement of and justification for Israel’s racist and apartheid policies, in the media, among politicians and through solidarity tours to Israel.
2. 
   As God’s chosen people, the final restoration of the Jews to Israel is therefore actively encouraged, funded and facilitated through partnerships with the Jewish Agency.
   Eretz Israel, as delineated in scripture, from the Nile to the Euphrates, belongs exclusively to the Jewish people, therefore the land must be annexed, Palestinians driven from their homes and the illegal Jewish settlements expanded and consolidated.
3. 
   Jerusalem is regarded as the eternal and exclusive capital of the Jews, and cannot be shared with the Palestinians. Therefore, strategically, Christian Zionists have lobbied the US Administration to relocate its embassy to Jerusalem and thereby ensure that Jerusalem is recognised as the capital of Israel.
4. Christian Zionists offer varying degrees of support for organisations such as the Jewish Temple Mount Faithful who are committed to destroying the Dome of the Rock and rebuilding the Jewish Temple on the Haram Al-Sharif (Noble sanctuary of Al-Aqsa).
5. Christian Zionists invariably have a pessimistic view of the future, convinced that there will be an apocalyptic war of Armageddon in the imminent future. They are deeply sceptical of the possibility of a lasting peace between Jews and Arabs and therefore oppose the peace process. Indeed, to advocate an Israeli compromise of “land for peace” with the Palestinians is seen as a rejection of God’s promises to Israel and therefore to support her enemies.
6. Within the Christian Zionist worldview, Palestinians are regarded as alien residents in Israel. Many Christian Zionists are reluctant even to acknowledge Palestinians exist as a distinct people, claiming that they emigrated to Israel from surrounding Arab nations for economic reasons after Israel had become prosperous. A fear and deep-seated hatred of Islam also pervades their dualistic Manichean theology. Christian Zionists have little or no interest in the existence of indigenous Arab Christians despite their continuity with the early church.

In 2006, I drafted what became known as the Jerusalem Declaration on Christian Zionism signed by four of the Heads of Churches in Jerusalem: His Beatitude Patriarch Michel Sabbah, Latin Patriarch, Jerusalem; Archbishop Swerios Malki Mourad, Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate, Jerusalem; Bishop Riah Abu El-Assal, Episcopal Church of Jerusalem and the Middle East; and Bishop Munib Younan, Evangelical Lutheran Church in Jordan and the Holy Land. In it they insisted:

“We categorically reject Christian Zionist doctrines as a false teaching that corrupts the biblical message of love, justice and reconciliation.

We further reject the contemporary alliance of Christian Zionist leaders and organisations with elements in the governments of Israel and the United States that are presently imposing their unilateral pre-emptive borders and domination over Palestine. This inevitably leads to unending cycles of violence that undermine the security of all peoples of the Middle East and the rest of world.

We reject the teachings of Christian Zionism that facilitate and support these policies as they advance racial exclusivity and perpetual war rather than the gospel of universal love, redemption and reconciliation taught by Jesus Christ. Rather than condemn the world to the doom of Armageddon we call upon everyone to liberate themselves from ideologies of militarism and occupation. Instead, let them pursue the healing of the nations!

We call upon Christians in Churches on every continent to pray for the Palestinian and Israeli people, both of whom are suffering as victims of occupation and militarism. These discriminative actions are turning Palestine into impoverished ghettos surrounded by exclusive Israeli settlements. The establishment of the illegal settlements and the construction of the Separation Wall on confiscated Palestinian land undermines the viability of a Palestinian state and peace and security in the entire region.”

The patriarchs concluded, “God demands that justice be done. No enduring peace, security or reconciliation is possible without the foundation of justice. The demands of justice will not disappear. The struggle for justice must be pursued diligently and persistently but non-violently.” The prophet Micah asks, “What does the Lord require of you, to act justly, to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” (Micah 6:8).

It is my contention after more than 10 years of postgraduate research that Christian Zionism is the largest, most controversial and most destructive lobby within Christianity. It bears primary responsibility for perpetuating tensions in the Middle East, justifying Israel’s apartheid colonialist agenda and for undermining the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians.

The closing chapter of the New Testament takes us back to the imagery of the Garden of Eden and the removal of the curse arising from the Fall: “Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb… On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.” (Revelation 22:1-2) Surely this is what Jesus had in mind when he instructed his followers to act as Ambassadors of peace and reconciliation, to work and pray that God’s kingdom would come on earth as it is in heaven.

 Dr Stephen Sizer is the Vicar of Christ Church in Virginia Water and the author of Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armageddon? (InterVarsity Press, 2004); Zion’s Christian Soldiers? (2007) and In the Footsteps of Jesus and the Apostles (Eagle, 2004). 

All About Yemen’s Revolution

It has been three years since Saudi Arabia initiated a war against Yemen, the Saudi coalition continues to carry out the barbaric attacks on the Yemeni people, and as a result of the continued blockade it has placed Yemen socially and economically in critical situations, while the Yemeni army and revolutionary forces continue their struggle in the war and launched several ballistic missiles with successful hit targets inside Saudi soil.Qodsna

On this regard our correspondent in Beirut in an interview with Ebrahim al-Dulaimi, member of the Political Bureau of Ansarullah Movement and Director General of the Al-Masirah Network, discussed the issue as follows:

- It has been three consecutive years since Saudi’s led strikes started over Yemen, How is the situation evaluated there on the ground in Yemen?

-- The situation on the ground in this country in 3 years of war can be divided into three parts; in the first part, we have witnessed targeting of everything from trees and plants to Human beings and children, and nothing has been left untargeted. The siege targets women and children and has been preventing them from the least of a living. This is resulted from the use of international prohibited weapons produced by West and delivered to Saudi Arabia. This tragic scene has occurred in the 21st century and fully describes the critical situation of Yemeni people, which west keeps closed eyes on it.

-- The next part is the resistance and sacrifice of Yemeni people and their struggling against oppression in all fields and faces. This has increased the level of resistance in Yemeni people. And it influences both the society and the military. This overwhelming situation became epidemic throughout Yemen, they enter the scene and devote themselves and fight. The right to resist and choose independence is what it gives them supremacy to encounter the materialistic weapons of west.

-- The third part is the scandal of the international community which refused to provide support to the Yemeni people’s development; the failure proved that international laws and standards have no meaning when it’s violated by the Saudis, Americans and Zionists. All these together raise an overview of international laws that have been cited for many centuries in human societies.

- The role of resistance media in the process of this brutal assault on Yemen is highly essential. How do you think these media can confront Saudi aggression and the blockade of Yemen?

-- Resistance Media’s have a lot of responsibilities of course; the lack of media facilities and media resources somehow influenced the complete agenda. Inside Yemen some media’s are influenced by the regime and our hostiles. Most of the media in Yemen are run by the government, and some other media outlets influenced by political parties and groups such as Riyadh and Abu Dhabi. These media outlets are supporting the mercenaries, and they did nothing for national and patriotic interests.

-- The rest of media outlets were also providing wrong data, because they were full of former regime employees, who were providing biased data over the interest of the former regime, but since the annihilation of the former regime, many of them flee abroad and people had a chance of taking control of the official media outlets of the country. 

Post-Trump and Bolton Foreign Policy: The US in Isolation

BY HEBA MOURAD

Since US President Donald Trump came into office, he has been causing damage to America and its image among both its allies and adversaries.

Even before his term began and thanks to his hardline speeches, there has been an alarming rise in racism, xenophobia and hate attacks across the USA. Anti-Muslim hate groups have increased by 197% since 2015, with 917 hate groups active inside the US. A 34% increase in anti-Semitic incidents was witnessed in 2016, with the total jumping to 86% in the first quarter of 2017.

By the end of 2017, Trump made a decision that delivered a stinging rebuke at the UN General assembly; his unilateral recognition of Jerusalem as capital of the Israeli apartheid regime. European leaders not only slammed Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as capital of the Israeli regime, but also criticized his disavowal of the Iranian deal and his decision to decertify it. His bellicose rhetoric towards North Korea and Iran has also been a major issue of concern for many.

Of course, many think that the sudden switch from State Department head Rex Tillerson to CIA director Mike Pompeo is a destabilizing move towards allowing Trump to bring about his madness to the world.

Amid all this comes a major development that has been described by media reports as ‘dangerous’; the appointment of John Bolton as Trump’s national security advisor.

Bolton’s appointment is the talk of the town today. Who does not remember John Bolton? The champion of George W. Bush’s 2003 invasion of Iraq who in recent years has also endorsed military action and regime change in Iran, Syria and Libya. As recently as March 4, Trump called the invasion of Iraq “the single worst decision ever made.”

Trump and Bolton do not match in terms of foreign policy; an “America First” policy versus a “military power first” policy.

One of the main topics of the US foreign policy that keeps the world busy is Iran. Bolton had said that "America’s declared policy should be ending Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution before its 40th anniversary."

Bolton, who is dismissive of international diplomacy, has also called for bombing Iran and North Korea. He has been, for the past three years, calling for the ripping-up of the nuclear deal with Iran. This comes at a time when Iran has time and again assured that it seeks no nuclear arms and that its nuclear energy program is for peaceful purposes while the US and its ally, the Israeli regime own large number of nuclear warheads.

For a moment, one would think that Trump’s appointment of Bolton might be to appease the Saudis in the Middle East region, but there must be something more to it.

All eyes will be on Trump in mid-May, if he does not sign the next sanctions waver on Iran, in violation of the nuclear deal JCPOA, this will possibly trigger the anger of European allies who have already been sounding their support for an ongoing deal with Iran. This means that if Trump and Bolton decide to turn to an all-clash relation with Iran, they will only cause more isolation to the United States.

So far, Iran has been sticking to its side of the deal, has been in compliance with it and has not even breached its spirit.

The new appointment of Bolton surely raises questions on the real foreign policy of the incumbent US president, and leaves an open question to whether Bolton will be able to manage his relationship with Trump and the so-called “make America great again” approach.

Whether appointing Bolton is worrisome, surprising or dangerous as described during the two past days, he is part of the Trump advisory team and his job will come into effect on April 9, and the world will have to wait and see how he approaches talks with North Korea, the Iran Nuclear agreement as well as Moscow and Beijing.

Trump’s appointment of Bolton is dangerous; but maybe more dangerous on the United States itself rather than the world especially if it decides to walk away from the historic deal with Iran. The world order has changed and is still rapidly changing; historic allies can turn their backs and walk away when the US decides to continue to antagonize the whole world. This might be the straw that will break the camel’s back, ending any American hopes of being “great again”.

 John Bolton

WRITER

HEBA MOURAD

Freelance journalist and Ph.D. candidate in Linguistics

The Pompeo plan: Kill the Iran deal, and go to the brink with Tehran

Shahir Shahidsaless

US hardliners' real goal isn't the mere scuttling of the nuclear deal, it is regime change

Photo: Iranian President Hassan Rouhani (Reuters).

The appointment of Mike Pompeo as the new secretary of state is a perfect choice for US President Donald Trump. Pompeo can satisfy Trump's ideological views and will provide him with the courage to fulfil a dream he has repeatedly expressed since his election campaign: the destruction of the Iran nuclear deal.

The core issue

It is, of course, true that Trump and Tillerson were a terrible fit from the outset. Tillerson's removal was also because of his reservations about Trump's shock decision to meet Kim Jong Un, the North Korean leader. But observers almost unanimously maintain that the issue of Iran was at the core of the disagreement between the president and his former secretary of state.

During the announcement of the dramatic shake-up, Trump said that he and Tillerson "got along actually quite well," but they "disagreed on things".

What were they? "When you look at the Iran deal, I thought it was terrible. [Tillerson] thought it was okay," said Trump. "I wanted to either break it or do something. He felt a little differently. … With Mike Pompeo [however], we have a similar thought process."

Based on the experiences of the ten tumultuous years between 2003 and 2013, it seems clear that once the Iranians face harder sanctions, they will react by expanding their nuclear programme

Pompeo called Iran a "thuggish police state" and a "despotic theocracy" last autumn. Shortly after Trump's victory, he tweeted: "I look forward to rolling back this disastrous deal with the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism." In accordance with CIA policy, Pompeo's Twitter account was deleted after he assumed control over the agency.

It is also true that Iran sits at the core of the similarity in worldviews between Trump and Pompeo. But when one looks at Trump's "Muslim ban" and Pompeo's views of Muslims, a broader agreement can be detected.

In 2015, Pompeo, then a Congressman, attacked Barack Obama, who, according to him, took the side of the "Islamic East" in its conflict with the "Christian West". "Every time there has been a conflict between the Christian West and the Islamic East, the data points all point to a single direction," he said.

"It is very clear that this administration – and when I say that, a very narrow slice inside the leadership regime here in Washington – has concluded that America is better off with greater Iranian influence certainly in the Middle East."

The scenarios going forward

Escalation with Iran could start by Trump decertifying Iran's compliance to the nuclear deal followed by a likely re-imposition of sanctions on Iran on or around 12 May, when Trump must decide whether to extend the sanctions waiver.

Based on the experiences of the 10 tumultuous years between 2003 and 2013, it seems clear that once the Iranians face harder sanctions, they will react by expanding their nuclear programme.

US President Donald Trump speaks during reception for law enforcement officers and first responders in Blue Room of White House on 22 January, 2017 (AFP)

Do the American hardliners know the end result? The answer is yes. Their real goal isn't the mere scuttling of the nuclear deal. In 2015, when Senator Tom Cotton called for "new crippling sanctions" against Iran, he revealed that he knew what the outcome would be. 

"First, the goal of our policy must be clear: regime change in Iran. . . . But, the end of these negotiations isn't an unintended consequence of Congressional action, it is very much an intended consequence. A feature, not a bug."

The views that Trump and Pompeo share – hatred toward the Iranian government and support of Israel’s far right – are a recipe for a US-Iran military confrontation

Pompeo shares this view. "Congress must act to change Iranian behaviour, and, ultimately the Iranian regime," Pompeo remarked on the one-year anniversary of the nuclear deal.

The tit-for-tat path of expanding the sanctions by the US and the nuclear programme by Iran could inevitably end in a military confrontation. In 2014, Pompeo, in fierce opposition to the nuclear talks, said in a round table: "In an unclassified setting, it is under 2,000 sorties to destroy the Iranian nuclear capacity. This is not an insurmountable task for the coalition forces."

In 2015, Barack Obama addressed this simplistic and dangerous point of view, saying: "[Some] argue that surgical strikes against Iran's facilities will be quick and painless. … If we've learned anything from the last decade, it's that wars in general and wars in the Middle East in particular are anything but simple."

No caricature nuclear programme

Trump's primary demand with regard to the nuclear deal is the indefinite extension of limits on Iran's uranium enrichment and other nuclear activities, which have expiration dates under "sunset clauses" in the nuclear accord. "If Iran does not comply … American nuclear sanctions would automatically resume," he remarked last January.

The Iranians will not accept a caricature nuclear programme after, wisely or unwisely, paying a hefty price to protect the programme. Due to the sanctions, Iran lost $185bn since 2011 just in oil revenues, according to IMF estimates. According to some experts, the total may be as high as $500bn.

The primary reason the Iranians agreed to significantly roll back their nuclear programme was the assurance that after 10 to 15 years, they could expand their programme to an industrial level. Iran will not give in to Trump's demand.

Abbas Araghchi, the deputy at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Iran and the country's chief nuclear negotiator, was quoted as saying: "The United States is serious about leaving the nuclear deal, and changes at the State Department were made with that goal in mind – or at least it was one of the reasons."

He added: "We have told the Europeans [the UK, France, and Germany] that if they cannot convince the Americans to stay, and the US pulls out of the agreement, so will Iran."

Iran options

Araghchi’s statements should not be considered a bluff. If the US were to abandon the deal – meaning the reactivation of crippling sanctions against Iran, particularly against its oil and banking sectors – there would be no point for Iran to suffer immense economic pressure on the one hand yet abide by the consequential restrictions on its nuclear programme on the other.

Two major developments will likely unfold in Iran.

Negotiators from Iran and the P5+1 nations pose for a family shot after they concluded the Iran nuclear talk meetings with a deal in Vienna on 14 July 2015 (AA)

First, the hardliners will push the moderates and reformists to the sidelines, and radicalism will most likely dominate Iran's foreign politics.

While hostilities with the US will escalate to epic proportions, Iran's leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, will publicly disparage the moderates by saying, in effect, "I always said that the Americans are not trustworthy, but some naïve people insisted on giving it another chance by making this deal with them."

Second, the country will tilt to the East in a significant way. Alaeddin Boroujerdi, the chairman for the Committee for Foreign Policy and National Security of Iran's parliament, has reacted to developments in the US by saying: "Looking towards the East should become a substantial element in the [country’s] foreign policy."

In 2005, John Sawers, then one of the British negotiators and later chief of the UK Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) until 2014, told Hossein Mousavian, a member of the Iranian negotiating team, that Washington would not tolerate even one centrifuge spinning in Iran.

The hardliners will push the moderates and reformists to the sidelines, and radicalism will most likely dominate Iran's foreign politics

Sawers said that Iran's proposal to keep a pilot plant operational in Natanz would not impact this position. In response, Mousavian said: "Listen, John. Nezam (the establishment) has made its decision. … Iran will start enrichment even at the cost of war."

The talks collapsed in 2005, and Iran not only began uranium enrichment, but also expanded its programme from 164 centrifuges to 19,000. This despite Iran's previous agreement to keep the total number of centrifuges at 164 for an agreed-upon trust building-period.

Israel's first man

Pompeo is a vehement supporter of Israel. In 2015, while consistently criticising Obama for his efforts to diplomatically resolve the nuclear crisis with Iran, he said: "Ceasing to call for the destruction of Israel should have been a condition of the Iran Deal."

After meeting with Netanyahu in 2015, Pompeo praised him as "a true partner of the American people". He added: "Our conversation was incredibly enlightening as to the true threats facing both Israel and the United States. Netanyahu's efforts to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons are incredibly admirable and deeply appreciated."

He was greeted by Juan Zarate, chairman and senior counsellor of FDD, who said: "There's no secret here: I’m not an unbiased journalist. I'm a fan of this director. I worked on his transition. Frankly, I love the man. So, I believe in the Weberian concept of putting your biases out front before beginning the questions (emphasis added)."Undoubtedly, Pompeo will be Israel’s man. Last October, he was a featured guest at the so-called Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), one of the pillars of the Israel lobby in Washington that is dedicated to regime change in Iran.

The views that Trump and Pompeo share – hatred toward the Iranian government and support of Israel's far right – are a recipe for a US-Iran military confrontation. Perhaps the only way to avoid such a confrontation is a European intervention to prevent Trump from taking the first step toward it; i.e. re-imposing crippling sanctions on Iran.

- Shahir Shahidsaless is an Iranian-Canadian political analyst and freelance journalist writing about Iranian domestic and foreign affairs, the Middle East, and the US foreign policy in the region. He is the co-author of  Iran and the United States: An Insider’s View on the Failed Past and the Road to Peace. He is a contributor to several websites with focus on the Middle East as well as the Huffington Post. He also regularly writes for BBC Persian. 

Nuclear Weapons and Great Power Politics Are Here to Stay

Federico PIERACCINI

 When talking about nuclear weapons, it is necessary to clarify some important points before delving into complicated reasoning.

Nuclear weapons are here to stay, and anyone who believes in a progressive denuclearization of the globe is sadly mistaken. Try asking any Indian, Pakistani, Chinese, Russian or American policy-maker what they think about abandoning their nuclear weapons and they will tell you that it will never happen. To believe that a country would be willing to simply abandon its most powerful weapon and means of deterrence is simply unrealistic. Nevertheless, I would like to emphasize in this article how nuclear weapons are crucial to a stable future world order. Any reasonable person possessing a magic wand would wish to make vanish a weapon that is capable of eliminating humanity. The problem is that in the real world, this possibility does not exist and nukes are here to stay.

There is the valid argument that the absence of nuclear weapons would have greatly altered the balance during the Cold War, leading to a massively devastating war between the two superpowers of the time, even if only fought conventionally. In this two-part series I will try to argue how nuclear weapons can, especially in the future, be a guarantor of peace rather than posing the threat of global destruction. One always has to keep in mind the great risk that humanity has placed itself in with the invention of such a destructive weapon: they are a sword of Damocles hanging over the destiny of humanity. For this reason, a balance between great powers is necessary in order to ensure that a nuclear catastrophe can never happen.

In order to be able to advance this analysis in a sensible and realistic way, it is necessary to recall the history of the last century and observe the behaviour of the nations involved. Without focusing too much on the details, it is commonly recognized that the prelude to the First and Second World Wars was characterized by growing clashes between the powers. The composition of the international framework was varied, with countries like Germany, the United Kingdom, Japan, France, the United States and the Russian Empire/Soviet Union in constant competition with each other, stemming from their strong growth at the time combined with their imperialist tendencies. History has shown how a multipolar environment with several powers competing provides the perfect recipe for conflict, resulting in the millions of deaths we saw in the two world wars. In international relations, a multipolar environment is generally held to be unstable and difficult to control and predict by a single power. Not surprisingly, Multipolarity refers to a situation where several powers compete with each other without any one of them being able to dominate one or more of the others. Such an unstable balance has often resulted in one or more of these powers triggering devastating conflicts in an effort to achieve regional or global hegemony.

The conclusion of the Second World War ended the period of Multipolarity, with only two competing global powers remaining on the world stage. The Soviet Union and the United States achieved their maximals aims in terms of post-war influence, fundamentally reorienting international relations. The substantial military and strategic balance between these two powers, leading to a bipolar world order, was characterized by nuclear weapons, a technological innovation that would forever alter the nature of the balance of power between countries.

On August 6, 1945, the world became aware of the destructive power of the atomic bomb when Japan lost about 80 thousand citizens in Hiroshima in a blink of an eye. The second atomic bomb dropped on the city of Nagasaki on August 9, 1945, ushered in a new and delicate reality governing international relations. The balance of power turned decisively in favour of the United States, with all global risks that this entailed. It is now in the public domain that Truman intended to scare Stalin, and impose a new global order favouring the United States, through the practical demonstration of nuclear power visited on Japan. Declassified documents show that the plan for global domination was already in the minds of American military planners before the conclusion of the Second World War. Since the USSR was the only remaining rival power, it should not come as a surprise that the CIA and other policy-makers were contemplating decapitating the Soviet Union with nuclear strikes. The intent was to get rid of the only existing adversary and pave the way for American military, economic, political and cultural domination over the entire globe.

The first part of this analysis leads us to the first counterintuitive conclusion. Although all of humanity is aware of the devastating consequences of nuclear weapons, it was not until August 29, 1949, with the first Soviet nuclear test, that a new balance of power was established. In this context, the term Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) was coined, referring to the capacity of nuclear-armed powers to obliterate each other in a nuclear exchange. Therefore, such an exchange would not benefit either party, since it would only bring about a nuclear winter from which no winner could emerge.

The pressing need to balance the United States drove the Soviet Union to develop its own nuclear weapons. This need for deterrence remains valid today, with North Korea recently demonstrating this by developing nuclear weapons to deter aggressive US foreign policy. Since the 1950s, Washington has sought to overthrow North Korea’s political leadership and expand its sphere of influence throughout the country, as it did with South Korea in the years following the Korean War. But thanks to Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons, US plans for invasion and conquest have had to be downsized to empty threats and bluster. The frustration evident in the statements of Washington’s hawks derives from the impotence that North Korea’s nuclear deterrent reduces them to. In reality, however, North Korea’s conventional deterrence alone is enough to give pause to the designs of any potential aggressor designs, a subject I have covered.

That nuclear weapons alter the balance of power in international relations remains as valid today as it ever did. It is important to reach another parallel conclusion concerning situations experienced during the Cold War. Historical examples have emerged recently whereby Russian or American military personnel risked unleashing a nuclear apocalypse as a result of electronic malfunctions or incorrect risk perceptions. But it is nevertheless unsurprising that no nuclear exchange resulted from any of these instances. Human reasoning, even among mortal enemies, pauses to consider the consequences of Armageddon, at the critical moment exercising sufficient doubt on the matter to avert resorting to the most destructive weapon ever created by man.

I have previously maintained that a nuclear war would not favour anyone and would therefore be highly unlikely. The counterargument often offered is that of the risk of an accident or miscalculation resulting in nuclear conflagration. Yet even this scenario presented itself several times during the Cold War and failed to result in thermonuclear war. Errors are inherent in technology, but history has shown the propensity for good sense to prevail when the stakes are so high.

The case of the Cuban missile crisis is illustrative. Although the US and the USSR were not on the verge of nuclear war in 1962, the tensions reached during those few months are still remembered as one of the most delicate and dangerous moments in history. The reason is clearly linked to all that we have discussed thus far. A war between powers in a bipolar world order would certainly have seen the attempt of one side to overpower the other in an effort to achieve global hegemony. It is easy to imagine a war between superpowers escalating to nuclear warfare, with disastrous consequences for humanity. Once again, we should not be surprised by a de-escalation of the situation. A clarifying call between JFK and Khrushchev ended the Soviet attempt to mirror the threat posed by the Americans in Europe by deploying its own weapons to Cuba, thereby violating the Monroe Doctrine. (In 1962, Washington deployed in Turkey the famous Jupiter missiles, which Moscow considered an existential threat that threatened the doctrine of MAD by nullifying Moscow’s retaliatory second-strike capability.

Thanks to a balance of power in a bipolar environment and the danger posed by a nuclear exchange, the possibility of direct conflict between the great powers was avoided throughout the Cold War. In the next and final article, I intend to explain why nuclear-armed powers in a Multipolar World Order decrease the likelihood of a nuclear apocalypse, as counterintuitive as it may seem.

Federico PIERACCINI

Independent freelance writer specialized in international affairs, conflicts, politics and strategies

Tags:

New World OrderStrategic Nuclear Forces

Saudi Arabia Indispensable Part of US Foreign Policy: Expert

'Saudi Arabia is a key variable for the larger part of US

 foreign policies'; professor of political sciences Mostafa

 Motahari writes in an op-ed for Iranian Diplomacy.

Officials in Washington view Saudi Arabia as central to their regional policies in the Middle East. The truth is Saudi Arabia is considered a key variable for the larger part of US foreign policies. The strategic alliance between the two countries, a patron-client relationship, has caused all developments around Saudi Arabia, whether domestic or international, be implemented with green light from the US. In fact, whatever is being done as domestic political and economic reforms led by Mohammad Bin Salman and the fanatical ambitions of the Saudi crown prince for leadership in the region is taking place with Washington's support. In plain language, backed by the US, Mohammad Bin Salman is trying to implement his domestic and regional plan to secure his shaky status among Saudi princes.

Perhaps the most important reason the US is has thrown its weight behind Mohammad Bin Salman and his regional strategies is the approach the crown prince has adopted against Iran. The revolutionary process adopted for modernization of Saudi Arabia and the emphasis on nationalism instead of the traditional identity rooted in Wahhabism during the dictated top-to-bottom reforms on the one hand and the aggressive foreign policies in the region ranging from invasion of Yemen, sanctions imposed on Qatar, and accusations against Iran on the other hand, has made the crown prince use all its resources and domestic and international potentials. One of the main end results is the transformation of US-Saudi ties into a strategic partnership in view of the scope and prospect of changes in economic, social, cultural, security, foreign and regional policy sectors.

Although US' quick, positive response to Saudi developments can be basically assessed under Washington's interests in economic, political, and regional issues, it is also critically remarkable from the Saudi point of view. Washington's efforts are in line with its strategic policy to distance regional actors from Iran and isolate the country, which naturally results in pushing these countries toward Saudi Arabia and increasing the scope of Saudi engagement in the region. This in turn can help establish US plans and goals in the region. In other words, Saudi Arabia, as a strategic ally, has a remarkable role in implementing Washington's security strategy and regional policies.

The methodical arrangement of US' security strategy has eyes for presence in the Middle East more than ever. Middle East developments in recent years, like what happened in Syria, has diminished US influence in the region on the one hand but also gave boosts to Russia's influence as an extra-regional power and Iran's as a regional power. Since the two countries are viewed as enemies in Washington, the White House is concerned about their increased influence and its own declining influence in the future of the region.

The truth is Washington's Middle East policy-makers are mainly focusing on controlling Iran and preventing the increasing influence of Moscow in the region. As a result, isolating Iran, helping Saudi Arabia to propagate beliefs aimed to confront Iran in the region, and creating serious barriers for the expansion of Iran's regional policies are the principles of modern US strategy in the Middle East.

For the young and ambitious Mohammad bin Salman, overcoming domestic and foreign obstacles using help from Washington, the establishment of a successful image of him, the propagandist Iranophobia and strategic anti-Iranism are of remarkable value. For him, the Shia Iran, always a rival for Saudi supremacy in the region, is an ideal enemy not only to guarantee his current status as crown prince to control and manage domestic crises but also to realize his regional goals, including the establishment of mutual ties with the Zionist regime. Thus, through its highlighting of differences and conflicts with Iran, Saudi Arabia can provide assistance for the US to realize it goals in the region and significantly help the Saudi crown prince to play his role as a leader inside and outside the country.