Big change not expected in Doha policy towards Riyadh: Zaccara

TEHRAN, (MNA) – Research assistant professor at Qatar University says despite recent talks between Saudi Arabia and Qatar It is still difficult to predict if this will mean a change in the overall foreign policy of Qatar.

Qatar's foreign minister has said he hopes for "progress" in the efforts to resolve the Gulf diplomatic crisis following talks with Saudi Arabia, adding that the parties have "moved from a stalemate" in the two-year dispute.

Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani made the comments on Friday while speaking at a foreign policy conference in Rome amid signs of thawing tensions between Qatar and its neighbors.

To shed more light on the issue we reached out to Dr. Luciano Zaccara, a research assistant professor at Qatar University.

During "MED - Mediterranean Dialogues" in Rome, Qatari Foreign Minister said that his country hadn’t supported the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwanul Muslimin) and political Islam. Can his remarks be considered as a shift in the country’s foreign policy?

Bearing in mind the recent signs that are showing some rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Qatar, including the unannounced visit of the Qatari Foreign Minister to Riyadh in November and the developments around the [Persian] Gulf Football Cup which is currently played at Doha with the presence of the ‘blockading’ teams and fans that came directly by airplane despite the blockade, the words of the FM can certainly be attributed to a negotiation that is taking place among both states to ease the tension. It is still difficult to predict if this will mean a change in the overall foreign policy of Qatar, but I don’t expect a big change.

Reuters also announced that about one month ago the Qatari FM had visited Riyadh and has announced that his country won’t support Ikhwanul Muslimin anymore. Can such a thing affect Ankara and Doha relations?

Turkey-Qatar relations are strategic and very important for both countries, and Turkey was very helpful in overcoming the negative effects of the blockade. Therefore, relations will remain unchanged, despite the fact that Turkey may be affected by its foreign policy interest due to the changes in the Qatari foreign policy. Turkey understands that the PGCC is the natural regional environment for both Saudi Arabia and Qatar despite their differences, and Turkey would not pressure Qatar to act otherwise.

Will Qatar’s recent moves overshadow the military and political cooperation of the country with Turkey?

I don’t expect so.

Qatar and Kuwait have recently joined the US proposed Persian Gulf marine coalition. On the other hand, Iran has invited them to join Tehran’s HOPE initiative. How do you see the future of Iran’s HOPE propose?

Even though the HOPE initiative was received with attention on the southern shore of the Persian Gulf, no more advancement was witnessed in that regard. And certainly, the engagement of PGCC state members in new military coalitions that may have Iran as the main ‘target’ is incompatible with any security arrangement that includes Iran. If no improvement is witnessed in the HOPE initiative in the short term, despite the Chinese or Russian support, the proposal will be definitively abandoned or rejected.

How can a possible breakthrough in Saudi Arabia and Qatar relation affect the Tehran-Doha relation?

If Iran is the bargaining chip for the Qatari-Saudi reconciliation, the Tehran-Doha relations will be directly affected. Some of the commercial and trade agreements signed would be canceled or not implemented, and the benefits Iran obtained due to the geographical proximity and goods provision will certainly get reduced. However, it would be difficult to justify that Qatar is sacrificing its relations with Iran (nor Turkey) since its strategic value became more important than expected before the blockade. In the event of a new chapter in the PGCC crisis, then Qatar wouldn’t be able to count on Iran anymore!

Interview by Payman Yazdani

Why Germany turned its back on parallel coalitions in Strait of Hormuz

By Maryam Khormaei

Germany recently announced it will not join the French-led mission in the Strait of Hormuz. This is while, not long ago, Berlin’s lack of support for Paris’s position on “the brain death of NATO” became a hot issue.

Berlin’s stance against Paris reinforces the assumption that maybe Germany, on the eve of Brexit, is trying to prevent France to become the dominant power in Europe. The assumption is largely reasonable, provided one does not forget that Germany, in a parallel action, benefits from the cooperation with France to challenge U.S. supremacy and show of power by the EU. 

Britain, from innovation to treason

Where did the idea of creating a European mission in the Strait of Hormuz come from and what countries were involved in it?

What today is known as the French initiative to secure the Persian Gulf was first proposed by Britain in response to the Iranian seizure of the Stena Impero ship in July.

This issue is related to the time before the premiership of Boris Johnson, who follows U.S. President Donald Trump in his extremist policies.

At the time, Jeremy Hunt was serving as the British foreign secretary. Hunt preferred to offer a plan that did not directly involve the EU, NATO and, above all, the United States, in the light of Britain’s ultimate intention to realize Brexit. Instead, Hunt created a far weaker coalition with the participation of the European countries like Norway, which were not a member of the EU. 

The initiative was approved by France and Germany at the beginning because these three countries, as European parties to JCPOA, did not intend to join U.S.-led maritime coalition. The countries did not want to endanger the nuclear deal by assisting the maximum pressure campaign against Iran.

But the plan changed when Johnson took office. Johnson, who was determined to carry out Brexit, did not mind to question the European coalitions and preferred to compete with France and Germany by joining U.S.-led maritime coalition in the Strait of Hormuz. 

The European coalition: From idea to implementation

On November 24, France's Defense Minister Florence Parly announced that a French naval base in Abu Dhabi will serve as the headquarters for a European-led mission to protect Persian Gulf.

Although her announcement formalized the UAE as the headquarters of European-led mission, the decision had been anticipated much earlier and was stated in the August reports.

It was reported that Italy, Spain, Norway, Belgium and Sweden were expected to accompany France, while the Netherlands was not sure to join the European-led naval mission or the U.S.-led coalition. On November 25, the Dutch government formally announced its decision to accompany its European partners. Therefore, the Netherlands will contribute a ship to the French-led naval mission in the Strait of Hormuz for a six-month period starting in January 2020. 

However, for some European countries participating in any extraterritorial mission depends on the approval of the parliament. This issue has become a challenge for Berlin in accompanying Paris. 

Germany constrained by law

From the earliest days when the U.S. was inviting states to create a maritime coalition in the Persian Gulf region, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas opposed the move and insisted on the need to follow diplomacy to reduce tensions in order to preserve the JCPOA.

Germany, like France, was also looking for a European initiative, but what is important now is that Berlin has apparently broken its promise and left Paris halfway. 

But does the decision by Germany ruin the future of the European coalition?

It should be said that, despite refusing to join the coalition, Berlin still politically supports it. What prevents Berlin from joining the coalition is the country’s constitution.

In fact, Germany has set a precondition for its support of the plan. Germany says the French-led initiative must turn into an “EU mission”.  In the current context, the initial core of the plan is still based on the British model, which limits the coalition to the will of the European countries, regardless of direct dependence on the EU and NATO. 

According to the German law, the country is only allowed to participate in a foreign mission if that mission is defensible from the perspective of a "system based on mutual collective security" within the framework the EU, NATO and the UN. Therefore, participation in the coalition proposed by France is not justified from the perspective of the German law.

On the other hand, Berlin’s reason for refusing to join the U.S.-led maritime coalition was not just to preserve the Iran nuclear deal. Legal restraint was also a matter.

Unlike France and Britain, sending forces outside Germany has to be done with the consent of parliament, and almost all German parties are opposed to joining a U.S. mission against Iran.

The fight over establishing security in the Strait of Hormuz represents a small part of the NATO disputes. Currently, there are two parallel coalitions in the Persian Gulf. Iran has approved none of the coalitions, and Germany has not participated in any of them.

At the beginning the U.S. expected 60 countries to join the coalition which was launched under the command of a headquarters in Bahrain in November. At the present time, just Britain, Australia, Albania, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain have joined the U.S.-led coalition.

The European coalition has also failed at the outset due to legal obstacles in certain countries in Europe. 

Meanwhile, Defense Minister Parly affirmed European and U.S. coordination in parallel missions in the Strait of Hormuz. At the same time, Parly accused Washington of being indifferent to what happened in the Middle East in the summer, including the incidents of Fujairah port and Oman Sea, as well as downing of a U.S. drone.

The comments by Parly, in addition to what French President Emmanuel Macron had recently said about NATO's brain death, further fuels the domestic crisis within NATO.

Peter Koenig: US Seeks Regime Change in Syria

• 
  
• 
  

TEHRAN (FNA)- Peter Koenig, economist and geopolitical analyst, says the US plans to maintain its military presence in Syria to protect ISIL (also known as ISIS and DAESH) terrorists and use them against the Arab country and other states on the White House’s command.

Speaking in an exclusive interview with FNA, Peter Koenig said, “Eastern Syria, the border with Iraq, where most of Syria’s oil is located, covers about one third of the country. To be in control of one third of the Syrian territory under false pretenses which the world seems to swallow – is quite good. US troops never left; they never will – not as long as the US is militarily alive and kicking.”

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He worked for over 30 years with the World Bank and the World Health Organization around the world. Also, he lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He is also a co-author of “The World Order and Revolution!”

Below is the full text of the interview:

Q: While the US is pulling some troops out of Syria, it is still sending in additional troops claiming the move ensures Syrian oil facilities will not fall into the hands of Daesh. How do you find the White House’s justification for more troops in Syria?

A: This is an outright lie, like so many others. The US never had the intention to pull out troops from Syria. They want to keep a hold in Syria, because the US mission is not finished until they achieve regime change in Syria. This was the motive of promoting the CIA-initiated civil war in 2011 (prepared since 2008) in the first place. If at one-point President Trump was serious in pulling out of Syria – like in honoring his pre-election promise, “no more engaging in foreign lands” – then his behind the scene handlers – including the Pentagon, weapon manufacturers, the CIA – the corporate oil oligarchy – certainly told him differently.

Why would the US want to protect Syrian Oil from ISIS or Daesh? - Washington created, funded, nurtured and armed Daesh/ISIS. Now they are enemies? Do you believe that? –  Of course, vis-à-vis the outside world, but in reality, the US still counts on them – to run and fight whenever they, Washington, commands them to do so.

Q: Moscow released photos it claims show the real reason the US wants to keep troops in Eastern Syria is to protect the illegal oil trade and reap large profits. How do you view this?

A: There is another narrative, namely that the US wants to keep troops in eastern Syria to protect illegal oil trade and reap large profits. I do not believe in this. The US has larger goals, not to leave Syria. They just do not admit it and keep confusing the public. And it seems to work. Let’s face it, eastern Syria, the border with Iraq, where most of the Syria’s oil is located, covers about one third of the country. To be in control of one third of the Syrian territory under false pretenses which the world seems to swallow – is quite good. US troops never left; they never will – not as long as the US is militarily alive and kicking.

Of course, petrol is part of the larger picture, but not for the protection of oil smugglers – and who would make huge profits? The military? – No, the larger picture is dominating Syria as one of the most strategic countries in the Middle east, transit for oil pipelines, and the pivot to five seas – the Persian Gulf, the Caspian Sea, Black Sea, Mediterranean, the Red Sea – that is President Assad’s strategy. The Caspian Sea is particularly important, as it is becoming a transit route for China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Being part of the BRI is key for future development. Mr. Assad knows it. And the US would of course like to prevent Assad closing links with China, especially because China is a close ally with her BRI partners and with their suppliers of hydrocarbons.

Explore Iran’s wondrous Persian Gulf islands you’ve never heard of

By Rohan Cahill-Fleury

The Persian Gulf is home to all kinds of undiscovered natural beauty. Islands are not something usually associated with the desert land of Iran. But in this vast and beautiful country, there is a bit of everything. The islands of the Persian Gulf are home to a plethora of geographical wonders, they’re easy to get to, cheap to visit, and have great weather. Yet most people don’t even know they exist.

Just a short 40-minute ferry trip from the south of Iran lie Qeshm and Hormuz islands. Between them, they boast an impressive array of sights and activities that you won’t find in many guidebooks. Qeshm Island has recently been announced as a visa-free zone for all countries, meaning even those who need a tour or special visa for mainland Iran can visit here independently with daily flights from Dubai. So if you love nature, history, culture, camels, and getting off the beaten path, Iran’s islands should be on your radar.

Chakooh canyon

This incredible feat of nature is one of Iran’s hidden gems. Swirling patterns and curved holes created in the rock by wind, water, and erosion make for a surreal scene as you wander through the canyon. Water wells have been dug into the stone and were used by local shepherds as a method of storing rainwater for the long, dry Qeshm summers.

Ancient ship building yard

All around the harbors of southern Iran, you can see the beautiful wooden ships mainly used for transporting goods to and from the United Arab Emirates. On Qeshm Island, you can see where all the action happens at the shipbuilding yard. (Although “action” maybe a bit of a strong word as one of these ships takes three years to complete!)

Depending on when you visit, you can see the ships at different stages of completion, and if they happen to be finished, you can watch the grueling one-week process of rolling the ship over logs and into the ocean.

Rainbow mountains

Hormuz Island is also given the name Rainbow Island because of the incredible colors of sand and rock visible all over the island. A walk through the Rainbow Valley to see the colorful waves through the mountains is a psychedelic experience. Shades of red, orange, and purple you didn’t think possible in rocks spiral together and blast the landscape with a mishmash of color.

So is this beautiful place packed with other tourists trying to get that perfect Insta-image? Not at all; it’s likely you’ll have the place to yourself, making the vibrant landscape feel even more surreal.

Wind towers of Laft village

Wind towers were a traditional method of cooling houses in the desert towns of Iran. The tall, intricate structures stand high over the mud roofs of the town, catching the air and venting it down into the house. Wind towers used to be visible in every village on the island, but Laft is now the only place to see them.

Portuguese castle

Yes, the Portuguese made it to the Persian Gulf too. Built-in the 1500s during the time of Portuguese colonization in the Persian Gulf, Our Lady of the Conception (or the Portuguese Castle) was constructed from the vividly red sand found on Hormuz Island. The roof has collapsed, but the outer walls are still standing and visitors can enter the castle to explore. While the castle architecture isn’t mind-blowing, it is an awesome color and it’s interesting to see the European influence on Iran’s history.

Red sand beach

The beaches of Hormuz Island are beautiful spots for chilling out, enjoying the sunset, and even camping for the night. Every beach has its own special quality, but one of the most impressive beaches is the one surrounded by deep red sand. The crimson path leading to the beach is an unbelievable color, and looking out onto the bay reveals a reddish-pink ocean washing against the shore. True to its red wine color, this sand will stain your feet red for a few days.

The traditional Bandari clothing

Like the rest of Iran, women in the south adhere to the Islamic dress code, and most wear a chador outside the house. But unlike the rest of Iran, these outfits are a celebration of color. The brightly patterned chadors are coupled with dazzling leggings in all colors of the rainbow. The women decorate their leggings themselves and each pair is a display of their artistic ability with sequins, swirls, and intricate designs showcasing their talents. Less common these days is the traditional masks that resemble a burka but also cover the nose and are often decorated in a similar way to the leggings.

Camels of the beach

Through mainland Iran and the Middle East, camels are an everyday sighting in desert areas. But on Qeshm Island, the local camel hangout is next to the sea. If you visit the beaches on Qeshm island, and you should, you’ll most likely be joined by a few of these majestic creatures vying for the best spot to get a tan. On some of the more touristy beaches, you can ride camels along the shore.

Namakdan salt cave

At 6 kilometers long, this salt cave holds the title for the largest salt cave in the world! The interior of the cave is spectacular, with rippling colors along the walls and bright white salt crystals hanging from the ceiling. Walking through the first part is easy and beautiful, but the real sight requires a bit more courage. By crawling through a small gap at the end of the cave, you can reach the grand salt dome. It’s an incredible sight to see, but not recommended for anyone suffering from claustrophobia.

Naz Island

This little island isn’t so much an attraction as the phenomenon which surrounds it, literally. At low tide, from one the nicest white sand beaches of Qeshm, you can walk or even drive across a sandy strip to explore this tiny, rocky island. Enjoy some peaceful moments watching the clear blue waters, but stay too long and you’ll be stranded as the tide rolls in and Naz Island becomes disconnected from the mainland. Make sure you time your visit to get out and back before high tide.

Mangrove forest

Known as “Hara Forest” by the locals, this expansive, tree-filled area is not your average forest. All of the trees are firmly rooted in the shallow salt waters on the north coast of Qeshm Island. The bark extracts the salt and allows the tree to feed on the freshwater, meaning these trees are some of the few that can survive in the hot, dry climate of Southern Iran. The mangrove forest is a bird lover’s paradise and taking a boat trip through the narrow canals is a great way to spot some wildlife.

Hengam Island and dolphin watching

A boat tour to Hengam Island is a great way to spot some of the many pods of dolphins living in the Persian Gulf, especially in the early morning. The tours then continue on to the small town on Hengam Island to see the local life and some souvenir stalls before heading back to the mainland.

(Source: Fodors Travel)

Why countries are reluctant to join U.S.-led maritime coalition

*By Mohammad Ghaderi

TEHRAN - The U.S.-led naval coalition to protect shipping in the Persian Gulf formally was launched in Bahrain on Thursday. But the notable point is that countries have not welcomed this plan. Only a few countries with ineffective naval power have joined the coalition.

On July 2019, the U.S. proposed a coalition plan to protect shipping in the Persian Gulf. Mike Pompeo, the U.S. secretary of state, invited U.S. allies such as Britain, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea, and Australia to join the coalition. Although the U.S. has persuaded its allies on various occasions and even applied pressure on them to join the coalition, it was not warmly welcomed. In August, Britain joined the U.S. military coalition in the wake of a conflict with Iran over oil tanker seizures first in Gibraltar and later in the Strait of Hormuz.

Later the Zionist regime and Australia joined the coalition. 

Launch of the U.S.-led marine coalition

The coalition, which reportedly aims to “protect shipping in the Persian Gulf”, was launched on Thursday. The U.S. stated that through the coalition it intends to safeguard region’s oil supply against possible threats. Bahrain, which hosts the U.S. Fifth Fleet, has joined the coalition along with the UEA and Saudi Arabia.

 James Malloy, commander of the U.S. Naval Forces Central Command, has claimed that the goal of the coalition is defensive. Malloy said the coalition will last as long as necessary. 

Some European countries, including France, has not joined the coalition to avoid escalating tensions in the region. Japan has decided to dispatch its naval forces to the Strait of Hormuz independently, rather than joining the coalition.  It is said that Japan made this decision because it has an amicable relationship with Iran and does not like to be seen as an important country and power in the U.S.-led coalition. 

In this regard, the London-based Raialyoum wrote that the announcement of formal launch of the U.S.-led maritime coalition to protect shipping in the Persian Gulf with the participation of only 6 countries reminds the old Arab proverb saying “the mountain was in labor but gave birth to a mouse”. Raialyoum added the limited number of countries joining the coalition reveals that the U.S. influence has been reducing not only in the Persian Gulf region but also all around the world. It seems that the current and former U.S. administrations cannot any longer form coalitions like the ones that launched wars in Iraq, Libya, or Afghanistan with the participation of 30 or 60 countries. 

The Arab world digital news and opinion website said that it is noteworthy that three Persian Gulf states namely Kuwait, Oman, and Qatar are absent in the coalition. They have refused to join the coalition not because they have taken a neutral stance toward U.S. controversial measures against Iran, but because they do not trust the U.S. and its current government. The source added that the U.S. government has adopted rash policies that can lead to regional and probably international war; furthermore, the coalition can be an element of “tension” not a guarantee for defense and stability. 

Raialyoum stated that we do not believe these six countries – Britain, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, Australia, and Albania – will be able to protect shipping in the Persian Gulf because most of them, except the U.S. and Britain, do not have effective naval power. 

However, the marine coalition is a dramatic and hypocritical show and the U.S. is trying to milk the three states of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Bahrain. By its presence, the U.S. only disturbs the region’s security. Washington only takes care of its interests.

The security in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf will only be achieved through the reconciliation between regional countries since they are neighbors and they cannot change their geography. The intervention of countries outside the region will only make the situation more complicated.

* Author: Mohammad Ghaderi , Tehran Times editor in chief 

Tehran, Riyadh's steps to de-escalate tensions

TEHRAN, (MNA) – Past tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia in recent days have been replaced by positive signals for engagement and negotiation; the signs are evident in the speeches and statements of the Islamic Republic of Iran and Saudi Arabia’s officials.

According to a report by IRNA, After years of tension and disagreement in various fields between Iran and Riyadh, there are now positive and promising signs from the authorities of two sides.

Rejection of war with Iran by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and emphasis on the effectiveness of diplomatic relations with Iran indicates a clear shift in the position of Saudi leaders.

The readiness of some regional actors such as Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi and Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan to mediate between Iran and Saudi Arabia also shows that they hope to find a peaceful resolution of the Tehran-Riyadh disputes. 

In addition, Iranian Government Spokesman Ali Rabiei recently revealed Saudi Arabia's message to Tehran, which Saudi Arabia had their own interpretation for their domestic public opinion and foreign allies.

For instance, Saudi Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Adel al-Jubeir wrote oh his twitter that what Iranian Government Spokesman said was not accurate about the message of Saudi Arabia to Iranians. What happened is that some countries were trying to reduce the tension; we also told them that Saudi Arabia was constantly trying to create security and stability in the region.

The Islamic Republic of Iran, which has always sought to improve its relations with neighboring and regional countries, such as Saudi Arabia, continues to emphasize its approach in the current situation.

In this regard, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif told Turkey's TRT World that Iran has always been ready to negotiate on all issues with Saudi Arabia. It is Iran’s neighbor. There is no choice but to talk to each other. Negotiation with Saudi Arabia can be direct or through mediation. Iran never rejects mediation.

Iran's peace plan, named Hormuz Peace Endeavor (HOPE), proposed by President Hassan Rouhani at the annual meeting of the UN General Assembly this year in early September, showed the importance of endogenous security to achieve peace in the region.

Addressing the UN General Assembly session, Rouhani described ensuring security, peace, stability, and progress in the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz as Iran’s historical responsibility and invited all countries that are affected by the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz developments to join the Hormuz Peace Endeavour (HOPE) initiative.

The Initiative is based on the fact that all regional states are duty-bound to ensure peace, stability, and prosperity in the region. They along with the global community have common interests in maintaining freedom of navigation and transfer of energy. HOPE is designed to include all countries of the region and aims to expand cooperation beyond regional security.

The Initiative promotes solidarity, mutual understanding and peaceful and friendly relations and cooperation among regional states as well as boosting collaboration in uprooting terrorism, extremism, and sectarian tensions and making sure about energy security, freedom of shipping and free flow of oil are among the objectives of the initiative.

Rouhani's Initiative came days after Yemen's missile strikes on Saudi Aramco facilities inflicting heavy cost on the Saudis. In this regard, some of Iran's enemies sought to exert pressure on Iran by taking advantage of this incident and claiming that Tehran was responsible for the attack.

Nearly a month after the Aramco attacks, US President Donald Trump is still seeking to take the most advantage of the attack for his multi-purpose goals, such as isolating and pressuring Iran, increasing disparities in the region, especially between countries of the Persian Gulf and the Oman Sea, sending American weapons to these countries, justifying military presence and intervention in the region, and so on.

The US Secretary of Defense Mark Esper said on Friday 19 October that US has approved the deployment of 3,000 additional troops and military hardware to Saudi Arabia, boosting the country's defense capability after attacks on its oil installations. He authorized the deployment of two more Patriot missile batteries, one THAAD ballistic missile interception system, two fighter squadrons, and one air expeditionary wing, according to Pentagon statement.

Observers believe that the sale of military equipment and weapons, along with the significant US military presence in Saudi Arabia, will be used to militarize the region and bring the money of selling of the Saudi Arabian oil products to the United States. The danger that has even caught the attention of congressmen, who have repeatedly protested the effects of Trump's greed for weapons sales and stood in front of the president, but have so far failed to succeed.

Decoding Iranian president plan entitled “Hormuz Peace initiative”

By Mohammad Ghaderi

TEHRAN - While, only few days left until President Hassan Rouhani’s speech at the UN, world media has begun to speculate about the content of his remarks by offering various analyzes. 

One of the key points of the president’s speech at the UN General Assembly, as he pointed at the Sacred Defense anniversary parade, is “hope coalition plan, Hormuz peace initiative”. 

There are not any full details and contents of the plan yet. The proposal that the president intends to present, with the aim of offering regional mechanism to establish peace in the Persian Gulf, seems to be based on Article 2 of Resolution 598 of the Security Council. 

Article 2 of the resolution, based on which 8-year war between Iran and Iraq was ended, has emphasized on forming security arrangements with the participation of Iraq, Iran and six Gulf states under the UN supervision.

In fact, Iran’s “hope coalition plan, Hormuz peace initiative” has several key points, including:

1.    Solving security changes of the region requires the creation of a joint domestic structure to prevent security crises and to resolve possible challenges. 

 The U.S. so far has taken advantage of the lack of domestic mechanism for security in the region, and increasingly expanded its military presence at the expense of regional countries by creating disagreement between the countries. It has created artificial crises to prevent security and stability in the Persian Gulf. While Iran’s plan guarantees the security of all countries in the region. 

2.    Iran has always supported the strategy of establishing security mechanism with the participation of some regional countries. It intends to protect collective interests and prevent the presence of foreigners.

3.    Based on the experience of the 8-year war between Iran and Iraq, which directly or indirectly involved the countries in the region, the international community concluded that the establishment of stable security can be carried out through the use of domestic capacities and regional consensus. So far, and due to various reasons, this approach has not been applied in the Persian Gulf. The main reason is the conflict of the approach with the interests of some trans-regional powers, especially the U.S. 

U.S. government seeks to make aviation and shipping conditions in the Persian Gulf insecure and to form a coalition for the so-called security in the region. It does so through the strategy of maintaining maximum presence and selling weapon to the regional countries. 
Indeed, the main cause of insecurity in the Persian Gulf was the enormous and illegal presence of U.S. military fleets in the region. Surely, by stopping this intervention and active presence of the Gulf states in the process of comprehensive security, there will be no need for the presence of other countries and useless coalitions. 

Resolution 598 and Article 2 were formed as a result of long and dreadful experiences caused by regional conflicts and aimed to end war. One of the goals of the Resolution is to provide a legal and consensual context for establishing stable security arrangements in the region. 

Iran’s proposal and initiative on the anniversary of the sacred defense is a reminder of the bitter and dreadful experiences of the past. It emphasizes on the need to prevent the formation of similar situations through the cooperation and participation of all countries in the region. The proposal is a legal and consensual plan to put an end to the continuous iniquities of foreign countries, especially the U.S. in the region. It is a beginning for removing current tensions and misunderstandings and establishing security and stability in the Persian Gulf.

Geopolitical expert talks of US plan to grab Saudi oil share from global market

TEHRAN,(MNA) – Anthony Cartalucci says it surely is no coincidence the US is targeting virtually every major energy producer from Iran, Venezuela, and Russia, but also including its own "allies" such as Saudi Arabia.

Following drone attacks on Saudi oil plants by Yemenis, the White House said on Saturday that the United States was committed to keeping oil markets well-supplied in the wake of an attack on Saudi Arabian oil plants by Yemen’s Houthi group.

many believe since the US has become a major oil producer in the world it is trying to grab the share of the major oil producing countries in global energy market by different tools like sanctioning and creating tensions. 

Sanctioning Iran, Russia and Venezuela in recent years can be interpreted in this context. To this end even the US is trying to grab its regional ally's share, Saudi Arabia.

To touch upon the issue we reached out to Bangkok- based geopolitical researcher Anthony Cartalucci. 

Referring to US real goal of creating tensions in the Persian Gulf and dragging Saudi Arabia to the quagmire of Yemen war, he said, "The US is positioning itself as an exporter of energy. However its gas and oil is more expensive to extract, process, and ship overseas. By disrupting existing major exporters and raising prices, the US is able to make its own exports more competitive. It surely is no coincidence the US is targeting virtually every major energy producer from Iran, Venezuela, and Russia, but also including its own "allies" such as Saudi Arabia."

He added, "The resulting conflict is also a huge boon for America's other major export - weapons."

Cartalucci went on to say,"The US has used Saudi Arabia as a pawn for decades - encouraging the worst and most unsustainable kinds economic and foreign policies, keeping them dependent on US protection and placing them directly at the center of US-driven conflict in the Middle East. 

In addition to the energy oriented implications of this recent incident - the attacks and how they are being exploited by the White House helps move forward Washington's plans to provoke wider conflict with Iran. The US has recently placed troops in Saudi Arabia and as it continues to ratchet up tensions with Iran, is creating a potential conflict that will consume not the US, its territory, people, and resources, but Saudi Arabia's and other Persian Gulf nations aligned with the US."

Commenting on the ways to tackle the tensions in the region, he noted,"As US power wanes, the ability for nations traditionally aligned with the US and the wider West have an opportunity to build ties with emerging global powers like China and re-emerging global powers like Russia. For example, while the US was "pivoting" toward Southeast Asia - the region itself made its own pivot toward China and other Eurasian powers. Nations once thought of as close US allies are now deeply invested in moving into the future as close Chinese and Russian allies. 

Another aspect of Southeast Asia's transformation out from under US primacy was the improvement of relations between nations pitted against one another by US interests. 

Saudi Arabia and other nations in the region currently suffering because of their "allied" status with the US must perform a similar "pivot." Just like in Southeast Asia, the Persian Gulf will benefit greatly if relations were improved between nations like Saudi Arabia and Iran. But also just like in Southeast Asia where the US targeted each and every nation escaping out from under its regional primacy with political instability, economic extortion, and even terrorism, the Persian Gulf will have to prepare for some hard times before its situation improves. Of course, the alterative is allowing the US to fight its regional allies down to the last Saudi, Emarati, and Qatari, leaving nations entirely broken."

Interview by Payman Yazdani

US might topple Saudi Arabia as the world's top oil exporter sooner than planned

Chairman of London Energy Club

TEHRAN, (MNA) – Commenting on recent drone attack on Saudi Aramco Mehmet Ogutcu says prior to this attack, the US was planning to double its crude oil exports to 9 million barrels per day by 2024. That means the US might topple Saudi Arabia as the world's top oil exporter sooner than planned.

Following drone attacks on Saudi oil plants, the White House said on Saturday that the United States was committed to keeping oil markets well-supplied in the wake of an attack on Saudi Arabian oil plants by Yemen.

According to some sources in Saudi Arabia, its return to full oil supply capacity after Saturday’s attacks on Aramco oil plants could take “weeks not days”.

An attack on Saudi oil facilities on Saturday is believed to have disrupted half the country’s production capacity, making the United States the only real holder of the global supply cushion via its ability to raise own output or to soften sanctions against other major oil producers.

Some believe that it surely is no coincidence the US is targeting virtually every major energy producer from Iran, Venezuela, and Russia, but also including its own "allies" such as Saudi Arabia.

We reached out to Mehmet Ogutcu, Chairman of London Energy Club to shed more light on the issue.

Referring to the drone attacks on Saudi oil plants, he said, “I believe that we have experienced the “Pearl Harbour of the oil industry” on 14 September. Saudi Aramco lost about 5.7 million barrels per day of output after 10 unmanned aerial vehicles struck the world’s biggest crude-processing facility in Abqaiq and the Kingdom’s second-biggest oil field in Khurais.”

“The drone attack, removing 5 percent of the global oil production, will be remembered as a watershed incident in the world oil history. Its impact will be severely felt not only for a few weeks when damaged Saudi oil installations will be repaired and crude supplies will start flowing again business as usual. The impact will be much longer. The world’s largest oil exporter is vulnerable and its air defense system has proven to be ineffective,” he added.

Ogutcu went on to say, “For oil markets, it is the single worst sudden disruption ever, and while Saudi Arabia may be able to return some supply within days, the attacks highlight the vulnerability of the world’s most important exporter. They also add further political risk to prices, raising the specter of more destabilization in the Middle East and the threat of US retaliation against Iran. Even, with a price that could easily double, the Saudi remaining exports will still earn amounts close to what they earned before.” 

Commenting on who are the most beneficiaries of the tension in the region, he mentioned, “The Russians will be great beneficiaries of this escalating crisis as they will earn much more per barrel on their oil and gas exports. Of course, the United States, now the largest exporter in the world, will also benefit greatly. Remember, prior to this attack, the US was planning to double its crude oil exports to 9 million barrels per day by 2024. That means the US might topple Saudi Arabia as the world's top oil exporter sooner than planned. 

The US is pointing a finger to Iran as behind this attack and said it would provide evidence. Traditional US allies are however not on-board. Geopolitics and great-power competition are playing a greater role these days, and while that may satisfy some narrow interests, it does not bode well for stable energy prices, or for the secure and dependable delivery of energy along global supply chains. 

Only China, which imports most of its crude from the Persian Gulf, will be financially hit at the tune of $1.1 billion for each dollar increase per barrel. Thus, except for China, few of the players will seek to defuse the situation, all feeling that they have little to lose and much to gain.  Hence, it would seem that the September 14 attack stands a strong chance of escalating into an all-out conflict.

The sanctions are already cutting $42 billion/year of oil exports from Iran’s economy. They have slashed Iran’s oil production and exports to historic lows. Before the US sanctions, Iran produced 3.8 million barrels/day and exported 2.5 million barrels. Oil made up 80% of Iran’s exports. The US ended sanctions waivers for major importers of Iranian oil in May 2019. Iran’s oil exports were down about 2 million barrels and oil production hit its lowest levels since the Iran-Iraq war.”

Regarding the Iran-Saudi Arabia relation in recent years, Ogutcu noted, “While Saudi Arabia supports economically squeezing the Iranian regime, they may not wish to see a war with Iran. While the context has changed in light of the weekend attack, the reasons have not. Saudi Arabia would find itself on the front line of an armed conflict, with Iran or its proxies to the east, south, and north. Such a conflict would also cripple plans for an Aramco IPO and would cause driving foreign investment from the country. 

Saudi Arabia has many long term reasons to showcase its resilience and de-escalate. Until now, Iran and Saudi Arabia were protected by the fear of mutual destruction of their main oil export assets, should one attack the other’s facilities. Now that the Iranians have lost most of their export capacity due to the sanctions, this fear of mutual destruction is no longer there. 

How Washington and Riyadh choose to respond (for now limited to rhetoric) will show exactly whether this is a flash in the pan or a step-change in Persian Gulf tensions.”

Interview by Zahra Mirzafarjouyan

Iranian Perspective: Sunset Of America’s Global Leadership With Part-Time Strategists

Trump’s doctrine “America first” was created to form a new one-polar system with the leadership of the U.S. and it was based on nullifying the interests of multilateralism in regular world relations.

Based on this doctrine, a U.S. defeated in domestic and foreign policies over the past presidential terms, should reconsider and rebuild relations with more profitability in order to revive the old hegemon and regain its lost title as world leader.

In the economic sector, Trump considered establishing ties towards more profit for the U.S. in bilateral relations, trying to build America’s foreign policy on bilateral ties and trade.

Trump was seeking profitable and guaranteed deals in foreign relations, to make which come true he resorted to the policy of fear and hope to gauge extraterritorial relations. He defined mid-term U.S. policies by presenting as inconsiderable the international pacts, conventions, and approaches.

This new American leadership spearheaded by Trump, with more media presentation than executive reality, when faced with the international structure, challenged China’s economy. When facing Russia, it discarded the INF pact. It also encouraged European countries to leave the EU, left the Paris agreement, and quit Iran’s nuclear deal with had four UN Security Council members and Germany as partner. Trump went so far as to call the UN costly and unproductive, calling for its removal from the U.S.

In the war of tariffs with china, the EU, and Japan, as well as his expansion of arms trade with Arab states of the Persian Gulf, Trump girdled his loins to place America’s political ties and economic relations on a basis which considered only “America first” as its approach and its defining rule.

In the process, disregard for international relations and considerations should have the least impact on earning more profits. In other words, if there were no more profitable trade in “one-way or multilateral” interactions, for Trump, such relationships would be meaningless.

With the start of Trump, countries with a global economy and trade had to part with Trump to maintain their global position and achievements. Taking advantage of this opportunity, Trump initiated unilateral policies based on specific relations with several major countries of the world, including Russia, China, India, Japan, Britain, and EU member states. But in the process of implementing this policy and excessive demands, he questioned all the arrangements and achievements of post-World War II agreements.

Trump and his assistants did not know that much could change in the world and were unaware of the profound impact of the intertwined interests and structures of world trade; they were more narcissistic than looking for accomplishments. For this reason, countries have challenged the Trump doctrine by emphasizing the continuity of the World Trade System and regional and transnational international agreements.

China, Germany, France, and Canada responded to U.S. tariff threats by brandishing their teeth and talking about countermeasures and braking the U.S. economy, which in the first two years of the Trump presidency flourished by creating economic challenges for the world’s major countries.

With the EU and China standing against Trump’s ambiguous economic policies, the U.S. has no choice but to withdraw or declare an economic war against China and the European Union. It is clear that continuing tariff strikes on the Chinese or EU economies could ruin the global economy led by the United States. For the United States, this is a fear of suicide.

Trump’s other feat was to ignore the powerful locked-in structure of the world system – to enter the world arena with a hollow fist – and to transform the monopoly world of today into a non-polar world. At present, America has no place in any political, economic, or military dimension after World War II.

By challenging the liberal order of the world economy and the uncertainties in world trade, Trump has equally affected U.S. foreign policy. Mistaken by repeated miscalculations and the use of “part-time strategists”, Trump was forced to engage in “short-term” U.S. foreign policy with the constant change in administration and government.

Engaging in “short-term strategies” has led to the elimination of strategic plans and goals, making the global view of the U.S. short-term, complicated, and questionable.

If Trump wins the 2020 presidential election, given the resistance of China and the European Union, the U.S. economy will be in a recession, forcing Trump to return to the WTO and its special regulations to exit a stagnant or even stagnant, costly recession, and make a choice, a reverse Brexit.

But if the United States is determined to return to world leadership, it must be able to prevent the division of the world into a bipolar or multipolar world. This would require serious trade confrontation with Europe and a cold war which would lead to a military confrontation with China and even Russia.

But countries around the world are well aware that the United States has always acted against multilateralism and at all costs is seeking to maintain American leadership. China, Russia, and the European Union have shown by their actions that they are ready to face future U.S. tensions that will continue even after Trump.

(Source: Eurasia Review)

U.S. move to form coalition in Persian Gulf ‘not feasible’: Japanese professor

By Negar Asadi

TEHRAN - Hisae Nakanishi, a professor of International Relations of the Middle East at Doshisha University in Japan, believes that the United States’ move to form a maritime coalition in the Persian Gulf is “unwise and even not feasible”.

“The U.S. hopes to encircle Iran by the cooperation with those states which the U.S. considers its allies in the Middle East and by pressuring Iran. I consider this U.S. move unwise and even not feasible. So far, a limited number of the states have joined the coalition and many other states are prudent not easily expressing their desire to join,” she tells the Tehran Times in an exclusive interview.

Nakanishi says this decision by the U.S. is not isolated from a series of the Washington’s unilateral actions.  

“It started from withdrawal from the JCPOA [the official name for the 2015 nuclear deal] in May 2018.  The U.S. major objective is to increase tension in the Persian Gulf that serves for Trump’s gaining more votes for the 2020 Presidential Election,” she said.

Nakanishi also said that it is a wise decision by major countries who have refused to join the coalition, noting supporting such a coalition means supporting “illegality in international law”.

“It is a wise decision that major countries such as Japan and Germany have refrained from participating in the coalition.”
“It is wise for the major countries to have refrained from joining the coalition including Japan and Germany. The current tension in the region started from the U.S. breaching international law by abandoning the JCPOA.  Thus, participation in the coalition has a serious ramification: it would mean to support the illegality in international law,” she stated.

She added, “As Prime Minister Abe of Japan clearly stated during his visit to Iran in June and at the time of the latest G7, Japan does not hope to see conflict in the Persian Gulf and hopes that Iran plays a constructive role in securing peace in the region. Moreover, the participation of Japan’s Self Defense Army is not legally supported in Japan’s constitution. It goes without saying that Japan and Iran have historically maintained a good relationship. So, it was a natural decision for Japan not to join the coalition.”

Commenting on participation of Israel, the UK and Australia in the coalition, she said what is important for those states is to express their support for the U.S.

“As a matter of fact, it is not clear to what extent Israel will commit itself to the coalition.  It expressed to cooperate with U.S. only for collecting information.  Yet, what is important for those states is to express their support for the U.S. policy. Israel is likely to continuously fire into Lebanon’s Hezbollah. Yet, this does not mean that it deploys its military in the Persian Gulf with other coalition states. It is not new in the case of the UK and Australia.  Both UK and Australia have already played a crucial role in their intervention in Afghanistan and again in Iraq by participating in the U.S.-led coalition in their war against Saddam,” she explained.

The professor added, “What matters most is the political and military implication of the coalition formation.  The U.S. has its allied states in the Persian Gulf such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.  Thus, the coalition making is for the sake of the U.S. enhancing its leverage toward these countries.  On the other hand, the more tense the Persian Gulf situation gets, the more weapons and fighter jets those allied states buy from the U.S.”

“The coalition is aimed at increasing military tension (in the Persian Gulf).”
“The UK is also among other weapon sale states in the Middle East.  The coalition making actually serves such an economic interest of the U.S. These circumstances considered, the U.S. primary goal in the coalition making is to increase the military tension, not really is presuming to engage in the military act in the region at this point. Overall, the fact that not many states have joined the coalition suggests decline of the U.S. power in the Middle East,” opined the professor of Doshisha University.

The United States has called on its European and Asian allies to form a maritime force to supposedly monitor safe shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and Persian Gulf.

So far, only Britain, Australia and Bahrain have agreed to join the coalition.