What is Iran's message in Sadr meeting with Khamenei?

Ali Mamouri

Shortly after Iraqi Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr appeared Sept. 10 in the presence of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani, Khamenei's official website published several photos of the scene, showing Sadr submitting to Khamenei by putting his hand on his chest and looking up at him.

Sadr was seated with Soleimani to his left, both on a cushion on the floor, and Khamenei to his right, on a chair; Maj. Gen. Hossein Salami, the commander-in-chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, sat next to Soleimani. This setting was intended to send a message to Iran's opponents in the region that Sadr is an essential element of the resistance axis, of which Khamenei is leader and Soleimani military commander.

Kayhan, a hard-line Iranian newspaper close to Khamenei, reported on the bigger picture of what had transpired at the Tehran assembly commemorating the third Shiite Imam Hussein Ibn Ali. In a piece titled, “Resistance axis is on the rise while the enemy is falling,” it introduced Sadr as Iran's third pillar in the region side by side with Lebanon’s Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and Yemen’s Ansar Allah leader Abdul-Malik Badreddin al-Houthi.

The article also quoted several tweets from Iranian social media activists: “Trump, Netanyahu and King Salman know the meaning of this picture better than anyone else”; “Sadr entered Imam Khomenei Hussainia [congegration hall], Bolton left the White House”; and “Sadr's meeting with Khamenei is another strike at the Western-Hebrew-Arab ominous triangle [United States, Israel and Saudi Arabia].”

Khamenei's Sept. 10 assembly, part of a 10-day commemoration event on the occasion of the martyrdom in battle of the Imam Hussein, a grandson of the Prophet Muhammad, is not only a religious gathering, but also a political show conveying messages to local and international audiences. The day before the assembly, a religious singer (Maddah) sang a poem, in the presence of Khamenei, against the Saudis, slamming them for attacking Yemen and calling the Houthis the soldiers of God who could "destroy Satan's devil horns," in reference to the Saudi royal family.

In addition to sending a message to its regional opponents with the Sept. 10 meeting, Iran has been reorganizing its forces in Iraq. Iran's traditional forces in Iraq, which include a group of Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) factions, gathered under the umbrella of the Fatah parliamentary bloc and Nouri al-Maliki's Dawa party, do not seem powerful enough in Iraq's political scene.

Following the series of attacks against PMU bases, its factions have been divided into two: One group is getting closer to Iran and the other is distancing itself from Iran. Moreover, many of the PMU factions have been involved in corruption, alcohol and drug smuggling, gambling and other illegal activities.

The Dawa party also has been divided into a pro-Iranian group led by Maliki and a US-friendly group led by Haider al-Abadi.

Under these circumstances, no one is more trustworthy than Sadr who leads the largest parliamentary bloc, the Sairoon Alliance, and Saraya al-Salam, a constant and powerful military faction.

An Iranian source close to Ali Akbar Velayati, Khamenei's senior adviser on international affairs, told Al-Monitor that although Sadr would never fully submit to Iran, Khamenei's administration looks at him as a strong trustworthy ally with genuine anti-US sentiments that can assure Iraq will remain a strategic ally of Iran.

“A strong ally with some differences is a better and long-lasting ally than a weak and divided one,” said the source, referring to Iran's traditional allies among the Dawa party and PMU factions.

It seems that Sadr also has the same view about working with Iran. In a Sept. 13 tweet, he addressed Iraq's politicians, writing, “Your corruption will not last long,” implying that a big change is coming to the political scene in Iraq.

By attending the Sept. 10 assembly in Tehran, Sadr has shown his support for the Iranians in this difficult time, emphasizing that Iran is a great player in the region with powerful flexibility and pragmatism. At the same time, Sadr is getting support from the Iranians for his future moves in Iraqi politics. Following Sadr’s meeting with Khameini and Soleimani, none of the Iranian actors in Iraq, including the PMU factions, can accuse Sadr of an anti-Iranian agenda, as happened in the past few years.

Sadr will continue his independent and nationalistic discourse, expanding his influence in the Iraqi government, but without objections from Iran-backed groups in Iraq. In the end, Iran is unconcerned about Iraq becoming a US or Saudi ally under Sadr's influence.

Despite all these indicators showing bilateral rapprochement between Iran and Sadr, their honeymoon is not expected to last long due to the changeability of Sadr and complexity of Iraqi politics with so many actors with different tendencies.

Ali Mamouri is Al-Monitor's Iraq Pulse Editor and a researcher and writer who specializes in religion. He is a former teacher in Iranian universities and seminaries in Iran and Iraq. He has published several articles related to religious affairs in the two countries and societal transformations and sectarianism in the Middle East.

US Sanctions Are Acts of War

TEHRAN (FNA)- In great violation of UN Charter and international law, and with no international accountability, the United States is currently engaged in illegal and comprehensive economic blockades against Iran, North Korea and Venezuela, as well as several lesser blockades against countries such as Cuba and Nicaragua, and an intensifying effort to cut off China's access to technology.

The blockade against North Korea is sanctioned, at least in part, by the UN Security Council. The blockade against Iran is in direct opposition to the Security Council. And the blockade against Venezuela is so far without Security Council engagement for or against. 

The US is attempting to isolate the three countries from almost all international trade, causing shortages of food, medicines, energy, and spare parts for basic infrastructure, including the water supply and power grid. This is because they are not on the same page as Washington in regional matters.

The North Korean blockade operates mainly through UN-mandated sanctions, and includes a comprehensive list of exports to North Korea, imports from North Korea, and financial relations with North Korean entities.
The UN Food and Agriculture Organization reports that ten million North Koreans are at risk of hunger, partly owing to sanctions.

The..."negative impact sanctions can have on agricultural production, through both direct and indirect impacts, cannot be ignored," the FAO warns. "The most obvious are restrictions on the importation of certain items that are necessary for agricultural production, in particular fuel, machinery and spare parts for equipment."

The draconian US sanctions on Venezuela have come in two phases. The first, beginning in August 2017, was mainly directed at the state oil company PDVSA, the country's main earner of foreign exchange; the second round of sanctions, imposed in January 2019, was more comprehensive, targeting the Venezuelan government. 

A recent detailed analysis of the first round of sanctions shows their devastating impact. The US sanctions gravely exacerbated economic mismanagement, contributing to a catastrophic fall in oil production, hyperinflation, economic collapse, hunger, and rising mortality.

US illegal sanctions against Iran have been in place more or less continuously since 1979. The most recent and by far most draconian measures, introduced in August 2018 and intensified in the first half of this year, aim to cut Iran off from foreign trade.

The US illegal sanctions are in direct contravention of UN Security Council Resolution 2231, which endorsed the 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran. The effects have been inhumane.

One might expect that other countries would easily circumvent these illegal sanctions. But the US has threatened to punish foreign companies that violate the sanctions and has used the dollar's global clout as a bludgeon, threatening to sanction foreign banks that finance trade with Iran. 

European companies have fallen into line, despite the European Union's political support for the UN resolution and nuclear deal with Iran. The history of the past 40 years shows that over the longer term, more ways will be found to circumvent the sanctions, using renminbi, ruble, or euro financing.

Despite the intense economic pain inflicted on North Korea, Venezuela, and Iran, none of them has succumbed to US demands. In this sense, sanctions have proved to be no more successful than military intervention. 

North Korea has maintained, and most likely is expanding, its nuclear arsenal. The Iranian government rejects US demands concerning its missile program and foreign policies. And Venezuela's President Nicolás Maduro remains in power.

The US blockades have been carried out by presidential decrees and mostly on the basis of congressional ratifications and oversight. Yet under President Trump, this has been a one-man show, even more so than in the case of president-led wars, which trigger vastly more public scrutiny. Trump realizes that he can impose sanctions abroad with virtually no political or international accountability.

Military blockades are acts of war, and therefore subject to international law, including UN Security Council oversight. America's economic blockades are similar in function and outcome to military blockades, with inhumane consequences for civilian populations, and risk provoking war. It is time for the Security Council to take up the US sanctions regimes and economic terrorism and weigh them against the requirements of international law and peacekeeping.

War's Unanswered Questions

For those who already know that war is not only hell but utterly futile, the raw question hovering over these potential new exercises in mass murder transcends the obvious question: How can they be stopped?

by

Robert C. Koehler

Why is war a top-down directive rather than a collective, public decision? (Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

“Over these last few years, given the wars it has waged and the international treaties it has arbitrarily reneged on, the U.S. government perfectly fits its own definition of a rogue state.” — Arundhati Roy

You have the world’s largest military, you’re going to use it, right? Donald Trump and his team, led by National Insecurity Advisor John Bolton, are playing rogue right now with two countries not currently under U.S. control, Iran and Venezuela.

For those who already know that war is not only hell but utterly futile, the raw question hovering over these potential new exercises in mass murder transcends the obvious question: How can they be stopped? The larger question begins with the word “why” and then breaks into a thousand pieces.

Why is war the first — and seemingly the only — resort in so many national disagreements? Why is our trillion-dollar annual military budget sacrosanct? Why do we not learn from history that wars are based on lies?

Why is war the first — and seemingly the only — resort in so many national disagreements? Why is our trillion-dollar annual military budget sacrosanct? Why do we not learn from history that wars are based on lies? Why does the corporate media always hop aboard the “next” war (whatever it is) with such enthusiasm, with so little skepticism? Why does patriotism seem to require belief in an enemy? Why do we still have nuclear weapons? Why (as journalist Colman McCarthy once asked) are we violent but not illiterate?

Let’s take a look at bad, bad Iran. As CNN recently reported:

“National Security Adviser John Bolton said in a written statement Sunday that the U.S. is not seeking war with Iran, but was deploying the USS Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group as well as a bomber task force to the US Central Command region in the Middle East ‘to send a clear and unmistakable message to the Iranian regime that any attack on United States interests or on those of our allies will be met with unrelenting force.’”

And Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, addressing the issue with disconcerting and unintentional candor, told reporters, according to CNN, “What we’ve been trying to do is to get Iran to behave like a normal nation.”

How would a “normal nation” respond to endless threats and sanctions? Sooner or later it would hit back. Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, speaking recently in New York, explained it thus: “The plot is to push Iran into taking action. And then use that.”

Use it, in other words, as the excuse to go to war.

And going to war is a political game, a decision made or not made by a few important individuals — Bolton, Pompeo, Trump — while the general public looks on either in support or outrage, but either way as spectators. This phenomenon provokes an enormous, unasked “why?” Why is war a top-down directive rather than a collective, public decision? But I guess the answer to that question is obvious: We couldn’t go to war that wasn’t pre-orchestrated by a small group of powerful individuals. All the public has to do is . . . pretty much, nothing.

Elham Pourtaher, an Iranian going to school in New York state, makes this plea for heightened awareness: “U.S. civil society needs to include more global perspectives on the country’s foreign policy. U.S. citizens must become more aware that their votes have grave consequences beyond their country’s borders. . . . (Their) elected administration’s foreign policy is a matter of life and death for the citizens of the other countries, especially in the Middle East.”

She also notes that “the war has already begun. U.S. sanctions are producing a level of suffering comparable to that of wartime. Sanctions in fact are a war waged by the United States against the Iranian working- and middle-classes. These groups struggle to make ends meet as unemployment dramatically increases even as the inflation rate skyrockets. The same people that the Trump administration is pretending to want to set free are the ones that are hit hardest by current U.S. policies in the Middle East.”

The ones gaining empowerment from the U.S. war games are “the most undemocratic factions of the Iranian state.”

And, oh yeah, the ones gaining empowerment from the U.S. war games are “the most undemocratic factions of the Iranian state.” This is how it always works. Hostile aggression begets hostile aggression. A war on terror begets terror. Why do we not know this yet?

At the very least, the provocations, including the fact that Trump is considering sending troops to the area, have “created a scenario in which everyone is now very worried that some form of an accidental war at a minimum is very likely because you have too many U.S. forces and Iranian forces into too small of an area,” Trita Parsi, founder of the National Iranian American Council, said in a recent interview.

Human society is organized in such a way that war, intentional or accidental, is inevitable on a regular basis. And in the run-up to these wars, only the smallest questions are asked by the media, centering around: Is this one justified? If something sufficiently provocative is done by the enemy — North Vietnam attacks a U.S. ship in the Tonkin Gulf, Iraq purchases aluminum tubes — then “we have no choice” but to retaliate on a massive scale.

The large questions only come later, such as this cry from a Syrian woman in the wake of allied air strikes on the city of Raqqa, quoted in an Amnesty International report:

“I saw my son die, burnt in the rubble in front of me. I’ve lost everyone who was dear to me. My four children, my husband, my mother, my sister, my whole family. Wasn’t the goal to free the civilians? They were supposed to save us, to save our children.”

Middle East peace hopes fade further as US confronts Iran

Turkey has just warned the US that it could be ‘dangerous’ to persist on a confrontational course with Iran on issues growing out of the nuclear deal the latter entered into with a section of the world community some years back and the impartial observer is likely to agree with this view. This is on account of the fact that Iran is a major actor in Middle East politics and no efforts in the direction of Middle East peace could be thought of without Iran’s participation.

The impression that the Trump administration is currently ‘spoiling for a fight’ with Iran is lent some credence from the realization on the part of the international community that Iran has generally kept to its side of the bargain on the issue of de-nuclearization. However, President Trump insists on the opposite and this could amount to being on a headlong collision course with Iran, which is a number one military power in the Middle East. Thus, have the seeds been sown by the US for a possible regional war.

To understand this conflictual situation to a greater degree, contemporary developments in this connection may need to be viewed from a historical perspective. A good kick-off point for this inquiry would be some of Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s recent pronouncements on US-Iran relations which went thus:’The challenge between the US and Iran has lasted for 40 years so far and the US made various efforts against us; military, economic and media warfare…….in this 40-year challenge, the defeated is the US and the victorious is the Islamic republic.’

Successive conservative US administrations have viewed Iran as a kind of international archetypal enemy and the basis for such stereotyping began with the advent in the US of the Ronald Reagan administration in the early eighties. The Islamic Revolution of Iran explosively emerged in 1979 and it was habitual for some of Iran’s rulers to characterize the US as ‘the Great Satan’. One of the reasons for this seemingly implacable hostility towards the US was the latter’s staunch support for repressive regimes in Iran, prior to the Islamic Revolution, such as the government of Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi, which dominated the decade of the seventies in Iran.

These monarchies were backed militarily and otherwise by the US for strategic and economic reasons down the decades and the US came to be lumped by influential opinion in Iran with the then highly anti-Islamic, Westernized and decadent sections in Iran which were hostile towards the revolution and Islamic thought and culture, as conceived by radical elements which spearheaded the revolution of 1979. Hence the ‘Great Satan’ label.

For conservative/Republican administrations in the US, on the other hand, Islamic Iran is a sworn enemy that should be disempowered and kept in its place. Beginning with President Reagan down to President Trump, Islamic Iran is the stereotypical ‘Other’ in the international political system that ought to be brought to heel. It has taken the place of the Soviet Union of the Cold War years that should be fought at every conceivable level and relegated to the lowest rungs of the world power order.

As was the case with the Soviet Union, Islamic Iran, projected as a foremost international enemy by conservative US administrations, is a chief means by which Right wing US Presidents garner for themselves the majority ‘white’ vote. The tactic is to exploit the collective fears of the racial majority. This trend is pronounced in the present under President Trump, for whom the rallying cry ‘America First’ could in no way be compromised.

It would not be irrelevant to recall in this context that the ‘demonizing’ of international enemies reached one of its highest points in the President George Bush Jnr. years when in his State of the Union address in January 2002 Bush picked on Iran, Iraq and North Korea as making-up an ‘Axis of Evil’ which should be fought and put down by the US. ‘Importing terrorism’ and helping to proliferate ‘Weapons of Mass Destructions’ were two charges levelled at this ‘Evil Axis’.

Considering that there is a history of highly hostile ties between the US and Iran, it should not come as a surprise if today these relations have soured seemingly irrevocably. Indeed, these hostilities are now 40 years or more old.

However, the policy of multilateralism and international engagement has never been relegated to so low a level of irrelevance by the US as it is today. It is the policy concomitant of the Trump administration’s ‘America First’ slogan. In such a situation, Realpolitik considerations take the place of value-based international politics and these realities define the present in international relations.

But international politics without humanistic principles could set the stage for endemic friction among adversarial countries, which, in turn, could degenerate into armed conflict and war. Has this possibility been lost sight of by the Trump administration? By no means because Trump is not at all averse to making ‘America First’ at whatever cost.

This point came to the fore at the height the Kashogghi crisis. When asked whether in the light of the possible Saudi involvement in this incident, the US would refrain from supplying arms to Saudi Arabia, Trump dismissed the suggestion on account of the number of US jobs that would be lost in the event of an arms embargo on the Saudis. Once again, the US armaments industry must be kept going.

Anyway, in the US perspective, Iran has to be fought even by proxy means and relegated to the status of a military non-entity. Since perceived Iranian influence in the Middle East could be contained by arming Saudi Arabia, this arming process of regional allies must continue. Likewise, Israel must be supported at any cost and accordingly, Iran must be brought to heel.

Needless to say, such a situation sets the stage for a continuation of the present armed hostilities in the Middle East and adjacent regions. All concerned are likely to remain losers.

How Sanctions on Iran Evoke American Unilateralism

The economic sanctions weapon which the US employs against independent countries seems to have assumed greater and more unjust proportions vis-à-vis the Islamic Republic of Iran, because of its commitment to international laws and its refusal to bow to American threats.

The following is an article in this regard by Indian Political Science Expert Manoj Kumar Mishra for Asia Times, titled: “How Sanctions on Iran Evoke American Unilateralism”.

The imposition of unremitting sanctions on Iran by the Trump administration pressures countries – because of their vulnerabilities to the American-dominated financial system – to end oil imports from Tehran. The fresh sanctions coming into effect on November 4 invoke a sense of American unilateralism, particularly in light of Washington’s refusal to accept the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

It is noteworthy that the ICJ, responding to an Iranian petition, ruled that Washington must ensure its sanctions do not affect humanitarian aid or civil aviation safety. Reacting to this, the US withdrew from an ICJ protocol and pulled out of the 1955 Treaty of Amity with Iran.

Washington sees its withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal, the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) and the imposition of fresh sanctions as the only way to end the Iran’s growing influence in the region, missile defense technology and other development activities.

Iran has been accused by the US of being involved in what Washington alleges “malign activities” such as backing the legal government of President Bashar Assad of Syria, as well as support for liberation movements such as Hezbollah and Hamas – in Lebanon and Palestine respectively. However, it is fanciful thinking that sanctions could be targeted at the government without hurting the Iranian population.

The American sanctions on Iran are unilateral because they have not been endorsed by the other parties involved. The European allies of the US are inclined to continue business as usual with Iran, much like Russia and China. As per reports, they perceive more danger arising from the American sanctions, which they argue would make Iran to continue its nuclear program.

Further, European countries are not willing to accept the collateral damage that the trade sanctions on Iran would inflict on them. The European countries are reportedly devising ways to work around the US dollar-dominated financial and banking system. They are also willing to engage with Iran in trade and commerce through barter transactions that could eliminate the need to rely on traditional methods.

It is clear that the process of arriving at the decision to increase sanctions on Iran was a unilateral move made without any US effort to persuade other countries to support it. European countries are not convinced of its merits, and Russia and China are suspicious of the American motive underlying its withdrawal from the nuclear deal and the imposition of fresh sanctions despite Tehran’s adherence to the guidelines of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Because the deal was effective with Tehran’s consent to reduce its uranium enrichment, the US move is bound to make American policies in West Asia appear suspect.

US policymakers need to understand that Washington is not operating in a unipolar world where everything can be designed according to its policies. On the other hand, the American unilateral approach is likely to face stiff resistance from the prevailing complicated international system.

It is worth recalling that around the time then-president George W Bush included Iran in his “Axis of Evil” State of the Union address in January 2002, the European Union foreign ministers reached an agreement to open talks with Iran on a trade and cooperation pact in June of the same year. The Sheer Energy Company of Canada agreed to a US$80 million development project with the National Iranian Oil Company notwithstanding the American objection to it. The American decision to go to war in Iraq caused friction between the US and European allies such as Germany and France.

From a geopolitical perspective, Iran not only provides the shortest and cheapest pipeline route to transfer Central Asian energy resources to the world market, it also aspires to become a regional economic power by facilitating oil and gas transit, as well as integrating its market with the landlocked Central Asian region.

However, Washington sought to deprive Tehran of that privileged role and quickly invigorated its efforts to discuss proposals for alternative pipeline routes with Central Asian states such as the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline through Turkey and the TAP pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan through Afghanistan, which became TAPI later with India joining the project. Both routes were planned to bypass Iran and Russia.

The imposition of stringent American sanctions on Iran can be construed as a geopolitical move to marginalize Iran in energy politics by preventing it from laying down the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline. It is noteworthy that in February, the Trump administration began laying the US-funded Trans-Afghan pipeline, which is being pursued within the rubric of the “peace pipeline” project.

Iran is coordinating its efforts in Syria with Russia to strengthen the government of President Assad, and the alleged Iranian role in bolstering Sunni groups such as Hamas in Palestine points to the fact that Tehran wants to enhance its support-base, cutting across religious and ethnic lines to challenge US regional hegemony.

It seems that the Iran-US stand-off in Afghanistan, as well as other areas ranging from the West Asian to the Central Asian region, will likely continue so long as Washington does not recognize Iranian claims in the expanded region and Tehran refused to bow to American hegemonic ambitions.

Trump’s big challenges in re-imposing new sanctions on Iran

TEHRAN, Sep. 04 (MNA) – US President Donald Trump has faced big challenges in re-imposition of sanctions against Iran such as lack of support from its allies and modern financial technologies, the issue of which causes new US sanctions to be not as effective as the previous batch of sanctions imposed on Iran.

Since new round of US sanctions on Iran is not as effective as the previous batch of sanctions, a perfect opportunity has arose for the Islamic Republic of Iran in order to neutralize these sanctions using its maximum capability and potential.

In Oct. 2017, US President Donald Trump asserted that he will not confirm and approve Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Iran’s official nuclear title. In May 2018, Trump announced that he will pull US out of JCPOA and now, about four months have passed since the US withdrawal.

During this period, experts and specialists in former- and current US administration have said that new US sanctions on Iran would not be as effective as the previous sanctions. In some cases, they have warned that the Trump's era could be the last time that US sanctions have taken effect due to Trump's inexpert and inappropriate use of the sanctions regime. Some other experts believe that US re-imposition of sanctions on Iran can cost dearly for the US economy.

Accordingly, by reviewing specialized and expert-level statements of US officials working in the field of sanctions, three reasons can be cited for the ineffectiveness of sanctions as mentioned in this report.

Lack of support from US allies and partners for Iran sanctions

The first reason for ineffectiveness of sanctions, that has been stressed by American experts, is the lack of support of US allies and its partners on Iran sanctions, because, the United States has no direct trade and business relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran. To exert maximum pressure on Iran, it is essential that countries that have extensivetrade and business relations with Iran should support and follow US in this regard.

In this line, Daniel Glaser former US Undersecretary of Treasury for Countering Financing Terrorism (CFT) believes that sanctions are merely an instrument. On the contrary, despite US serious remarks, American goals and objectives are unclear in this regard. Even the strategy that the United States is set to achieve through these goals is uncertain. Punitive economic pressure against the Islamic Republic of Iran will have a serious and destructive effect. But sanctions will always be more effective when implemented by many countries. As a result, it can be said that America’s growing isolation from its old allies could be more detrimental.

Richard Nephew also said about the impact of US oil sanctions on Iran that a more difficult challenge would be when Iran’s export of oil is sanctioned in November. At that time, large energy companies that leave Iran would be replaced by smaller ones that could potentially receive waiver from US sanctions in order to remain active in the Islamic Republic. Therefore, replacing large European firms with smaller ones can mitigate the impact of sanctions in the long run.

On the other hand, Elizabeth Rosenberg, former senior US Adviser on sanction-related issues at the US Treasury Department and Peter E. Harrel, former deputy assistant secretary for counter threat finance and sanctions in the US State Department’s Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs, are of the view that Trump’s use of sanctions may be unsustainable as the US President risks undermining and weakening his most powerful policy.

They pointed to the worrying cases that may hamper the effectiveness of US sanctions on Iran.

The two pointed to the first troubling sign, which is the lack of support from US allies and partners for the imposition of sanctions on Iran. They said that the first worrying sign is that "Trump’s aggressive use of sanctions is straining cooperation with allies. While the United States has more sanctions leverage than any other country, the reality is that U.S. sanctions have powerful bite when allies apply coordinated, parallel measures. This is particularly true of sanctions targets such as Iran and Russia that have deeper economic ties with other countries than they do with the United States. European and Asian cooperation was essential to success of the oil sanctions on Iran between 2012 and 2015, since the United States did not purchase Iranian oil."

So, the unilateral move and lack of cooperation from US allies is one of the factors that will slow down the effectiveness of sanctions, because, their support is needed for the effectiveness of sanctions on the energy sector as US partners and allies are major buyers of Iranian oil.

In this regard, according to a report released in the first four months of the current year (started March 21, 2018), Trade Promotion Organization of Iran (TPOI) and the Ministry of Industry, Mine and Trade named China, Iraq, India, Turkey, Pakistan, Oman and Russia as Iran’s top 10 export and import target markets respectively which will not agree with the US sanctions.

Modern Financial Technologies

The most challenging part of US sanctions for Iran is the US financial system, so that US can hinder transfer of Iranian oil revenues using dollar and Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT). On the other hand, US dollar and SWIFT can identify banks, financial institutions and the companies that work and cooperate with the Islamic Republic of Iran.

In this relation, many countries have been using independent financial messaging systems for years and the use of modern financial technologies such as ‘Block chain’ has boomed in recent years.

Accordingly, many domestic experts also acknowledge that use of modern financial technologies such as ‘Block Chain’ and independent financial messaging system as well as bilateral and multilateral monetary pacts are considered as the most effective ways to circumvent US financial sanctions and these cases are of the biggest challenges for the effectiveness of US sanctions on Iran.

With due observance to the said issue, moving out of US financial system and lack of using foreign exchange as well as independent financial messaging systems have been cited as the prerequisite of frustrating US in re-imposition of financial sanctions against Iran.

The internal structure of US government

Inefficient and disrupted structure of US internal system is one of the other issues that has been mentioned in statements of US experts as a potential reason for the inefficiency of US sanctions on Iran.

Rosenberg and Harrel refer to US internal structures as the third troubling sign of sanctions unsustainability, maintaining that "sanctions depend on human capital — the talented women and men across the US government who analyze targets, develop regulations, and work with allies to craft broad-based financial pressure campaigns. There has always been high turnover among sanctions staff, given the demanding workload and pull of lucrative private sector job offers. But the frenzied pace, with no additional resources, and hasty reversal of sanctions implementation conducted over the last several years on Iran, Cuba, and Russia, pushes more bureaucrats toward the door."

US sanctions can be made ‘ineffective’

Given the statements of members of former and current government of US sanctions team and also monitoring the trend of developments since US pullout from JCPOA up to the present time, it can be concluded that there are triple challenges in exertion of US sanctions. On the other hand, the US government has faced these challenges and it is possible to assess the formation of a special Action Group under Brian Hook.

In his introduction ceremony, Brian Hook pointed to the two main missions of Iran Action Group as follows: organizing and coordinating organizations inside the US government, launching diplomatic consultations as well as coordinating with the foreign partners for Iran’s sanctions.

Therefore, US government is seeking to pursue its strategic game before the resumption of oil sanctions in Nov. 2018.

For this reason, it is necessary that the Iranian government try to use its high diplomacy potentials to neutralize the impact of sanctions.

Economic war on Iran is war on Eurasia integration

US sanctions on Iran should be interpreted as a piece in a much larger chessboard, says Brazilian analyst Pepe Escobar in his investigative article for Asia Times, titled: “Economic war on Iran is war on Eurasia integration”.

Hysteria reigned supreme after the first round of US sanctions were reinstated against Iran over the past week, yet the key aspect of the economic war unleashed by the Trump administration has been overlooked.

The US sanctions offensive, launched after Washington’s unilateral pullout from the Iran nuclear deal, should be interpreted as an advance gambit in the New Great Game at whose center lies China’s New Silk Road – arguably the most important infrastructure project of the 21st century — and overall Eurasia integration.

The Trump administration’s maneuvers are a testament to how China’s New Silk Road, or Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), worry the US establishment.

On closer look we find Eurasian integration on the rise. Eurasian integration is on display in Astana, where Russia, Iran and Turkey are deciding the fate of Syria, in coordination with Damascus.

Iran’s strategic depth in post-war Syria simply won’t vanish. The challenge of Syrian reconstruction will be met largely by President Bashar al-Assad’s allies: China, Russia and Iran.

Echoing the Ancient Silk Road, Syria will be configured as an important BRI node, key to Eurasia integration.

In parallel, the Russia-China strategic partnership – from the intersection between the BRI and the Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU) to the expansion of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and the solidifying of BRICS Plus — has immense economic stakes in the stability of Iran.

The complex interconnection of Iran with both Russia (via the EAEU and the International North-South Transportation Corridor) and China (via BRI and oil/gas supplies) is even tighter than in the case of Syria in the past seven years of civil war.

Iran is absolutely essential for Russia-China for the partnership to allow any “surgical strike” — as floated in Syria — or worse, hot war initiated by Washington.

A case could be made that with his recent overture to President Putin, President Trump is trying to negotiate some sort of freeze in the current configuration — a remixed Sykes-Picot for the 21st century.

But that assumes Trump’s decision-making is not being dictated or co-opted by the US neocon cabal that pressed for the 2003 war in Iraq.

If the situation turns volcanic when the US oil sanctions on Iran kick in by early November, an actual remix of the recent North Korea scenario would be in the cards. Washington simultaneously sent three carrier battle groups to terrify North Korea. That failed – and Trump ended up having to chat with Kim Jong-un.

Despite the US record around the world — endless threats of a Venezuela invasion with the only tangible result an amateurish, failed drone attack; 17 years of endless war in Afghanistan, with the Taliban still as immovable as the Hindu Kush peaks; the “4+1” – Russia, Syria, Iran, Iraq, plus Lebanon’s Hezbollah – winning the war in Syria — US neocons scream and shout about striking Iran.

As with North Korea, Russia and China will send unmistakable signs that Iran is in their closely coordinated Eurasian sphere of influence, and any attack on Iran will be considered an attack on the whole Eurasian sphere.

Stranger things have happened, but it’s hard to see any rational actors in Washington, Tel Aviv and Riyadh wishing to have Beijing and Moscow — simultaneously — as lethal enemies.

All across Southwest Asia, there are no doubts the official Trump administration – and in fact, the whole Beltway – policy on Iran is change of government, as if the Islamic Republic is a pushover.

So from now on, short of hot war, the new rules of the game spell out stepped-up cyber-warfare.

From Washington’s point of view, in terms of return on investment that’s a relative bargain; cyber-warfare keeps the Russia-China partnership away from direct involvement while in theory digging deeper into what they envisage the economic collapse of Iran, heavily advertised as imminent by Trump administration officials.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry could not be more explicit on the US effort to re-impose sanctions on Iran. It said: “China’s commercial cooperation with Iran is open and transparent, reasonable, fair and lawful, not violating any United Nations Security Council resolutions.”

That echoes the Russian Foreign Ministry on the US sanctions: “This is a graphic example of Washington’s continued violation of UN Security Council Resolution 2231 and trampling upon the norms of international law.”

Trump for his part has resorted to threats, saying any nation that violates the sanctions against Iran will not do business with the US.

Good luck with having support from Turkey or Qatar – completely dependent on Iran for food, use of civilian airspace and sharing gas exploration in South Pars. Not to mention Russia-China assuring Tehran’s back on all fronts.

The die is cast. China not only will continue but also will increase its purchase of Iranian oil and gas. The Chinese auto industry – currently with 10% of the Iranian market – will simply take over as the French leave. Chinese companies are already responsible for 50% of auto parts imported into Iran.

Russia for its part has pledged to invest as much as $50 billion in Iranian oil and natural gas. Moscow is very much aware of the Trump administration’s next possible step; imposing sanctions on Russian companies investing in Iran.

Washington simply can’t “not do business” with China. The entire US defense industry is dependent on China for rare earth materials. Since the 1980s, US multinationals set up their export supply chains in China with direct encouragement of the US government.

The EU for its part has enforced a Blocking Statute – never used before, although in existence for already two decades — to protect European companies, even coming to the point of imposing fines on businesses that pull out of Iran because of plain fear.

In theory, that shows some guts. And yet, as EU diplomats in Brussels told Asia Times, there’s a major conditional: US satrapies/vassals abound across the EU, so quite a few EU-based companies, as in the case of Total and Renault, in the end, will simply roll over.

Meanwhile, what Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said about US unilateralism – the world “is sick and tired” of it – keeps echoing all across the Global South.

This means any wrong move by the US to take military action will result in the unleashing of the ‘Mother of All Financial Hurricanes’.

Those clamoring for war with Iran cannot possibly understand that the nightmare scenario of a Strait of Hormuz/Persian Gulf energy transit closure – the choke point for 22 million barrels of oil a day – would represent, ultimately, the death of the petrodollar.

The Strait of Hormuz can be configured as the Achilles heel of the entire West/US economic power; a closure would detonate the mother of all hurricanes in the quadrillion-dollar derivatives market.

Unless China does not buy Iranian energy, US sanctions — as a geo-economic tool — are essentially meaningless.

Certainly not, of course, for the “Iranian people” so dear to the Beltway, as more day-to-day financial grief is already setting in, side by side with a sense of national cohesiveness in the face, once again, of an external threat.

China and Russia have already pledged to continue to implement the JCPOA, alongside the EU-3; after all, this is an UN-endorsed multilateral treaty.

Beijing has already informed Washington in no uncertain terms that it will continue to do business with Iran. So the ball is now in Washington’s court. It will be up to the Trump administration to decide whether to sanction China for its unwillingness to stop trading with Iran.

It’s not exactly a wise move to threaten China – especially with Beijing on an irresistible historical ascendancy. India’s Jawaharlal Nehru threatened China and lost a big chunk of Arunachal Pradesh to Chairman Mao. Brezhnev threatened China and faced the wrath of the PLA on the banks of the Ussuri River.

China is able to cut the US off in a minute from its rare earth exports, creating a US national security catastrophe. Now that’s when a trade war will enter real incandescent territory.

Trump's terrible mistake

By Hanif Ghafari

TEHRAN, Aug. 20 (MNA) – The strategic and unjustifiable mistake of the United States President, Donald Trump, in his withdrawal from the nuclear deal and imposing secondary sanctions against Iran, is now discussed in different circles. Many western media and news sources speak of Trump's terrible mistake in this regard.

They believe that by this decision, Trump was isolated in the international system, and failed to have other players' agreement in cooperating with him to put sanctions on Iran, and thus failed to achieve his economic goals against the Islamic Republic. In other words, Western media and analysts believe that, despite the fact that Trump's economic pressures on Iran are more severe than in the time of Obama, he will be less successful than his predecessor in pursuing his economic goals in confrontation with Tehran.

Recently, the Financial Times emphasized in a statement that "this newspaper supported the Iran nuclear deal and continues to believe that the Trump administration was wrong to abandon an agreement that halted Iran’s progress towards nuclear weapons."

Trump's mistake in pulling out of the nuclear deal and opposing Iran can be analyzed both politically and economically. Trump's European allies believe that by walking out of the nuclear deal, the US president, has actually put the principle of multilateralism in the international system under question.

Financial Times writes accordingly; "President Donald Trump’s offer to Tehran of unconditional talks suggests that the diplomatic path has not been totally cut off. Iran will be extremely reluctant to make further concessions on the nuclear issue and is unlikely to abandon its regional allies in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq."

The Financial Times then continues and emphasizes on the overall support of European countries for the continuation of the nuclear deal with Iran. This newspaper has written that Britain, along with France and Germany, promised to remain as part of the nuclear deal and to support companies that are investing in Iran.

The FT states that "The main weapon the EU has developed is an updated version of a “blocking statute” originally drawn up in the 1990s to counter US sanctions on Iran, Libya and Cuba. The law forbids European companies from complying with the US measures and allows them to recover damages arising from the sanctions “from the person causing them”.

The fact is that, according to the Financial Times and other western news sources, Donald Trump's decision to withdraw from the nuclear deal with Iran will have heavy expenses for the United States. The isolation of Washington in the international system has now reached its peak.

Trump's specific economic policies against European players, China, Russia and ... have also exacerbated this trend. So far, many American analysts have warned about Trump's deterrent policies in the US foreign policy and economics. However, by picking up people such as Bolton and Pompeo, Trump has shown that he isn't basically paying any attention to these warnings, and once he realizes that, there is no longer any opportunities to make up for his mistakes.