The Battle for Raqqa: Berlin 1945 or Seville 1936?

June 11, 2016 -

Svyatoslav Knyazev, PolitRussia - 

Translated by J. Arnoldski

Around May 20th, the so-called “Syrian Democratic Forces”, the main component of which are Kurdish militias, undertook a rather serious attempt to advance on the Syrian capital of ISIS, Raqqa. They undertook this action not by themselves but apparently on the initiative of the United States. Before the beginning of the offensive, the four-star general and head of the Central Command of the US Armed Forces (CENTCOM), Joseph Leonard Votel, visited Northern Syria. 

Syria and Russia vs. the Kurds and the US

It is difficult to believe, and it indeed smacks of surrealism, that the Syrian Democratic Forces include Kurdish brigades, i.e., the natural enemies of the US’ NATO ally, Turkey, and the sworn allies of the US’ natural enemy, Assad. Nevertheless, they are supported by approximately 250 American “military advisors/marines” (apparently these are US special operation forces), around 20 American combat aircraft, and up to a thousand PMSC mercenaries from NATO countries.

According to Washington’s official position, badge-wearing Americans are not participating in combat operations. But according to media reports, they are in fact personally fighting in the most difficult zones and are directing the targeting of US aircraft. The Yankee’s activity is confirmed by the fact that they have successfully spread scandalous photo and video materials in which they can be seen wearing the stripes of the Kurdish People’s Self-Defense Forces who make up the backbone of the SDF. 

Such open support on the part of the Americans for Syrian Kurds has caused a painful reaction on the part of Ankara, which considers the Kurdish People’s Self-Defense Forces to be a terrorist organization. The Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mevlut Cavusoglu, has accused the US of double standards and advised them to wear the badges of the Islamic State. He said:

“It is unacceptable that our allies have worn the chevrons of the Kurdish People’s Self-Defense Forces. We have responded to this by declaring that it is unacceptable. These are double standards and manifestations of duplicity. We advise them to wear the chevrons of the ‘Islamic State’, ‘Jebat al-Nusra’ and ‘Al-Qaeda’ when traveling to other regions of Syria. And when they go to Africa, let them wear the stripes of Boko Haram.” 

US officials apologized without any special servility, but have promised to ban “fraternal badge-wearing” with Kurds. 

However, the fact remains that the Americans are formally coordinating Kurdish operations against the Islamic State, which has received practically overt support from the US-allied Persian Gulf monarchies and allied Turkey, and which, according to number of analysts, itself emerged and expanded not without Washington's help. 

In this situation, Syrian-Russian-Iranian forces are acting at the same time as allies and rivals of the Kurdish-American alliance, and began to advance towards Raqqa a few days after the SDF did. 

Experts have begun to predict who will reach the ISIS capital first, who will hoist his flag of victory first, and whether or not there will be a direct confrontation between the American special forces accompanying the Kurds and the legal Syrian government aided by Russian troops. The Financial Times anxiously suggested that “the battle for Raqqa risks pitting Russian and US forces against each other” and pondered whether it would be possible to avoid such an undesirable collision. The hope is that American and Russian forces have already worked out cooperation.

It is by all means possible to understand the passions and attention of journalists. Capturing ISIS’ capital would be a grand media victory even more significant than the liberation of Palmyra. And Palmyra, in addition to its world fame for its cultural heritage, is extremely important infrastructurally as the “central intersection” of the Syrian desert.

In addition to its military value as the seizure of one of ISIS strongholds, the capture of is Raqqa is also ideologically important. A successful storm of the city would show that the “Caliphate” can’t even keep what it has proclaimed to be its own home.

If the Syrians, Russians, and Iranians achieve this, then they will show the whole world that they are the main fighters against terrorism and are fundamentally in control of the situation in the country. If the Americans and Kurds get ahead of them, then, firstly, the success at Palmyra will pale in comparison and, secondly, Raqqa, with its enormous slice of North-Eastern Syria, could be carved into a Kurdish national formation (whether federated or independent). 

The US absolutely does not want to see Assad’s army in Raqqa. The State Department Spokesman, Mark Toner, directly stated: 

“I do not have full information about the progress of the battle for Raqqa. If the city were to be liberated, then we would evaluate this like the liberation of Palmyra. It would be better than the presence of ISIS terrorists, but not much better.”

How much further to Raqqa? The positions of each side

For now, the possibility of clashes between Russian and US troops is unrealistic. The SDF have formally accumulated around 30 - 50,000 fighters  for the offensive according to different reports. In reality, however, only 4-5,000 of them have been deployed towards Raqqa and are mostly bogged down in positional battles for a few small villages. Although the Kurdish positions were originally 30-45 kilometers from Raqqa, they have essentially failed to advance. On the other hand, the SDF has built up a fairly successful offensive on the city of Manbij in the direction of Aleppo.

Syrian government forces are successfully advancing in the direction of the city of Tabqa located 40 kilometers from Raqqa. According to some reports, they were able to advance up to 30-35 kilometers in the first few days. According to the latest information, the frontline units of the Syrian Army are positioned 18 kilometers from Tabqa. On the map below, the deployment of the Syrian Army (the yellow at the bottom) and Kurdish brigades (yellow at the top) can be seen in reference to the city of Raqqa located on the Euphrates river midway between these forces.

Along the Homs-Raqqa highway are advancing Desert Falcon brigades, 18 tank divisions, 4 mechanized divisions, a regiment from Golan and the marine corps of Syria, with a total personnel of around 4,500 people. The road before them is being “cleared” by Russian attack helicopters. In addition to old Soviet tanks and conventional machine-gun-mounted trucks, a T-90 and the newest “Tiger” combat vehicle are taking part in the offensive. Media reports have said that Russian Spetsnaz are also operating on the ground with the Syrians.

Using long-range communications, ISIS has tried to strike their flanks and cut off the group from the main force, but this has failed. Despite the fact that the terrorists have reported their move to the highway, this in fact turned out to be a lie - in reality, they moved forward a little, but were soon defeated and retreated. 

Why is their no advance on Tabqa? Besides the fact that this is the “gateway” to Raqqa, there is also a hydroelectric power station and airfield, the control of which would untie the hands of Russian air forces. At the present moment, the home base of our aircraft is a bit distant from Raqqa, which adversely affects the capabilities of our airmen.

Taking Tabqa would give the Syrians a significant advantage in the offensive on Raqqa.

But then again, why are the Americans and the Kurds not throwing all of their forces towards Raqqa? It’s possible that the reason behind this is that they have other goals, namely, the necessity of seizing the above-mentioned town of Manbij. This city is one of the key points on the road between Aleppo and Raqqa. In addition, it is simultaneously a bridge between Syrian Islamic terrorists operating in the area and Turkey, as well as the barrier separating Kurdish enclaves. The latter deserves a more detailed discussion in order to understand the new plan of the US. 

Kurdistan as a tool for dividing Syria

In March 2016, Kurdish “cantons” announced the creation of a federal entity called Rojava in Northern Syria. The key role in this process was played by the “Democratic Union” which, according to statements by the Turks, is linked to the Kurdistan Workers Party professing a national-Marxist ideology. The Democratic Union is not so much striving for independence from Syria as it is demanding autonomy from Bashar al-Assad. Moreover, this union plays a key role in the operations of the Kurdish self-defense brigades. In addition to the DU, there also exists the anti-Assad, more right-wing Kurdish National Council which insists that the “Democratic Union” is incapable of defending Kurdish interests. 

Kurdish autonomy already de-facto exists, but de jure it is not recognized by Syria or neighboring countries. Assad has reacted to any talks on the autonomy of this or that region quite painfully, which has added fuel to the fire and strengthened the hitherto not-too-powerful Kurdish National Council. This is forcing the Democratic Union to engage in operations in order to restore its credibility. The Americans are cleverly playing with these contradictions and have hinted that they will protect the Kurds while trying to bring the Democratic Union closer to them by using the fact that it is located between Damascus and Ankara, i.e., between the hammer and the anvil. 

When they started the revolutionary adventure in Damascus, the US needed all of Syria as a key transport hub of the Middle East. Assad was a key obstacle preventing American allies in the Persian Gulf from laying down pipelines through Syria running to Europe. Following the intervention of the Russian airforce, they were no longer capable of taking the whole of Syria. After all, how can they gain access to the sea in Latakia now that there’s a Russian base there?

It is for this reason that the US has left its bet on Kurdistan, and moreover a Syrian-Iraqi-Turkish one, since access to the sea can now only be achieved via Turkey. The key to the process of this creation is Manbij, the capture of which would allow them to begin to physically unite the Kurdish “cantons” and access the “gate” to Turkey. 

It’s clear that the Turks have figured some of this out and are not too happy about what’s happening, but who is asking them anyway? For the Persian Gulf Monarchies, it would of course be better to control this pipeline corridor directly through their spiritually dear and financed ISIS. But if the Caliphate in Syria fails, then in the worst case scenario there will still be the American-Kurdish variant. 

Moscow and Damascus’ task is sufficiently difficult. First of all, they need to take Raqqa, which will be far from simple. Secondly, they have to stabilize the situation in the Aleppo area and thereby shuffle the Turks’ and Americans’ cards. Thirdly, and this depends 99% on Assad, they need to resume talks with the Kurds and persuade them to return to a normal existence in the framework of a unitary Syrian state, even a federal one. Completing this task would be an almost complete victory for Russia and Assad. The rest will just be matter of technique. 

Seville 1936

Similarities between the aspirations of the “allies” for Raqqa and 1945 undoubtedly exist. In both cases, Moscow and Washington competed for influence on a territory liberated from an aggressor. In both cases, the position of Moscow was more altruistic and constructive, while Washington’s was cynical. Then, just as now, the US fought with one hand while supporting the aggressor with the other. Just as how US special services cooperated with the Nazis, so do they now have close contacts with the terrorists.

But the role of the battle for Raqqa in 2016 is inferior in importance to the role of the battle for Berlin in 1945. Rather, it is a prelude comparable in significance to the Spanish Civil War when each side tested its strength and tested new tactics and new kinds of weapons. The main battle will - God forbid that it comes to this - take place in the European and Far Eastern theaters - which is fine, if only it would be a political-economic and informational one. 

     Follow us on Facebook!                                                  
                                                 

       Follow us on Twitter!
                             

             Donate!

Flores: The Soros team is failing in Macedonia – US interference is immoral and illegal

June 9th, 2016 - Fort Russ News -

NetPress - Interview by Marija Kotovska

The US has no interest in Macedonia`s development. The country has been targeted because they see it as an ally of their geostrategic adversaries and they don`t want their opponents to have friends with whom they can cooperate in the important energy and transport projects for the region, such as the Russian gas pipeline and the Chinese high-speed railway, says Joaquin Flores, director of the Center for Syncretic Studies think-tank, editor of Fort Russ and president of the Independent Journalists Association for Peace - in an exclusive interview with the Macedonian NetPress correspondent Marija Kotovska. 

Commenting on the political crises in Macedonia provoked by the opposition SDSM backed by west, Flores says that Washington and Brussels were pushing for cancellation of the early elections due to the the fact that the Macedonians, as intelligent people, are aware that the ruling party VMRO DPMNE has done an acceptable job which will lead them to a new victory. US plans for the region are quite similar to the ones for Macedonia. According to Flores, aside the cancellation of any cooperation with BRICS and the agenda for destabilization and Greater Albania, Washington's scenario for the region includes leading the countries towards poverty, social and moral degradation, prostitution and hooliganism.

Kotovska: The Color Revolution against Macedonia was activated last year, when the opposition backed by the West, started publishing the illegally tapped phone records from state officials, while there were attempts to destabilize the country with violent opposition protests and terrorist attack. More or less, all of this was handled timely and effectively by the Macedonian authorities and the ratings of the ruling party leader Nikola Gruevski are 6 times higher as the ones of the opposition leader Zoran Zaev. All the work that some western embassies in Macedonia have done in the past 10 years in terms or intercepting, systematizing and processing the millions of phone calls, together with the millions of dollars poured over the fifth column in the country are not working out like they hoped, but its naive to think they will give up that easily. What can we expect next in the frames of the second round of the Colored Revolution against Macedonia? 

Flores: It is true that it is naive to think that the US and its European allies will give up that easily. First, I think it is important to separate every European power center, from the NATO dominated security apparatus, which nevertheless has considerable pull over Europe. By extension, through political and financial sectors, especially after 2008, the US has considerable control over much more of EU decision making at the level of Brussels than they had before. Nevertheless, it will be important moving forward to understand the US and EU as possibly distinct areas of interest, which can in fact be used by Macedonia and its friends, to Macedonia's advantage. 

Of course the democratic processes and popularity of a leader, whether Gruevski, Dmitriev or anyone else, are irrelevant to the so-called West. 

We also need to clarify that it does not matter how friendly to European power centers, including the Atlanticist one (US backed), that Gruevski is, or anyone after him, nor does it matter how reasonable he is or isn't in his or his successor's approach. Finally, whatever concessions he made to them are, in the final analysis, totally irrelevant to the Atlanticist needs. We have seen this thesis proven since he agreed to step down. Every concession which the Atlanticists request or demand, is meant to further weaken the Macedonian state. This has very little to do with Gruevski or Dmitriev as people, and everything to do with the future of Macedonia and its statehood itself. 

Thus, it is important to understand that the goal of the US and, to a large extent, Europe, was not simply to replace Gruevski with some puppet. The goal is to destabilize the region, and use the Greater Albania project as a weaponized agent meant to draw the entire region into a broader conflict. Thus the Pržino Agreement was a setback not just to one or other political party, like the VMRO-DPMNE, but in fact for Macedonia's sovereignty. The inclusion of European mediators and oversight teams is a direct violation of Macedonia's right to exist. 

That the US has called for a cancellation of the June 5th election is not only expected, revealing, but also highly offensive to all sovereign and free people of the world. The US has no legal or moral foundation to make such a call, and such calls conversely ought to be seen as illegal and immoral. Those parties backed by the US should perhaps be censored and banned from participating in Macedonia's internal life. They ought to be forced to register as consular offices of foreign governments, and not political parties as such. 

The Color Revolution tactic on Macedonia has failed, and instead we need to be looking at direct coup attempts, compromised military and intelligence organs, and Albanian terrorist-militia attacks - any of which can be a pretext for Bulgaria to violate Macedonian territory with military force, and other NATO type direct intervention. 

The Color Revolution tactic requires that things move quickly, and the opposition leader must be seen positively in terms of public opinion. That is not the case in Macedonia, where the attempts by George Soros's team faced numerous setbacks, a successful counter-Color movement that was vast and popular. Additionally, the public grew tired of Zaev. 

Zaev was poorly advised, and played at politics instead of the 'revolutionary' tactics required to stage the Color tactic. He thought he was holding cards, and didn't play them all at once. But rather than being 'strategic', this simply made the process too slow and drawn out, giving people enough time to view Zaev as a self-interested public nuisance. His failed tactics made the process long and drawn out, causing the whole population to become fatigued. They associated talk of the crisis with Zaev, and by logical extension, the crisis itself. It became clear during this protracted failure that Zaev was the one issuing threats and actually holding the country hostage. His numerous appearances on TV and ready access to yellow journalism and questionable media machines in Macedonia did not build his credibility, but detracted from it. The fact that his actual mass base of support was not simply the minority Macedonian liberal class, but instead Greater Albanian irredentist nationalism, also became ever-increasingly clear to everyone in the country. 

Zaev's failure to inspire a mass movement independent of Albanian irredentists and a smattering of 'westoxified' Skopje liberals, who lived for more time outside of Macedonia than inside Macedonia, meant that he came to rely on peer-to-peer talks with Gruevski. His playing at 'politics' made him part of the very same so-called 'political class' that he attempted to rail against. For all these reasons, the Color tactic is without a visible alternative leader, it was Zaev or nothing, and Zaev has become nothing. 

There is no doubt that VMRO-DPMNE will win this next election. Let's face it, Macedonia is not a fabulously wealthy country - but what it has are intelligent and prudent people, who understand what is realistic and what is not. Given the reality of Macedonia, its natural and human resources, its historical factors, and so on, the majority of voters are right in seeing that, all things considered, the VMRO-DPMNE has done an acceptable job, and one that will ensure it the respect and authority required to lead the next government. 

Therefore, we should expect not another attempt at a Color Revolution - not just yet. First it will be required for the US to pressure the EU to bring about some process of economic sanctions against Macedonia. But this will backfire, and create more space for investment from other proactive and interested countries, whether China or Russia, even India - all of whom have large economies and could make room for some of Macedonia's biggest export products - reaction and catalytic products, centrifuges, ferroalloys, and so forth. 

When the EU sees that it is losing opportunities to India or Russia, because the US has pressured it to do so, it will cause further, if minor, divisions between the US and EU - which is an important development towards multi-polarity and the development of world-historical factors itself. But Macedonia may return to normalcy and stability. If an outright coup or actual Albanian aggression can be averted, then it seems more certain that Macedonia's future, in the coming decades, will be assured. 

Kotovska: Many today argue that Gruevski's original “sin” was his multipolar approach in both global politics and economy, in accordance with the national interests, while nurturing friendly relations with Russia and showing open interest in cooperating with BRICS in various projects such as the Chinese “Balkan Silk Road” and the Russian “Balkan stream” pipeline. What on the other hand has been offered by the opposition lead by SDSM to their western masters if they manage to get them in to power? 

Flores: Well you've really cut to the chase, haven't you? That's precisely the point - the SDSM has nothing to offer in return, except for outright vassalage. The US has no historical or economic interest in Macedonia's development - they see Macedonia as an ally of their geostrategic adversaries, and for that reason, they target Macedonia. But a regional conflict or even war, destabilization, and the mobilization of radicalized armed groups from Albania, is all on the agenda. 

The US wants nothing for Macedonia. They simply don't want their opponents to have another friend who can cooperate on these important energy and transport projects. 

The first things that an SDSM run government would do, is entirely integrate the Macedonian intelligence and security apparatus into the NATO command structures, thus making Macedonia nothing more than a footnote in the NATO binder. Nominally, Macedonia would fall under direct EU control, more so than ever seen hitherto. 

Accession negotiations for EU would resume at full speed - but not because the EU can viably make use of, or fully integrate the important sectors of the Macedonian export economy. It would simply serve an historically outmoded method - it would create a banking-speculative bubble within the EU's ECB, where bonds and stock options could be bought and traded, along with the connected derivatives market internationally. But this bubble would not have tangible value in the physical economy. The EU is operationally incapable of offering Macedonia anything better. We can see a similar dynamic in Ukraine, for example. EU negotiations with the SDSM government would be a media spectacle, perhaps allowing for a measly 500 million EUR tossed in: a few roads would be paved, one or two buildings repaired, a hospital might acquire a few new ambulances (but disgustingly covered in EU 'thank you' flags). This would be the end of it, however. The rest would go to the operational budget of the SDSM, and money would be spread around in the standard crony fashion. But that's not all. 

With the destruction and realignment of Macedonia under NATO command, Macedonia would be relegated to a mere banana republic like Montenegro, and the passage of Syrian 'refugees' (and terrorists) along with human and opium trafficking would increase by 10 fold. The targets would not only be Macedonia, but Serbia, and in fact Central and Eastern European populations, to further erode their culture and social morality, leading to decadence, increased poverty, prostitution, hooliganism, and social degradation. All of this is connected to the US's general outlook and plan, of creating regional destabilization. The US's main interest is not ''economic development'' - that's what they advertise. Their main interest is war and destruction. This is what is most profitable for the US - not just because of the benefits to its military industrial complex, but in fact because setting back the opponent economically is, in terms of numbers and forecasts, just as advantageous is setting yourself forward. Because the US is structurally incapable of setting itself forward, its main strategy is to set others back - by physically destroying infrastructure, demographic groups, industry, and the actual-real economy. 

Kotovska: The same western media machinery for propaganda that has been demonizing the Russian president Vladimir Putin, since last year started with aggressive attacks towards the Macedonian ruling party VMRO-DPMNE, while especially targeting the leader Gruevski. For example, they have been calling him a dictator although he has 6 times more support than his opposition rival Zaev. What is it that Gruevski and Putin have in common that made them Wests` mutual “enemies”? 

Flores: Because I'm an independent journalist and analyst, I can speak freely about many things. And, I can say things which at first may upset people, but once it's thought about, will make sense. The truth is that historically the US opponents were obvious, overt, and rather inspirational leaders from the start. You had Gaddafi and Lumumba in Africa, Nasser in Egypt, Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam, and so forth. They said to the US: 'We are your adversaries!'. This was obvious, and of course it was easy for the US to target them, using people also from those targeted countries as proxies. 

Gruevski, like Putin, are men from a later era, where political intrigue and geopolitical tactics have evolved, becoming more complex. They actually fooled the west. They came on the stage saying, "Hey, we are reasonable people - we are here to do business. Banking, investment - that's no problem. How can we make a deal?'' They spoke the language of the west, they let western leaders believe that they were ''one of their own''. Let's be honest, they had cigars and champagne with western leaders. They had fine wine and played golf, or whatever. They were able to even bring in and draw in other oligarchs and elites in the country who saw themselves close to the west. But they used this to buy time, to bring back to life an independent security and intelligence apparatus, to broaden their international base of support and connections outside of the US dominated sphere. They reorganized political structures and the economy - and they did this stealthily and in such a way that left even the best western intelligence analysts a bit confused. By the time the west realized what they were dealing with, it was too late. This is what really infuriated the West, and this is something that Putin and Gruevski share. 

What they also share is a similar understanding of reality - yes they are realists, sure. But they also understand that there is really only so far that money can go. Being seen as a 'good European' just isn't worth what it used to be, the cost is too high. Gruevski, like Putin, have thrown in their lot with their own people. I mean this literally, physically - their actual lines, ropes if you want to say, of support are the people. Without popular support, you cannot have the power to make a difference. Even from a position of pure self interest and Machiavellian realism, being a western puppet does nothing but afford you a few honorific titles and positive treatment in western media. But so what? If they put you in, they can take you out. So, I think Gruevski and Putin have a similar, rational-realist understanding of power, and why popular support is so important. In order to have popular support, you actually have to give something back to the people. And a weak people supporting you is useless, so you have to build the people, the nation, and the state, to make it a strong and coherent unit. Thus, personal interest is directly tied to the interests of the nation, the people. This mechanism ensures that Gruevski can only be in the position to make decisions if he does things which make Macedonia stronger. 

Kotovska: When this is all over, should Macedonia consider following Russia example regarding the Law for NGOs and after some serious examination, to maybe ban part of the so called NGOs who seems to be nothing more than a tool in the hands of the axis of evil for overthrowing recalcitrant governments and provoking serious chaos in the targeted country with long term consequences? 

Flores: That's an easy one - of course they should. These NGO's should at the very least be properly defined as FGO's - Foreign Governmental Organizations, and forced to register through the very same government's consular official requirements that the embassies do. Some NGO's claim to be interested in health care, reproductive rights, childcare (education and pedagogy) and so on. In reality, they are proxy organizations meant to foster penetration and foreign control. But maybe also they serve a dual purpose, and the part maybe is good. So, at the very least, security and intelligence ombudsman, trained by the Russians, and working as employees of the Macedonian state, must be assigned to work in these offices. I'm not talking about searches with warrants, but I mean permanent ombudsmen whose job it is to oversee the operations, working in the same office. So, if a healthcare NGO is doing good healthcare work - then fine, great, let them do it. Maybe it's good for Macedonia. But they must be policed very closely, and made sure that they are fulfilling their mandate, and nothing more.

     Follow us on Facebook!                                                  

                                                 

       Follow us on Twitter!

                             

             Donate!

Iran as a Multipolar Anchor

June 7, 2016 - 

Daahireeto Mohamud, Katehon -

Iran has proven to be one of the staunchest anti-US hegemony states in the world. Since the 1979 revolution Tehran has fought bitter US/Israeli-induced wars in Iraq, the Persian Gulf, Syria, Lebanon and occupied Palestine, either directly or indirectly, while also facing harsh economic sanctions from the West. The Islamic Republic of Iran is a capable and shrewd regional power that will always affect the fate of the Middle east as history has shown for centuries past. The country occupies a geostrategic position that straddles the Middle east, the Persian Gulf region/Arabian sea, Central Asia, South Asia and the Caucus/Caspian region. Those key regions will be a crucial ''pivot'' for the 21st century  great power geopolitical competition. 

The Unipolar US will try to isolate the Eurasian great powers, Russia and China, by controlling "the rimlands'' of Eurasia and by destabilizing the above mentioned regions with its preferred hybrid wars. Iran will be a key node that the US will need to connect its NATO/Turkey military bases with its Iraq/GCC/Afghanistan/Pakistan military presence through potential actual military presence in India, and all the way to Mynamar and into its Asia Pacific military hubs. If Washington gets its way in having military presence in Iran and as it seems in India, then "the Great Geopolitical Wall" against Eurasian great powers will be completed from the European/NATO theater, through the Middle east and South Asia and all the way to the Asia Pacific theater. Only Iran and a potential Pakistani strategic re-alignment with Multipolarity could be the obstacle of such a "Great  Geopolitical Wall".  The US defense secretary Ash Cater's terming of ''strategic handshake" between the US's Asia pivot and India's act east policy is another name of this Wall.

Geopolitically

Iran is key for the multipolar world: Tehran's influence in Iraq, the Persian Gulf, Syria, Lebanon and potentially in Yemen and its geographic location in the Persian Gulf region and the Arabian sea/Indian ocean, will help the Multipolar leading states to break free into the rimlands of the Mediterranean sea and Indian ocean. In deed, the country is on the crossroads between the Eurasian heartland and the Middle eastern rimlands.

Iran's strategic thinking

The current composition of the Iranian regime is a solid Multipolar anchor, the pro-Multipolar conservative/nationalist forces in Iran control nearly all key institutions of the state and the regime including the Supreme Leader's office, the Guardian Council, IRGC,the Assembly of Experts, the Ministry of Intelligence, the judiciary, all kinds of law enforcement agencies, and nearly all major media outlets. Only the presidency is out of their hands, the new parliament is a ''contested'' institution, but it is very powerful body. Larijani's re-election as speaker, will likely tilt  the parliament more to the conservative camp than to the reformist. Yet the moderates and reformists will still have greater say than before in the new parliament. However, the election of the hardline conservative Ayatullah Janati as the chairman of the powerful Assembly of Experts cements the conservative control of this key body and dispels the Unipolar media hype that the reformists/moderates have won big in recent elections.

Iran's strategic culture will make it hard for the Unipolar West to woo Tehran into its camp, there are forces on both sides (Israeli lobby in the US, Isreal itself, the neocons, US Congress and Saudi Arabia, to name few on the one hand, and Iran's conservatives and nationalists on the other), that will block any potential Iranian defection to the Unipolar camp. 

There is deep anti-hegemonic strategic culture in Iran enforced by its Islamic principles and the Wilayatu Faqih theological political system. Iranian security and strategic elites rightly believe their country faces a huge strategic threat from the US military presence in the Persian Gulf and Israeli nuclear weapons. Indeed, Iran fought a direct actual war with US in the form of the Gulf tanker war during the Iran-Iraq war. The animosity between Iran and the US is so huge that the recent nuclear deal is unlikely to make them friends or strategic partners as some may have hopped.

All US white papers,military assessments and other official documents show Iran, with Russia and China, as their strategic adversary, or even enemy. North Korea and US "hybrid war allies" ISIS/Al Qaeda are also mentioned in such documents probably for propaganda reasons.

Arguably Iran is even more anti-hegemonic and Multipolar than Russia and China, those three countries form the bedrock of Multipolarity.

 That is said, a Western induced regime change always looms large over Iran because of susceptible youth with social media, and Western-influenced activists and reformists. One thing that may mitigate this risk is the failed Arab Spring and its resultant disastrous wars. If the Iranian Multipolar media plays this card well and informs the population of the grave danger such Western engineered protests and revolutions can bring on their lives and country, then there is every reason to believe that majority of the Iranians will listen to such a message.

Guarding against Unipolar regime change after the nuclear deal

There is one strategic risk that Iranians and Multipolar leading states, Russia and China, should recognize and then develop policies to guard against it. It is what I call "Soft evolutionary regime change" which means the West has concluded that '' hard regime change" in Iran is nearly impossible and the only option available for them to  get their hands on Iran is long term 'soft regime change"; the strategy seems to follow two optional directions. 1) "Quick soft regime change" which calls for using trained activists, Western influenced youth and reformists and social media to engage in concerted campaigns against the conservative clergy, IRGC and other Multipolar institutions, hoping to weaken and de-legitimize them in front of the public, while also spreading Western liberal ideas and way of life. This plan envisions that when the Multipolar conservative institutions are weakened enough, the Unipolar youth, reformists and activists could make their final push with large protests and violence  and bring about regime change or they will vote out most of the conservatives in a Western-engineered elections, or  even some type of ''constitutional coup", like the one that has taken place in Brazil. ''Voting out hard-line conservatives'' was a strategy used in recent elections, and it has been successful in Tehran regional elections where what the conservatives call the ''British list" won in a landslide. If such scenario is replicated all over the country in future elections, then the Unipolar forces could easily take over power in Iran. 2) The other options is " long term evolutionary regime change" many US strategists and intelligence agencies are apparently strategizing how to put in place a moderate, reform-minded Supreme Leader or group of leaders when the current Leader passes away, they have recognized that without the Supreme Leader's approval no president or parliament can make U-turn policy change in Iran. The Western ''point man" for this long term strategy seems to be Ayatollah Rafsanjani with clear support from the current president, Rouhani. The two men and their supporters are seemingly in the process of recruiting a reform-minded prospective Supreme Leader to replace the current one, this strategy has been hit badly by the election of Janati to the chairmanship of the Assembly of Experts, at least, in the short term.

In post-nuclear deal Iran, there is a fierce political battle between Western induced-Unipolar reformist forces and Multipolar principled conservative forces.  The West sees the nuclear deal as the key to long term regime change in Iran; without that, it sees the deal as a strategic victory for Iran and the Multipolar order. They know well that Iran's intentions of building actual nuclear bomb has never been proven.

Multipolar leading states' policy 

In Iran today, opposing forces argue that the other side's international partners - Conservatives associated with Multipolar leading states, Russia and China, and reformists associated with the Unipolar West - are not helping the country enough. The conservatives rightly argue with the reformists/moderates cannot demonstrate what the West has done for Iran while the reformists argue cannot demonstrate what China and Russia has done, conversely. It seems both parties want to rely on their preferred international partners for economic development and improving their domestic position.

With that in mind Multipolar leading states, Russia and China should frame a coordinated policy to help Iran fend off Unipolar advances and attempts, for that purpose China should step up its already growing economic engagement with Iran and bring more investments, infrastructure projects and technology transfer, Russia's supply of S 300 air defense missiles to Iran is a good step forward ( though the delays since 2007 created Iranian strategic unease with Russia). Moscow's susceptibility to US and Israeli pressures on arms sales to Iran is a clear challenge to Russian-Iranian strategic relations. Iranians hate to be bargaining chip between the US and Russia or the US and China for that matter, and honestly they do not deserve to be dealt like that according to their rich glorious history and their current capability and future potential. However recent Russian direct military support for the Syrian anti-terror war and its positive effects on the ground has deepen Russian-Iranian strategic relations. Russian leader Putin is now popular among not only the Iranians but also Iran's regional allies in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, he is called "Abu Ali Putin" suggesting he is close to their hearts.  To cement Iran as a long term Multipolar anchor, Russia and China should embrace full strategic relationship with Tehran and decouple the relations of Washington and Tehran.

Iran badly needs military modernization and advanced arms sales should follow the S 300 missile system delivery,so that Iran can feel secure from Unipolar military attack. It seems to me that the remaining five year sanctions on some of the offensive arms sales to Iran is not clear and Russia and China can argue that Iran has the the right to modernize its military for good defensive reasons since Israel, Saudi Arabia, UAE and others are engaging in unprecedented arms acquisition programs. Russia and China can sign arms deals with Iran now and if the UNSC opposes such arms deals then the delivery could be postponed to the post-five year time limit. Such deals will give the Multipolar forces in Iran credibility that they can deliver something from their Multipolar allies. 

On the political side I think it will be good idea for the Multipolar forces in Iran, (with diplomatic support from the leading Multipolar states, Russia and China),to pre-empt US long term regime change strategy by electing a young, dynamic and principled conservative Crown  Supreme Leader before the current Leader passes away. Such a brilliant strategic move will foil US grand strategy on Iran, and will cement Tehran's long term Multipolar status. It seems the current Supreme leaders, Ali Khamanei, understands this importance well and has already begun the preparation for electing a new Supreme leader during his life.  As an outside observer of Iran (there could be deeper internal politics that we do now know), I think there are three potential candidates who will certainly uphold Iran's multipolar status if elected, they include, Mojtaba Khamanei, the son of the current leader, Sadeq Larijani, the brother of Ali Larijani, and the head of the powerful judiciary branch, and Ahmed Khatami, the  prayer-leader of Tehran Friday prayers. There could be others but those three are nearly proven Multipolar conservatives who will likely follow the path of Ali Khamanei, the current leader, who is now 76 years old and may have health issues. It will be wise for Iranian Multipolar conservatives not to wait and risk sudden developments in Khamanei's health and elect one of those three, or any other capable young conservative now, as a Crown Supreme Leader, or even the actual one if the current leaders agrees that.

Russia and China should also fast-track Iran's membership into the SCO organisation since the UN sanctions are no longer an excuse. I would argue the time that Russia and China were hedging their bets on Iran and were engaging  ''wait and see strategy'' has gone, after the nuclear deal it is time for action to deny Western economic or political domination over Iran.

The risk of India's acquisition of Chabahar port

The Chabahar port deal with India seems to be desperation by Iran to get finances for the port project, however India, with its recent "defection" to the Unipolar order, could use the port for malign anti-Multipolar activities. New Delhi has already started the destabilization of Pakistan especially Boluchistan, to scuttle China's CPEP corridor. The US seems to support India's acquisition of Chabahar port because it is counting on Indian influence in Iran to be its strategic interest. The Unipolar media celebrated the deal and portrayed it as an Indian victory over China and a direct challenge to the Chinese CPEC corridor. It seems the reformists/moderates in Iran have pushed the Chabahar deal with India forward because they wanted to balance Russian and Chinese influence in Iran, according to former Indian ambassador to Iran on an Indian tv show. If that is true, then the Chabahar project could be a veiled Unipolar project that is designed to strengthen the Iranian reformists in their quest for power. There are unconfirmed reports that Japan and South Korea may join India in the Chabahar port project. 

To be clear,there is not anything wrong with Iran trading with Unipolar countries, but if the trade and economic ties are designed for regime change operations like weakening the economic power of Multipolar Iranian forces, especially the IRGC as its seems, then that is a strategic threat and should be re-considered. There is growing evidence that the Rouhani government is bent on weakening the IRGC's economic power and Chinese companies' influence in Iran. The Western companies and NGOs that are going into Iran appear to be part of this strategy,  which I call ''keep the IRGC economic power down" and the "Chinese/Russian companies out". 

Conclusion

Although Iran is a solid Multipolar state, it still faces daunting challenges from a hostile Unipolar US, and its regional proxies particularly Israel and Saudi Arabia; the Saudis have positioned themselves as the ''attack dog" against Iran in the region, however their actual capability apart from using terrorist proxy forces is limited and Iran could easily defeat any direct Saudi aggression against its homeland. With the possibility of an Israeli sneak attack on Iran's key nuclear facilities and other military targets, Iran has been relying on its growing ballistic missiles capability and Hezbollah's missile arsenal, its staunch ally in Lebanon. In fact , it can argued that Hezbollah's military capability has been 'strategic stabilizer''  in the region because it seemingly deterred Israel from engaging in a major destructive war with Iran, Syria or Hezbollah itself, not to mention its huge contribution to the fight against terrorism in Syria and Iraq.

To successfully ensure its own security and guard the Multipolar Southern rimland flank, Iran needs strong support from its Multipolar allies, Russia and China, economically, militarily and diplomatically. The Multipolar forces in Iran need generous help from their fellow Multipolar leading states to balance against Unipolar advances in Iran and proxy wars in the region, specially after the nuclear deal and India's''defection" to  the Unipolar order which is positioning itself as a ''lead from behind' Unipolar outpost in Iran.

All of this will depend on the global strategic Multipolar developments which include: 1) Sino-Russian strategic re-alignment and its strengthening. 2) How will Russia and China generally coordinate their policies and strategies toward a given Multipolar regional state or potential one. They can have some limited competition in some aspects of their foreign relations, but the Multipolar strategic goal should always trump.  And 3) Russian/Chinese proactive, creative and substantive diplomatic engagement with regional Multipolar nodes like Iran and other non-US allied potential Multipolar countries, and giving them the military, economic and diplomatic support they need to withstand Unipolar pressures and provocations. 

Absent a strategic shock in Iran, the country is a solid Multipolar node and deserves much more support from fellow Multipolar leading states - Russia and  China.

     Follow us on Facebook!                                                  
                                                 

       Follow us on Twitter!
                             

             Donate!