Tag: Iran

  • A Return to the Table: The US and Iran Test the Waters of Diplomacy

    A Return to the Table: The US and Iran Test the Waters of Diplomacy

    When Donald Trump started his second term, it seemed like tensions with Iran were bound to escalate. His strong ties with Israel and Saudi Arabia—two of Iran’s biggest rivals—suggested a hardline approach was inevitable. But just a few months in, things have taken an unexpected turn.

    Trump now appears focused on striking a deal with Tehran. In a surprising development, the United States and Iran have wrapped up their first round of nuclear talks in Oman. These discussions are the first substantial talks between the two nations since 2018, when Trump pulled the U.S. out of the original nuclear deal, promising to secure a better one. After years of stalled diplomacy, these renewed talks signal real progress toward a potential agreement—one that could not only change the Middle East but also reshape global geopolitics.

    Optimism Grows After Positive Talks

    The United States and Iran have both described their recent nuclear talks as constructive. The two-and-a-half-hour meeting was brief but respectful, laying the groundwork for further negotiations.

    Iran’s chief negotiator, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, spoke favorably about the discussions, noting they occurred in a calm and respectful setting without the use of inflammatory language. This tone suggests the U.S. delegation, led by Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff, avoided repeating earlier threats of military action.

    Although the meeting was considered a success, it unfolded in an unusual format, with both delegations stationed in separate rooms and communicating through Oman’s Foreign Minister, Badr bin Hamad al-Busaidi. While it stopped short of a full face-to-face dialogue, Araghchi and Witkoff briefly spoke in Busaidi’s presence—a modest but symbolically significant gesture. Aware of political sensitivities at home, Iran downplayed the interaction and withheld any photographs.

    Following the talks, the White House described the discussions as highly positive. Witkoff emphasized that he had been directed to pursue diplomacy and dialogue to resolve long-standing differences. The administration acknowledged the complexity of the issues but considered Witkoff’s direct communication a meaningful step toward a mutually beneficial outcome. Araghchi had earlier stated that Iran was committed to securing a fair agreement, while the U.S. reaffirmed the value of direct engagement as essential to reaching a possible deal.

    Second Round Set for Next Week

    A second round of nuclear talks is set for Saturday, marking progress toward a possible agreement. While Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi noted the next round may not be held in Oman, he confirmed that Oman would continue to mediate.

    Both sides seem increasingly willing to engage, with the upcoming talks expected to build on momentum from President Trump’s recent letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader. Sent via the United Arab Emirates, the letter expressed Trump’s desire to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and to avoid potential U.S. or Israeli military action.

    Trump disclosed the ongoing negotiations during Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to the White House on Monday. Netanyahu later stated that both leaders agreed Iran must never obtain nuclear weapons. He also proposed a “Libya-style” disarmament model—complete dismantlement of weapons programs—which Iran has firmly rejected.

    Iran is instead seeking a deal that limits, but does not eliminate, its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. Iranian officials continue to assert the peaceful nature of their program and insist that negotiations will focus solely on nuclear issues, excluding the country’s ballistic missile and broader defense capabilities.

    What happens next? 

    Uncertainty still surrounds whether the talks will lead to a favorable agreement, as both sides remain firmly committed to their core demands. Experts widely agree that both Iran and the United States need a deal, but any major compromise could trigger political backlash at home.

    As it continues to pose a significant security concern for two of America’s closest allies in the region—Israel and Saudi Arabia—making it unlikely that the U.S. would support any deal that fails to address their concerns.

    At the same time, analysts believe Iran has limited options. The country faces deep economic troubles, and its leaders are under growing pressure from a dissatisfied population. In recent years, Iran’s influence in the region has declined, especially in Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, and parts of Yemen. These losses have weakened Iran’s regional standing and challenged its image as a leader of the Islamic world—posing real risks to the future of the Islamic Republic.

    For Iran, a nuclear deal could provide a crucial lifeline—offering relief from sanctions and easing domestic unrest. For the United States, it presents a chance to keep Iran’s nuclear ambitions in check. As a result, talks are expected to continue.

  • Trump’s Talks Proposal: A Lifeline for Iran or a Political Trap?

    Trump’s Talks Proposal: A Lifeline for Iran or a Political Trap?

    Iran is grappling with a worsening political and economic crisis. Over the past year, international setbacks have eroded its influence in the Middle East, while divisions between reformists and conservatives have sharpened. The economy is in turmoil, and growing public discontent poses an increasing challenge to the regime’s authority.

    The election of moderate-reformist Masoud Pezeshkian after the death of Ebrahim Raisi was a major blow to conservatives, who have struggled to accept the outcome. From the start, the new government was on unstable footing, and tensions have now reached a breaking point. With no clear path forward, the country stands on the brink of deeper instability.

    Amid this turmoil, Iran’s strongest adversary has made a dramatic move. In a surprising turn, U.S. President Donald Trump claims to have sent a letter to Iran’s leadership, proposing to restart nuclear negotiations. The move is especially striking given Trump’s own role in worsening Iran’s crisis during his first term—pulling out of the nuclear deal and imposing harsh sanctions that continue to strangle the economy. Now, as Iran struggles with internal and external pressure, Trump’s offer is widely seen as a calculated attempt to exploit Tehran’s vulnerabilities.

    Political Crisis in Iran

    Over the past month, Iran’s conservative-dominated parliament has flexed its power against the reformist-leaning administration, removing key figures from the government. It impeached and dismissed Abdolnaser Hemmati, the experienced economy minister, and forced out Mohammad Javad Zarif, the vice president and the most prominent reformist in the administration.

    Both moves were clear challenges to President Masoud Pezeshkian’s authority. Yet, with the economy struggling under the weight of U.S. sanctions, the 85-year-old supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, has shown no intention of stepping in to support Pezeshkian.

    Emboldened, the parliament is now summoning 11 more ministers for questioning, demanding answers to 49 inquiries about their performance—an apparent effort to further pressure and weaken Pezeshkian’s government.

    Pezeshkian to Step Down?

    Speculation is mounting that Masoud Pezeshkian, known for his emotional temperament and strong sense of integrity, may soon resign. If he does, his departure would serve as confirmation that Iran’s deep state—what some refer to as the shadow government—will not tolerate any shift in power.

    Pezeshkian has made it clear whom he holds responsible for his predicament. In a remarkably candid speech, he finally asserted himself, revealing that he had advocated for negotiations with the West, only to be overruled by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. He admitted that the matter was settled and that no further discussions would take place.

    He emphasized that his stance had always been in favor of negotiations, but now he had to follow the framework set by the supreme leader. He acknowledged that once the supreme leader determined a course of action, it was necessary to adapt to it and find a way forward.

    Since taking office, Pezeshkian noted, his government has faced severe shortages in energy, water, and electricity, along with massive debts to the agricultural sector for wheat, the healthcare system, and pension payments. His efforts to ease pressure on women regarding the hijab have also met constant resistance. On Saturday, he issued yet another apology for ongoing energy shortages.

    Trump’s Letter

    While economic mismanagement and poverty dominate much of Iran’s political discourse, the deeper struggle remains its stance toward the West. Conservatives continue to see Trump and his ally, Israel, as not only untrustworthy but actively working toward regime change in Tehran. Just a week ago, there was little doubt that Trump had no intention of cooperating with Iran—he had repeatedly vowed harsher measures against the country and maintained a staunchly pro-Saudi Arabia and pro-Israel stance, dashing any hopes reformists had of engagement. But suddenly, a letter from Trump emerged, seeking talks—a move that raised hopes among reformists while stoking fears among conservatives that it could shift political momentum in their rivals’ favor.

    If Trump’s letter imposes strict conditions for negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program, conservatives will argue that Washington’s demands are far too excessive. Yet, if Tehran rejects the offer outright, it risks escalating tensions to the point where an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear sites becomes increasingly likely. Meanwhile, greater economic sanctions would further devastate the lives of ordinary Iranians, potentially triggering mass protests against the regime—protests that could grow to a level capable of toppling the already unpopular Islamic Republic.

    A Lifeline and a Trap

    For reformists, however, the letter represents a lifeline—perhaps the only chance to rescue Iran’s ailing economy. They view negotiations as essential and believe they, rather than conservatives, are better suited to lead such talks. This means Trump’s move is not just about diplomacy; it is a direct challenge to Iran’s internal political balance, exacerbating the divide between reformists and conservatives.

    Many in Iran see the letter as a calculated act of psychological warfare—an attempt to corner Tehran into either accepting difficult terms or rejecting talks entirely, further deepening domestic fractures and accelerating the crisis between Iran and the West. A well-laid trap, courtesy of Donald Trump.

  • Iran’s Reformist VP Ousted: A Door Closes to the West

    Iran’s Reformist VP Ousted: A Door Closes to the West

    Iran’s reformist government has suffered a significant setback with the forced resignation of Mohammad Javad Zarif, its most prominent reformist figure. Zarif, who served as vice president for strategic affairs, stated that he had been ordered to step down by an unnamed senior official. While he refrained from directly mentioning Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, his remarks strongly implied the decision had Khamenei’s approval.

    His removal follows the recent impeachment of Economy Minister Abdolnaser Hemmati, as Iran’s conservative factions escalate their efforts to weaken President Masoud Pezeshkian’s administration. Hardliners, long hostile to Pezeshkian’s reformist agenda, have used the country’s worsening economic crisis—particularly the sharp decline of the currency—to push for a shift in policy.

    Although many of Iran’s economic troubles predate Pezeshkian’s presidency, conservatives have placed the blame squarely on his government for failing to halt the downturn. The consecutive dismissals have only deepened uncertainty, triggering further stock market losses as businesses grow increasingly wary of a political climate that appears to be shutting the door to the West.

    Who is Mohammad Javad Zarif?

    Mohammad Javad Zarif, a career diplomat and Iran’s most prominent reformist, has been the country’s most articulate voice in presenting its foreign policy to Western audiences. Serving as foreign minister from 2013 to 2021 under moderate President Hassan Rouhani, he was instrumental in shaping Iran’s international engagements and played a key role in Pezeshkian’s presidential campaign, effectively running as his closest ally.

    Zarif is widely recognized for his role in negotiating the 2015 nuclear deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which eased Western sanctions in exchange for independent UN inspections to ensure Iran’s nuclear program remained strictly civilian. Throughout his career, he has advocated for a stronger role for the foreign ministry in shaping Iran’s international policy, challenging the dominance of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in foreign affairs.

    Throughout his career, he has been a frequent target of hardliners, particularly over allegations that his American-born children hold dual Iranian-US citizenship. Opponents, many of whom reject negotiations with the US, argue that his appointment violated a 2022 law barring individuals with Western ties from holding senior government positions. Concerns over his children’s nationality, stemming from his tenure as a diplomat in the US, were among the reasons he initially attempted to resign from Pezeshkian’s administration in August 2024.

    His appointment as vice president for strategic affairs—a role created largely to accommodate him—was widely seen as an effort by the reformist government to restore ties with the US and Europe and to ease Iran’s economic struggles under severe sanctions. However, this strategy now faces significant obstacles, as President Donald Trump—who withdrew the US from the nuclear deal in 2018 and reinstated crippling sanctions—has adopted an even more hardline approach toward Iran, leaving little room for diplomatic maneuvering.

    Conservatives Tighten Grip

    In his resignation note, Zarif suggested that his departure was not voluntary, highlighting the growing influence of conservatives over reformists within the administration and fueling internal discontent. A high-ranking official had reportedly instructed Pezeshkian to dismiss him and send him back to academia. Pezeshkian refused, instead insisting that the directive be delivered to Zarif directly.

    Pezeshkian himself appears uneasy with the conservative push to sideline Zarif and other reformists. With Donald Trump expected to take a more confrontational stance in the coming days, reformists are likely to face increasing pressure, as his administration is unlikely to engage meaningfully with Iran. This shift could further reinforce conservative claims that diplomacy with the West is futile.

    Trump’s push to reinstate maximum economic sanctions has already weakened reformists advocating for a new global agreement on nuclear oversight. A deepening economic crisis could provide conservatives with a pretext to tighten their grip on power, potentially leading to further crackdowns on reformist elements within the government. Meanwhile, conservatives have cited Trump’s recent Oval Office humiliation of Volodymyr Zelenskyy as a cautionary tale for those in Iran who still believe negotiations with the U.S. president are possible.

    What Happens Next?

    The Islamic Republic of Iran is facing mounting pressure, not only from external forces but also from its own citizens. Protests against the regime are becoming increasingly visible, amplified by social media, where pre-Islamic Persian sentiments are resurging. Amid this unrest, Iran’s economy continues to deteriorate, and Trump’s sanctions are likely to accelerate its decline, further fueling public discontent toward the regime.

    In this context, the regime may seek to shift blame onto the reformist government while allowing conservatives to reclaim control in an effort to preserve the Islamic Republic. Recent developments suggest that the regime, which initially attempted to negotiate a path forward with Pezeshkian and Zarif, is now reasserting control. 

  • Can Iran Withstand Trump’s Imminent Onslaught of Sanctions?

    Can Iran Withstand Trump’s Imminent Onslaught of Sanctions?

    Economic sanctions have become the most powerful weapon of the 21st century, replacing traditional warfare as real weapons now carry the risk of turning the earth to ashes. In this new battlefield, the United States—armed with the world’s most dominant economy—stands as the undisputed superpower. And now, at the helm, is a leader who wields this weapon with precision: Donald Trump. His primary target? The Islamic Republic of Iran.

    Iran was dealt a severe blow last year, losing one of its most hardline presidents in a helicopter crash while simultaneously watching its influence erode in key regional strongholds like Syria and Lebanon. Meanwhile, internal fractures have deepened, particularly among the youth, who are increasingly torn between their Muslim and Persian identities—some even questioning the future of the Islamic Republic itself.

    Now, Iran appears more vulnerable than ever as Trump escalates pressure, determined to punish Tehran while strengthening alliances with its regional adversaries, Israel and Saudi Arabia. These three powers have expanded their influence and remain unwavering in their effort to dismantle pro-Iranian groups in Yemen and Iraq.

    With mounting internal unrest and relentless external pressure, Iran is at a crossroads: is it losing its foothold in the region? As Trump and Khamenei lock horns, their hardline stances are pushing the U.S. and Iran ever closer to a collision course—one that may redefine the balance of power in the Middle East.

    Europe, once a key diplomatic bridge between Iran and the US, finds itself increasingly sidelined as Trump reasserts his dominance on the global stage. Having maintained dialogue with Tehran even after Trump abandoned negotiations in his last term, Europe is now losing its leverage in international politics. With Washington tightening its grip, Tehran sees little prospect for renewed discussions or a return to the nuclear agreement.

    In response to Trump’s mounting pressure, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has adopted an increasingly defiant tone. During a visit to a defense exhibition in Tehran on Wednesday, he urged the Iranian government to further expand its military capabilities. “Progress cannot be stopped,” he declared, warning against complacency. In a pointed message to adversaries, he added, “Today, our defensive power is well-known. Our enemies fear it.”

    But in reality, Trump’s diplomatic overtures toward Khamenei, coupled with his administration’s relentless “maximum pressure” campaign, have considerably eroded the Supreme Leader’s standing. In recent weeks, several senior Iranian officials have shown a growing openness to direct negotiations with Washington. Khamenei’s firm opposition to reviving U.S.-Iran nuclear talks seems less about ideology and more about his weakening grip—both within Iran and across the region.

    Nowadays, Khamenei’s primary concern is not foreign threats but the potential for domestic upheaval. His greatest fear is that Iran’s disillusioned silent majority could exploit the pressure from U.S. sanctions as an opportunity to rise against his leadership. His persistent anti-U.S. rhetoric is not merely an act of defiance—it is a strategic attempt to channel public frustration outward, portraying Washington as the root cause of Iran’s struggles to consolidate support.

    The regime believes that any conflict with the U.S. could serve as a rallying point, uniting the nation against an external enemy and preserving the Islamic Republic’s grip on power. However, with the Trump administration unlikely to pursue a large-scale military confrontation, the weight of economic hardship caused by sanctions may fall directly on the regime. As living conditions deteriorate, more Iranians may begin to see the Supreme Leader—not Washington—as the true source of their suffering, further destabilizing the country.

    Iran finds itself at one of its most precarious moments. Once the backbone of the Islamic regime, the country’s lower and middle-income groups are growing increasingly disillusioned as economic pressures mount. Tougher sanctions imposed by Trump will almost certainly deepen the strain, fueling public frustration and resentment. Simultaneously, a rising sense of Persian identity over Muslim identity—especially among the Iranian diaspora in the West—signals a broader ideological shift. Clashes between young Iranians and pro-Palestinian activists in Western cities highlight this evolving divide.

    Inside Iran, protests against both the regime and Islam itself are becoming more frequent, despite the significant risks. As economic conditions worsen, dissent is likely to intensify, further destabilizing the country. Ethnic minority groups, already restless, could take advantage of the weakening central authority to assert greater control. Given this mounting pressure, Iran may have little choice but to consider diplomacy.

    However, the regime remains reluctant to reopen talks with the U.S., fearing that any negotiations would require sweeping concessions to Trump on key issues. Yet, if economic engagement were to ease public hardship, the government might see it as a temporary lifeline—buying time to navigate the crisis and maintain its hold on power.

    If Trump escalates pressure further by tightening restrictions on Russia and India—two of Iran’s crucial economic partners—the Islamic Republic’s survival will become even more uncertain. As economic conditions deteriorate, the Iranian people, faced with worsening hardship, may ultimately decide to take matters into their own hands—just as they have in the past.

  • With the New President, Can Lebanon Chart a Course Toward the West?

    With the New President, Can Lebanon Chart a Course Toward the West?

    Lebanon, grappling with political, economic, and social unrest, seems to be shifting away from Iran’s influence by electing a new president who is supported by the West and advocates for a stronger Lebanon. The country’s parliament has chosen Army Commander Joseph Aoun as the new president, ending a two-year vacancy and raising hopes for the long-term stability of a ceasefire with Israel. Aoun received 99 out of 128 votes in the parliament’s 13th attempt to select a new head of state, succeeding former President Michel Aoun—who is unrelated to Joseph Aoun—after his departure in October 2022.

    Lebanon’s political system often undermines democratic principles, with a convoluted structure built around a confessionalist framework that allocates key political positions to religious communities through quotas. The system requires the president to be a Maronite Christian, the prime minister to come from the Sunni branch of Islam, and the speaker of Parliament to be from the Shia branch of Islam—reflecting a fragile power-sharing arrangement. Political appointments, from the presidency to parliamentary seats, strictly follow sectarian divisions. The parliament elects the president for a single six-year term, and the president works with lawmakers to appoint the prime minister, adhering to the same quota system. Sectarian interests dominate political parties, complicating governance and eroding democratic values. This flawed structure has led to Lebanon’s mismanagement, resulting in one of the most severe economic and sociological crises in modern history. According to the United Nations, over 80%—or four out of five—of Lebanon’s population now lives in poverty.

    While the presidency in Lebanon holds limited authority, the election of Joseph Aoun hints at a significant shift in the country’s political trajectory. Aoun, who has built strong ties with international powers like Saudi Arabia, France, and the United States during his time as the head of Lebanon’s armed forces, reflects a broader trend of Lebanon leaning westward and distancing itself from Iran’s influence.

    Iran’s sway has been steadily diminishing, a process notably accelerated by the 2022 parliamentary elections. In those elections, the Iran-backed Hezbollah movement and its allies lost their majority in parliament, signaling a notable decline in Tehran’s grip on the country. At the same time, Hezbollah’s Christian ally, the Free Patriotic Movement of outgoing President Michel Aoun, was overtaken as the dominant Christian faction by the Lebanese Forces, a party led by Samir Geagea, who shares close ties with Saudi Arabia.

    The evolution in Lebanon’s politics mirrors the broader regional shifts, particularly Turkey’s efforts to limit Iran’s influence in Syria. Now, with Saudi Arabia—another U.S. ally—on the scene, it seems likely that the Kingdom will play a central role in weakening Iran’s hold over Lebanon, marking a strategic recalibration in the delicate balance of power.

    International leaders, particularly from the West, expressed optimism over the election of Lebanon’s new president, Joseph Aoun. A spokesman for UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres described the election as an important step toward resolving Lebanon’s long-standing political and institutional impasse, which had persisted for over two years due to the presidential vacancy. U.S. President Joe Biden praised Aoun as a suitable leader for the current challenges facing Lebanon.

    Aoun’s primary focus will be on strengthening the Lebanese army, especially in southern Lebanon, where its authority has been challenged since the late 1970s by groups like the Palestine Liberation Organization and Hezbollah. His efforts are expected to be bolstered by assistance from Saudi Arabia, the United States, and France, and Israel is likely to view these developments positively as they improve security along its northern border. After his election, Aoun addressed parliament, emphasizing the state’s right to control the possession of weapons and highlighting the importance of the army in safeguarding Lebanon’s borders.

    The 2004 UN resolution required all armed groups in Lebanon to disarm, but Hezbollah has refused to comply, insisting it is the only force capable of defending Lebanon from Israel. However, he has an opportunity to act as Hezbollah grapples with mounting difficulties, including Iran’s waning regional influence and reduced support from Syria. During Lebanon’s prolonged leadership vacuum, Hezbollah exploited the instability to tighten its grip on southern Lebanon and engage in skirmishes with Israel. By reinforcing the army, Aoun can directly counter Hezbollah’s dominance in the region.

    Hope is on the rise in Lebanon with the election of a new, Western-backed president and the diminishing influence of both Hezbollah and Iran. Now, the country stands at a pivotal moment to rebuild and strengthen its institutions. However, this task will not be simple, as Lebanon’s deep-rooted divisions remain a significant obstacle. Yet, with strong leadership, support from global powers, and a weakened opposition, the Lebanese president is presented with a better opportunity. Though President Aoun faces limitations due to Lebanon’s unique constitution, his six-year term gives him a critical platform to shape the nation’s future. He will also play a vital role in the 2026 parliamentary elections—or potentially in a snap election—that could break the long-standing political deadlock. This moment marks a potential shift toward the West, signaling that Lebanon is indeed charting a new course in its international orientation.

  • Can Yemen’s Crisis Find a Resolution, Like Syria’s?

    Can Yemen’s Crisis Find a Resolution, Like Syria’s?

    The Arab Spring, fueled by Islamist populist movements advocating for Islamic rule and opposing dictatorial regimes, plunged many nations into chaos. This upheaval fractured several countries, leaving them embroiled in civil wars that have lasted over 13 years. Despite numerous peace talks over this period, most efforts ended in stalemates. Meanwhile, several global powers exploited these conflicts, strengthening their influence. Iran, in particular, expanded its regional power by funding and directing proxy groups involved in civil wars across various nations.

    However, The ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran is helping various factions in war to break long-standing deadlocks. Syria offers a key example. Despite significant risks, Israel-backed forces successfully challenged Iran-aligned factions, collaborating with allies like Turkey to oust the Iran-backed regime and ultimately reach a resolution. A similar shift appears to be unfolding in Yemen, where Israel’s growing focus on the region has sparked renewed optimism that a resolution to the prolonged conflict may finally be within sight.

    Yemen, with its strategic geopolitical location, once served as a vital trade hub between the East and West. For much of its history, Yemeni cities were among the wealthiest in the Arabian Peninsula, flourishing along key trade routes. However, its strategic importance made Yemen vulnerable to superpowers, and it eventually fell under the control of Islamic kingdoms and European powers. The modern state of Yemen, as we know it today, was established in 1990 following the unification of the previously divided South and North. Yet, foreign influence and interests did not diminish. Saudi Arabia and the United States continued to pursue their agendas in Yemen—Saudi Arabia aiming to create a Shia-free region, while the U.S. sought to maintain control over this vital geopolitical location.

    Ali Abdullah Saleh, the leader who unified Yemen, soon began treating the country as his personal fiefdom. However, his failure to build strong state institutions hampered Yemen’s development into a stable nation. Instead, Yemen’s political landscape became defined by a fragile form of collaborative governance, where competing tribal, regional, religious, and political interests coexisted through an unspoken arrangement. This informal structure was underpinned by a power-sharing agreement among three key figures: President Saleh, who controlled the state; Major General Ali Mohsen al-Ahmar, who commanded the majority of Yemen’s armed forces; and Abdullah ibn Husayn al-Ahmar, the leader of the Islamist al-Islah party, who served as a Saudi-appointed broker overseeing transnational patronage payments to various political factions, including influential tribal leaders.

    Misgovernance, internal divisions, and deteriorating living conditions in Yemen created a fertile environment for terrorism, turning the country into a recruitment hub for various Islamic organizations. Despite the worsening situation, Saleh managed to hold on to power through fraudulent elections. During the Arab Spring, multiple groups united in opposition to him, sparking a new wave of civil war. However, the opposition quickly fragmented, and as various factions seized control of different regions, each pursuing its own agenda, Yemen was pushed further into crisis, edging closer to collapse.

    Like in Syria, Iran plays a significant role in Yemen by backing the Houthis, a group of militants advocating for the implementation of Shia Islamic law. The Houthis are notorious for their attacks on maritime shipping routes, as well as for their strikes on Saudi oil refineries and their solidarity with Hamas and Iran in their opposition to Israel. They control a large portion of Yemen, primarily in the former northern part of the country. For years, international watchdogs and superpowers largely avoided engaging with the Houthis or seeking resolutions in Yemen. However, as the Houthis continue their attacks on Israel, it’s increasingly likely that Israel will retaliate. Israel may follow a strategy similar to the one it used in Syria, which could bring hope for Yemen. In Syria, Israel successfully targeted Hezbollah fighters, aligned with Iran, forcing them to collapse and paving the way for forces backed by the United States ally Turkey to topple the Iran-supported regime, ultimately bringing an end to the civil war.

    In Yemen, Israel may target the Houthis with the support of its intelligence agencies, while Saudi-backed troops, potentially bolstered by U.S. assistance, could attempt to seize control of Sanaa. However, Yemen presents a unique challenge for Israel due to its geographical distance and the significant cultural and social differences from Syria.

    Yemen is now fragmented into at least six parts, with Iran, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and the United States playing key roles within the country. While Iran and its Houthi allies remain entrenched, other factions could unite in the conflict. If Israel were to target the Houthis, opposing groups or their coalition partners could likely execute a relatively straightforward mission. This would involve a surgical strike strategy and targeted attacks similar to those that severely weakened Hezbollah by eliminating key leaders. If successful, the Houthis would be significantly diminished, reducing their threat. Although the timeline for such an outcome remains uncertain, if the Houthis persist in their missile attacks against Israel, a resolution will eventually emerge. This could provide an opportunity for opposition groups in Yemen to retake the capital and reunify the nation.

  • What’s the Game Israel and Iran Are Playing?

    What’s the Game Israel and Iran Are Playing?

    Over the past year, Israel’s conflict with Hamas has escalated into a broader confrontation with Iran. The Jewish state and the Islamic Republic have exchanged missiles and now trading hostile rhetoric. While many fear an all-out war involving multiple states, In reality, it looks like Israel and Iran show little genuine interest in such a conflict. Instead, both countries prefer maintaining tension and inflicting sporadic casualties without escalating to a full-scale war. They each appear very interested in the ‘game’ they’re playing.

    This ongoing rivalry—the geopolitical game between the two countries—dates back to Iran’s establishment as an Islamic Republic, a theocratic state with a declared intent to eliminate Israel. Iran views this as a holy duty, waging what it considers a sacred war through its proxies in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. The struggle has been perpetuated, with death seen as a martyr’s reward. Meanwhile, Israel does not consider itself safe as long as Iran remains strong. While the tensions between these two countries have always been present, they avoided direct conflicts. However, over the past year, they have begun to engage in fighting directly against each other.

    Many across the globe, especially those with peaceful intentions, struggle to comprehend this intense conflict, which is far from an ordinary territorial or independence dispute. For Iran and its allies, it is a matter intertwined with faith, divinity, and existential beliefs. Meanwhile, Israel’s supporters advocate for survival and security. In the latest development, Israel launched fresh waves of missiles toward Iran. This move, in response to Iran’s barrage on Israel, was carefully measured to avoid severe escalation or interference with the upcoming U.S. presidential election. 

    The direct strikes in between Israel and Iran, avoiding proxies, began on April 1st when Israel targeted the Iranian consulate in Syria, resulting in the deaths of Iranian officials. In response, Iran launched missiles on April 13th, though most were intercepted by Israel’s defense system, which has become quite effective. Israel further humiliated Iran by killing Hamas chief Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran on July 31st, followed by the assassination of Iran’s leader’s closest ally and chief of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah.

    Iran felt compelled to retaliate to maintain its standing in the Islamic world, and on October 2nd, the International Day of Non-Violence, it launched missiles at Israeli cities, some of which breached Israel’s famous Iron Dome defense system, stunning Israeli forces. But On October 25th, Israeli missiles flew toward Iran.

    Interestingly, although there is always fear that missile exchanges could lead to heavy casualties and escalate tensions to the brink of World War III, as noted by X pundits, nothing has happened. Business continues as usual, which raises suspicions of a conspiracy suggesting that there may be some understanding between the two countries, despite the geographical distance and potential U.S. interference to de-escalate tensions.

    There are reasons to believe that there may be a covert understanding between Israel and Iran, as both states appear to benefit significantly from the ongoing tensions. Israel’s government was on the brink of collapse, with key political figures facing corruption trials, while Iran faced a severe internal political crisis between Islamic conservatives and Persians. Initially, the war between Israel and Hamas, and now Israel and Iran, has effectively prevented the collapse of Netanyahu’s government. Hamas’s brutal attack served to unify a deeply divided Israeli society, restoring the country’s prominence on the international stage—a space it had almost faded from as Saudi Arabia rose to prominence in the region.

    Iran, too, has gained from this conflict. The country has managed to unite its deeply divided populace through anti-Israel sentiment, seen by many within the Muslim community as a religious obligation. Across the Islamic world, Iran is perceived as a strong supporter of Gaza and Palestine, bolstering its regional standing. By demonstrating an ability to counter Israel’s missiles, Iran projects itself as a powerful force. Notably, Gulf countries seem more inclined toward cooperation with Iran, as recent statements from the Gulf countries express solidarity with Iran’s territorial integrity following missile attacks. Given that both countries appear to derive considerable benefits from the conflict, the likelihood of de-escalation in the Middle East seems increasingly slim.

    While both Israel and Iran seem to be playing a deadly game that appears to bring them close to open conflict, with missiles flying between them yet causing minimal real harm, several neighboring countries are bearing the brunt—such as Lebanon, Syria, and potentially Iraq in the future. These countries, which lack the influence or capability to mount any resistance, are the true casualties in this conflict. If it escalates into a full-scale war, as some pundits predict, these nations will suffer the most. Meanwhile, the U.S. as a ‘referee’ and the U.N. as a ‘sideline referee’ seem ineffective. Worldwide onlookers, watching this heated game, divide themselves between supporters from the global left and Muslim communities on one side and right-wing factions on the other. Both sides eagerly cheer on social media, voicing their support with rage.

  • BRICS Shows Strength in Russia

    BRICS Shows Strength in Russia

    There are many multinational alliances in the world today, such as the European Union, NATO, the GCC, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and ASEAN. Most of these are regional organizations focused on enhancing cooperation and elevating the importance of their respective regions. However, BRICS stands apart as a unique entity—neither regional nor military like NATO. Instead, it is an international body created as an alternative to the dominance of the United States. BRICS, originally formed as BRIC in 2009 with the addition of Brazil to the team of Russia, India, and China—four of the world’s top 10 economies—was later joined by South Africa. The group initially aimed to reduce reliance on the U.S. dollar and U.S. technology while boosting investment opportunities. Now in its 16th year, BRICS has become an increasingly significant geopolitical bloc. They are currently holding their 16th summit in Kazan, Russia, chaired by Vladimir Putin, a leader ostracized by the West, with more than 36 global leaders in attendance. The summit underscores the group’s independence and its indifference to the United States and the West.

    Beyond the typical photo shoots, the 16th summit in Kazan showcases the unity of its members. Several meetings are planned among various state leaders, including Russian President Vladimir Putin, Chinese President Xi Jinping, and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. This summit also marks the debut of Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates. The expanded membership suggests a shift toward alliances reminiscent of the Cold War era, when states formed strong, politically driven partnerships. Despite economic threats from the United States, all participants are eager to cooperate, and Putin is using the occasion to assert Russia’s enduring global relevance. The summit can be viewed as a personal success for Putin, as he has brought together nations like China and India, which were previously on the verge of conflict in a way that questions the existence of the bloc.

    The meeting between Chinese president Xi Jinping and Indian Prime minister Narendra Modi takes place after five years as part of the summit. The relationship between China and India was very strained, following deadly fights at the border. Emerging reports indicate that China and India are actively working to resolve their border disputes and are ready to cooperate as they did in earlier years. This development poses a significant setback to U.S. efforts to divide the coalition and pull India to its side.

    Russia is also using the Kazan BRICS summit to push de-dollarization as a key agenda item. With Western sanctions severely impacting its businesses, Russia is seeking alternatives, and China, with its expansionist ambitions, is also anticipating potential sanctions. Iran, a new BRICS member, has likewise suffered under U.S. sanctions. Together, these countries are advocating for a faster transition to de-dollarization, increased use of local currencies in trade, and the strengthening of financial institutions as alternatives to U.S.-controlled banks. However, there is some resistance from India, Brazil, and South Africa, which are hesitant to accelerate the process despite their shared goal of finding an alternative to the dollar.

    The summit is expected to yield agreements on expanding trade routes and enhancing cooperation. Strengthening trade ties has been BRICS’ biggest achievement to date, helping Russia and Iran maintain relatively stable economies despite harsh Western sanctions. If India and China can rebuild their cooperation, the group’s economic power will grow significantly. Russia is working hard toward this goal, and key meetings and important decisions are anticipated at this iteration of the BRICS Summit.

    Most people in the West may not even be aware of BRICS, but it’s evident that something significant is brewing in the East that could counterbalance the United States. BRICS+ now boasts a larger GDP than the G7 or the EU, and its banks and institutions prioritize equal participation, unlike those dominated by the U.S. While Russia and China have demonstrated their capacity to challenge American influence, the inclusion of members like India, Iran, and Brazil suggests the group is poised to push further against U.S. interests. Although still in its early stages, BRICS has already proven capable of bypassing strict U.S. sanctions through enhanced cooperation. Politically, the 2024 BRICS Summit presents a challenge to U.S. dominance in global politics and represents a pivotal moment for Putin, signaling his and Russia’s resurgence on the global stage.

  • How Israel Could Destabilize Iran

    How Israel Could Destabilize Iran

    Iran, the land of the Aryans and the cradle of civilization, has a rich history shaped by the rise and fall of many kingdoms over the centuries. This diverse and multicultural nation has experienced unity under the formidable leadership of great rulers. Today, modern Iran, known as the Islamic Republic, encompasses a diverse array of cultures and ethnicities, even as it is predominantly characterized by its Shia Islamic identity. The current theocratic regime is infamous for its forceful enforcement of Islamic laws and values, and it also applies considerable pressure on various ethnic groups within the country while extending its influence over other nations through religiously motivated militant organizations.

    Iran keeps many Islamic issues alive and is known for challenging Saudi Arabia over the leadership of Islam. Its long standing desire for leadership in the Muslim world has contributed to ongoing tensions with Israel. Relations between the two states are at an all-time low, marked by missile exchanges and targeted attacks on leaders. Though Iran and Israel do not share a direct border, Iran’s political influence extends into areas near Israel, and both have engaged in a proxy conflict for years, often framed as a holy war. Now, however, Israel seems determined to end this indirect conflict and neutralize the threat from Iran.

    Many believe that rising tensions could lead to a full-scale war, while others argue that Israel will refrain from such actions, as Iran’s geographic position—controlling the strategic Strait of Hormuz—gives it significant leverage. Iran’s geography has always made it a difficult country to conquer. However, Israel seeks revenge, as retaliation has been a defining part of its history. Therefore, most likely, they will adopt a highly strategic approach, with the ultimate goal of dismantling the Islamic Republic. Political experts believe Israel may exploit Iran’s complex ethnic makeup, which has only been held together by the tougher actions of the Islamic regime thus far.

    Iran has consistently accused Israel and the West of exporting Western values into the country, which it believes could threaten its theocratic government. It has also accused foreign governments of attempting to influence various ethnic groups within Iran that share cultural ties with other sovereign nations. As a result, Iran has closed many communication channels to the outside world. However, Israel is likely to breach these barriers to provide more information to the Iranian people, considering information a powerful tool to undermine the Islamic Republic. Israel may also play a role in promoting the growing celebration of pre-Islamic Persian glory, which could challenge the Islamic Republic, a regime accused of sacrificing Persian identity for an Islamic one.

    Iran is at risk of fragmentation if Israel decides to act. While Iran’s mountainous geography provides a strategic advantage, it also serves as a natural barrier that isolates various communities with different ethnicities, languages, and identities. Many of these groups, such as the Azeris, Kurds, Arabs, Baloch, Turkmen, and Mazandaran, maintain foreign connections or share ties with neighboring countries. These regions have preserved their distinct identities despite the challenges posed by Tehran. Some of these regions demand greater autonomy, while others lean toward separatism. However, the Islamic Republic will not tolerate such movements and continues to attempt to unify the population through religious identity and increasingly authoritarian measures.

    During the 1979 Islamic Revolution, three ethnic groups—Kurds, Turkmens, and Arabs—backed by their counterparts abroad, attempted to ascend and form an independent state. The Azeris demanded more autonomy, and although they were suppressed, the situation remained volatile and could flare up again. Israel could potentially assist in this regard. The United States and the United Kingdom, known for similar practices, might ally with these ethnic groups and their kin abroad based on Israel’s interests. The Azeris will seek to unite with Azerbaijan, and the Kurds in Iran will likely also pursue the formation of a grand Kurdistan.

    Additionally, the oil-rich Arab regions in Iran could attract special U.S. support, and such a move could completely collapse Iran’s economy. In southeastern Iran, the Baloch have maintained close ties with their counterparts in Pakistan, aiming for a separate state from the very beginning. This cross-border ethnic solidarity could easily destabilize Iran, especially since Tehran currently has poor relationships with its neighbors. If they lose control over these territories or make them volatile again, the Persian-majority region could shrink to a landlocked state, jeopardizing all its geopolitical advantages.

    It needs to be considered that Israel is already stretched in its efforts to build strong relationships with Azerbaijan regarding Azeri separatism and with Saudi Arabia concerning Arab separatism. Through the growing relationship with Saudi Arabia, Israel can also exploit the Sunni-Shia conflict. The Baloch territories, which are demanding separatism, are predominantly Sunni.

    Recognizing the challenges posed by Israel, Iran is also developing counter-strategies. They present themselves as the saviors of Muslims, not only for Shia but for all branches of Islam. They demand unity from other Islamic countries to carry out their religious task of eliminating Jews. Mass arrests of protesters or separatists from various ethnic groups, accused of terrorism, are also taking place. However, Iran is playing a risky game; as long as they target Israel, they are at risk of collapse.

  • How Does Iran Grant Israel a License for Direct Attack?

    How Does Iran Grant Israel a License for Direct Attack?

    There is no room for talks, compromises, or peace in the ongoing “Holy War” between Israel and Iran. The conflict has escalated far beyond the initial Israel-Hamas confrontation and Israel’s retaliatory actions following the October 7th Hamas attack. It has now transformed into a broader war between Jews and Shiite Muslims, rooted in centuries of conflict. There had been hope that the leaders of Israel and Iran would avoid direct confrontation, recognizing the massive regional repercussions, and that the fighting would remain limited to their proxies. However, recent missile attacks by Iran on Israel have raised fears that both countries are preparing for an all-out war.

    While Israel and Iran do not share a direct border, the conflict would likely involve air strikes, with both sides seeking maximum destruction. Such a war would likely be more devastating than previous Israel-Arab wars. It is fair to say the Islamic Republic of Iran is at greater risk, as Israel has demonstrated its ability to eliminate enemies, even from a distance, through strategically planned operations. By engaging in direct conflict, Iran’s Islamic Republic is digging its own grave, much like Hamas did.

    Israel, it seems, had been waiting for the right moment – perhaps even wanting a provocation from Hamas, one that would justify its long-standing desire to eliminate the group. When Hamas launched its attack, with its sheer scale and brazen style, it gave Israel the pretext to escalate its response to a new and more intense level. Around this time last year, Israel was in a precarious position. The nation’s political landscape was fractured, with deep divisions tearing at the fabric of its government. Protests rippled across the country, aimed squarely at its leaders. Internationally, too, Israel was grappling with a diminished standing as Saudi Arabia emerged as a rising regional power, frequently outpacing Israel in garnering the favor of the United States. Sensing an opportunity, Hamas sought to capitalize on Israel’s weakened position, launching the terrorist attack on October 7th. But what was likely intended to further destabilize Israel instead offered the nation an opportunity to unite and strike back with renewed force.

    Now, nearly a year later, Israel is in a position of triumph. They have regained their place at the center of international politics, reaffirming their status as the United States top ally in the region. Domestically, they are more unified despite earlier divisions, and they have successfully eliminated key leaders of their enemies. Hamas and Hezbollah lost their top figures, Ismael Haniyeh and Hassan Nasrallah, while these leaders remain in hiding. Israel’s military success, along with its strategic use of information warfare via the internet, has garnered global support in an unprecedented way.

    However, the real challenge for Israel comes from the Islamic Republic of Iran, whose theocratic government believes that eliminating Israel is their duty. Iran doesn’t intervene directly but leads the clashes through proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran has previously launched missiles in solidarity with its suffering proxies, responding to the humiliation faced from Israel, but these attempts failed. Meanwhile, Israel, which takes every step more cunningly in this war, is waiting for a motive for a direct strike on Iran.

    Recently, on October 1st, a day before the Jewish New Year and the International Day of Non-Violence, Iran launched another missile barrage on Israel and supported an attack by Hamas. While the success rate was low, it stunned both Israel and the world. Iran may feel it succeeded in demonstrating its capabilities to the international community, but in reality, it has given Israel the opportunity to increase pressure and mount further attacks on Iran, much like how Hamas’s actions led Israel to invade Gaza. Israel can now present itself as being targeted by Iran, positioning its retaliatory actions as necessary for its self-defense.

    The fear of an all-out war or escalation between Israel and Iran and their respective allies is at an all-time high. Iran’s recent actions are indicative of its frustration. The Islamic Republic’s most significant leverage is its role as the protector of Islam, and any questioning of that role could result in a loss of grip on power. Should Iran lose this grip, it could lead to the downfall of Hamas, Hezbollah, and many other organizations backed by Iran, making it imperative for the regime to demonstrate strength to the world. However, this situation now provides Israel with a license to target even Tehran. Israel possesses an almost insurmountable advantage over Iran in long-distance aerial attacks, advanced technology, and espionage. 

    Many believe that the Islamic Republic of Iran, with its diverse ethnic backgrounds and internal cultural divisions, presents a vulnerable target for Israeli intelligence, which could weaken the country strategically before a full-scale war ever becomes necessary. Through carefully planned moves, Israel could potentially destabilize Iran, reducing the need for a large-scale conflict. Nevertheless, it is clear that the Islamic Republic of Iran is now a key target for Israel.