Iran: Preparing for “Soft War”

Ali Asghar Kazemi

December 2009

_________________

Changing Conflict Environment

Ever since the breakdown of the Soviet Union, as the most powerful rival of the United States in the bipolar system, without a single bullet being fired, the expression of “Soft War” entered into new military and strategic jargon in the world. While the use of hard power or military forces is still a prevalent means in interstate clashes, the advent of the internet as a popular method of communications introduced a new dimension in the conflict environment.

Cyber war is a form of applied soft power in conflict situations where various vital strategic points and institutions of the target state are susceptible to cyber attacks. The range of such targets is very wide and diverse: from civilian power plants, banking system and defense establishments to media and cultural centers and academic institutions. Many states are now investing hard in the field of soft war as a legitimate investment with the objective to avoid the fate of the “evil empire.”

While conflict environment is being radically changed, means of encountering threats should also be transformed accordingly. However, there seem to be some misperceptions about non-violent and peaceful capacity of states to influence the course of international relations. This dimension has always been an important element of interstate interactions. In other words, use of soft power to complement other means of military power in peace and war has always formed an integral part of states’ grand strategy.

How far new schemes to cope with the threats of “soft war” is realistic? What are the risks of such strategy for society as a whole?

New Threats Perceptions

The post-elections turmoil in Iran has already lasted too long to be turned into an attrition domestic conflict. The hard-liners in Tehran are now announcing that they are facing a “soft war” initiated by the West for the purpose of toppling the Islamic regime. They argue that Western powers, disappointed from the threats of use force and hard power against Iran, and deterred from Iran’s defense and military capability, have been staging an unparalleled aggressive scheme through “soft power.” In their view, the plan is to instigate people against the government by claiming freedom, human rights, democracy and so on. They perceive that these latter demands are merely intended to press upon the Islamic system to surrender to western evil secular institutions and way of life.

The apprehension seems to be real and serious. Since, the forces of law and order are now being directed to cope with soft threats coming from the public media influenced by the West, including the satellites, internet and other means of communications. A parallel campaign has been initiated against academic institutions for teaching Western oriented secular social sciences. This whole has given a legitimate pretext to the ruling system to widen its rigorous control over the media and to press upon journalists, scholars, academics and opposition groups who one way or another have been criticizing the government during the past turbulent months.

Exaggerating Western Soft Power

There is no doubt about the technological capacity of the West and their capability to influence course of events anywhere in the world. But apparently, the threat of soft power is being immensely exaggerated in order to suppress domestic dissents which seeks its roots somewhere else

Ibne Khaldun, (1332-1406 AD) Moslem philosopher and scholar, pioneer in ‎sociology and historical analysis, was the first to argue that the defeat of the ‎Islamic domination in Western Mediterranean (Spain) was due to moral and ‎material decay of Moslem warriors and rulers. The main cause of this ‎phenomenon in his opinion was the clever plot designed by Westerners to corrupt ‎Moslem zealous through inducing lust for material amenities of life which detracted them ‎from their fervor and eagerness to defend the conquered realm of Islam.‎

In a way, the Khadunian suggestion seems to be still valid in any society where there is a cleavage between people and the ruling system because of mutual distrust. There are many factors through which people lose faith in their political system. Lack of accountability and proper democratic institutions, infringement to their principal rights, non-conformity to moral and ethical values, are among the most important factors leading to people mistrust and alienation. When people lose faith in the political system, they become discontent and thereby vulnerable and subject to all sorts of exogenous influence and intrigues.

Therefore, when people rise up against a political system and claim legitimate rights, one should not put all the blame on extraneous factors. Rational management of domestic crises requires that indigenous elements be taken seriously into consideration. In other words, we must first have an adequate grasp of our own society before initiating policies to counter with outside mischievous plots. People should be immunized against the influence of others’ soft power through appropriate cultural and educational preparation. Uses of repressive and restrictive measures usually have counterproductive effect. The problem needs to be tackled open-mindedly and rationally by specialists and not by unqualified forces that could jeopardize the whole scheme.

Dialogue and Diplomacy as Instruments of Soft Power

When states are engaged concurrently in two fronts (domestic and international) with disagreement, they should use both dialogue and diplomacy as instruments of soft power for crisis management. Exaggerating too much about “soft war” may further close the society and isolate the nation from the mainstream of international relations. At the same time, investing too heavily on hard power and military strength will not produce the necessary security assurance for a country.

The fall of the Soviet Union was not due to their lack of hard power, but rather to the disregard of the ruling elites of people’s essential rights and closure of the communist society to perceived “imperialistic plots.” Preparing for “soft war” requires a national consciousness of our strength, advantages and weakness and our standing in the global political configuration. Hard power and soft power are complementary components of national strategy in pursuit of vital interests. No matter how powerful a nation might be, it should show some degree of flexibility and tolerance in domestic and foreign affairs. The instruments of dialogue and diplomacy should be used as appropriate means to offset domestic unrest and to neutralize conceivable threats directed against our national interests. /

‎‎____________

‎ ‎* Ali Asghar Kazemi is professor of Law and International Relations in Tehran, Iran. See: ‎www.aakazemi.blogspot.com

‎* Students, researchers, academic institutions, media or any party interested in using all or parts of ‎this article are welcomed to do so with the condition of giving full attribution to the author and ‎Strategic Discourse ©All Copy Rights Reserved.‎

Iran, Beating the War Drums!

Iran: Beating the War Drums!

Ali Asghar Kazemi

November 24, 2009

_______________

In the midst of a confusing stalemate in the nuclear negotiation with the 5+1 powers, Islamic hardliners are engaging in an unprecedented military exercise with the objective to show a deterrent air defense umbrella for Iran’s nuclear sites and strategic points. The Islamic government has so far shown reluctance to go along with the West on the matters concerning its nuclear undertaking and the proposed confidence-building measures. Instead, it is aggravating the situation by organizing maneuvers that would eventually create further suspicions and hostility.

How far the major challengers of the controversial projects are susceptible to be deterred from this and similar military exercises? Is really military confrontation a rational solution to the problem? What are eventual scenarios in this conflict? Is a military clash between Iran and its main nuclear contenders inevitable?

It is normal that countries plan in peacetime for regular military maneuvers in order to keep forces in a state of readiness and efficient condition to confront potential foreign threats. Also, it is quite understandable that such exercises be made known to public with a view to deter those who may have ill intentions about the security, independence and territorial integrity of another state. But, the odd thing about the recent air defense exercise in Iran is its timing and configuration.

At the outset, the exercise was supposed to cover almost the whole space of the country for the purpose of the air defense protection of nuclear sites and other strategic targets exposed to eventual hostile air raids. This has included both active as well as passive defense. But, one missing important element in this defense puzzle was the promised Russian S300 which so far was not delivered to Iran. Eventually, the lack of this vital weapon system pushed the Islamic Guard Corps- Pasdaran- to stay away from this particular operation. Since, without this air defense system, the chances for an effective active defense would be highly diminished. Understandably, Pasdaran, who are now in control of almost everything in the country, do not want to enter into a contest whose outcome is unclear.

Thus, unlike most other exercises, this time the regular military forces (and not the Pasdaran) have been tasked for carrying out operation. This is indeed a significant change from the past when the Guardian Corps assumed the responsibility of all show of forces in similar cases. In the central command post, a clergy with black turban and army uniform was sitting next to the commanding flag officer of the maneuver; implying that everything is under the control of the clerical hierarchy. It is interesting to notice that we seldom saw similar situations when a high profile “Pasdar” assumed the responsibility of an operation.

As for military and political implications of this untimely exercise, the following points can be observed:

· Considering the timing of this exercise, the Islamic government seems to be losing hope in diplomatic negotiations with the 5+1 powers and is trying to put more pressure to them for further concessions;

· Despite wide publicity in the domestic media, while public at large might be impressed by the extent and scope of the exercise, Iran’s potential hostiles, namely the United States and its ally in the region (Israel) appear not be deterred by the show of forces. Since, they have a practical estimate of Iran’s actual defense potentials and state of technology ;

· While a clash seems to be still remote under present circumstances, in an unfortunate worst case scenario, the conflict would be fast (blitzkrieg) and decisive leaving no option for Iran to project power beyond its borders;

· Should the worst case scenario occurs, the extent of damages to strategic points will be beyond calculation and the result of the last 50 years investment in infrastructure and economic resources will be put to nil.

· In case of a quick round up of the conflict, the blame of the defeat will be put on the regular armed forces and a number of outside factors beyond incumbent government control.

Given that the Islamic government has partially lost public support in the wake of the controversial presidential elections, it seems rather hard that the regime could mobilize a long-run attrition war against its enemies. This means that the ruling clergies might not be able to count on people’s religious or patriotic fervor for effective support. However, should the conflict drags on for more than a few days after the first rounds of strikes, then, Pasdaran might try to organize retaliatory brushfire strikes against the invaders or American allies in the region.

On the rationality and logic of Islamic hardliners to organize such costly exercises for the purpose of deterring their potential adversaries, one should realize that defending national interests of a country is no longer possible with mere hard power and weapon system. No matter how powerful a state might be, it needs to use diplomacy and negotiation for the purpose of protecting its security and sovereignty.

There is no doubt that the West and their allies in the region have a good grasp and assessment of Iran’s defense capacity and potentials. They know well its vulnerabilities and weak points as well as the technological state of its defense system. Hundreds of research centers and institutes permanently follow every bits of defense development or procurement in the world. Therefore, one ought to be realistic enough not to engage in a confrontation whose outcome is at least unclear if not totally adverse to its national interests.

Let’s hope that politicians involved in this critical situation act vigilantly in their decisions and actions. The Middle East has enough problems and bottlenecks that we need not another new situation that could engulf the whole region into a new crisis and bloodshed. /

_____________

Ali Asghar Kazemi is professor of Law and International Relations in Tehran, Iran. See: www.aakazemi.blogspot.com

* Students, researchers, academic institutions, media or any party interested in using all or parts of this article are welcomed to do so with the condition of giving full attribution to the author and Strategic Discourse. ©All Copy Rights Reserved.

Iran, US and the Russian Connection

Iran, US and the Russian Connection

Ali Asghar Kazemi

November 16, 2009

_________________

Iran and the United States have been competing hard to gain Russian support for their mutually antagonistic nuclear policies. Russians as usual are playing a villain opportunist who tries to get the most benefit out of this tripartite connection. How far this game can continue and how long Iranians should pay ransom to the Kremlin in order to put into operation Bushehr nuclear power plant that has become a source of prestige and the symbol Iran-Russia cooperation after the revolution in Iran?

Upon the conclusion of a meeting between Obama and Medvediev during the November 15, 2009 APEC conference in Singapore, Russian have announced that Iran’s nuclear power plant at Bushehr will not be operational at the end of this year for technical matters. This is the fifth or sixth time that Russians have postponed the inauguration of the plant during the past years; whilst it has become a matter of pride and prestige for the Islamic regime. Despite Russian claim to the contrary, Iranians firmly believe that this action has a political motivation and is a direct result of American pressure on the Russians with respect to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Opposition groups blame the incumbent government for the mismanagement of the project and accuse Russians as unreliable and erratic party who should not be trusted for major undertakings.

Read More...

Obama: Between Idealism and Realism

Obama: Between Idealism and Realism
Ali Asghar Kazemi
November 2009
______________________________
Less than a year in the White House, Obama is caught in a perplex situation: the Wilsonian ideals of peace, democracy, self-determination etc on the one hand; and American prestige, power and hegemony in the world on the other. There is no doubt that Obama is personally and by nature a decent man with many good human traits. But, as president of the United States, he is supposed to follow the Machiavellian advices in order to preserve “Prince’s” power and interests.
Perhaps, it is normal that when one begins to exercise in some fresh field, at initial steps the element of wish and purpose is overwhelming strong and the inclination to ponder upon facts and means are weak or non-existent. Realism is based on the assumption that the key concept in politics is interest defined as power; and everything else in the realm of ethics and morality is at the service of those interests.
Obama’s idealistic stand during his presidential campaign with respect to foreign policy and defense strategy was a natural position of a democrat candidate vis-a-vis a republican president who became the most detested leader in US history. But, he was enough conscious not to let him-self mired by illusion. Thus, in his initial speech after the election he touched to concrete facts on the way of the United States when he said: “the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime, two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century.” In fact, the troubles that Obama inherited from his predecessors were so profound and beyond reach that nobody could deny their existence and complexities.

Read More...

Towards “Secular Nationalism” in Iran

Towards “Secular Nationalism” in Iran

Ali Asghar Kazemi

November 2009

_______________________

While nationalism in the Moslem world is commonly considered as an alien ideology imported from the West, Persian nationalism has been emerged from a religious ground. Shi’ism is an outgrowth of this phenomenon that distinguishes Iranian from other Arab and non-Arab Moslems in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world.

Up until the advent of the Islamic regime in Iran, national consciousness has been with Iranians parallel to their religious traditions. In other words, religious nationalism formed an inherent trait of the Persian identity for a long period of time[i]. This feature helped Iranians to consolidate, fight against their enemies and secure the country from disintegration and collapse. However, this trend has changed its course during the past several years. A new generation of Iranian intellectuals, academics and educated people is gradually moving away from the political Islam and traditional religious values toward a more universal and secular approach to various issues of society and the nation.

The progressive “Green Movement,” that emerged amidst the controversial presidential elections of June 2009, can be considered as the social and political manifestations of this new tendency. Upon a series of bloody clashes with the regime during the post-elections turmoil of June 2009, the movement has turned to radical and secular nationalistic slogans that aim at the very foundation of the religious system.

What is the substance of this new nationalistic awareness? How far this movement is capable to pressure the regime for fundamental changes? What are the implications of changes for the domestic and foreign affairs of the nation?

Read More....

---

Iran: Islamization vs. Secularization

Iran: Islamization vs. Secularization
Ali Asghar Kazemi
November 2009

__________________

Introduction
The controversial presidential elections of June 2009, which ignited a social crisis in Iran, had a definite impact on the society and truly polarized the nation in two antagonistic camps: pro-government conservative hard-liners on one side and reformist opposition groups on the other. At first the quarrel was limited to the results of the elections which were alleged to be performed with widespread frauds. Ruthless reaction of the government to peaceful manifestations of the unconvinced people pushed the opposition to take a much more radical stand against the whole Islamic regime. This prompted the religious leader to find about the cause and origin of this prolonged crisis which is still threatening the very foundation of the system.

Radical conservatives, while claiming foreign involvement in this turmoil, believe that the Islamization process should continue with much stronger vigor until the nation has converted to zealous followers and supporters of the religious regime. Reformists on the other hand contest that the crisis is a natural response of the people to years of repressive rule, deception and injustice. They express the opinion that as long as the country is under a backward system of government, democratic changes are almost impossible. They believe that Islam has limited capacity for transformation and adaptation to the needs of our time. Therefore, they suggest that secularization is an inevitable and necessary trend of the future of Iran.

Despite earnest attempts of the ruling regime in Iran to impose the strict law of Shari’a, as interpreted by the Shiite doctrine, the result was frustrating. Thus seemingly, the process of Islamization of all vital sectors of the society during the past three decades was quite unsuccessful. We have said that some political elites have singled out Western “social Sciences” taught at the higher education, as the main cause for this failure. Some others are still trying to put the blame on “Western imperialism” and enemies of Islam, who are incessantly conspiring to topple the Islamic regime.

To what extent these arguments hold true in present Iran? What are the main causes of the young generation distancing from Islamic traditional principles and leaning towards secular values? Why those who were brought up in the Islamic environment are now rising up against the ruling system and reject the Islamization process under the guise of what we may label “national secularism”? Read More....

Iran, Islam, and Secular Social Sciences

Iran, Islam, and Secular Social Sciences
Ali Asghar Kazemi
October 2009
_________________

Introduction
In our previous commentary on the problem of Iran’s recent social turmoil after the presidential elections of June 12, 2009, we alluded to the issue of “Social Sciences” that has caused widespread alarm among conservative hard-liners.
In that article the emphasis was made essentially on the question of religion in general and Islam in particular as an ideological dynamic, influencing the function of society in the domain of human actions and interactions. It was argued that religion has to do with human mind, ideas, the belief system, values, attitudes, and behavior. While politics as an interdisciplinary branch of social sciences deals essentially with the pursuit of power and to some extent the distribution of values in society. Thus, the marriage of the two may inhibit man from his choice between the rational and the spiritual. This is indeed a major dilemma on the way of an ordinary citizen who wants to remain aloof of the impact of official creeds, unless he lets himself dragged by the formalistic rituals of the dominant religion. Read More...

Iran: Roots of the Post-Elections Crisis

Iran: Roots of the Post-Elections Crisis
Ali Asghar Kazemi
October 2009
_____________

“A new world society is gradually emerging.
It is growing quietly, imperceptibly in the minds
and hearts of men. The tumult and the excitement,
the anger and the violence, the perplexity of spirit
and the ambiguities of expressing are the pangs of
the birth of something new. We of this generation
are called upon to work for this new order with all
the strength and capacity for suffering we possess.

S. Radhakrishnan[1]

______________

Introduction
Thirty years after the advent of the revolution, that brought an Islamic regime in Iran, religious leaders are still looking for ways and means to transform the society into a rigid bloc of faithful and zealous citizens who fully submit to the official principles and precepts put forward by them. While during the past three decades every effort has been made to disseminate religious teachings at all levels of public education, from the kindergartens to the universities, seemingly the result has been frustrating.
The post-presidential elections public turmoil, that brought the country to the brink of a real social revolution, was another vivid indication that the whole scheme of “Islamization” of the society was an ineffective and futile social investment. Since, the effort merely counter-produced and youngsters who were brought up with Islamic rigorous teachings after the revolution simply did not show interest to them and much less to obey them blindfolded. Indeed, this phenomenon should not surprise anybody who has a little familiarity with the very rudimentary concepts of the philosophy of education and social sciences.
More...

Rise of New Nationalism in Iran

Rise of “New Nationalism” in Iran
Ali Asghar Kazemi
October 2009
_______________

The “Green Movement” that emerged in the midst of presidential campaign 2009 in Iran, gained momentum after the unconvinced defeat of reformist candidates and became a genuine and strong opposition front challenging the very foundation of the Islamic regime. The more the hardliners pressed upon the movement with the intention to wipe out once for all its driving force, the more it tended towards radical nationalistic slogans and acquired anti-regime propensity.
While the Islamic government does not mind the resurgence of the people’s nationalistic fervor upon which it could embark in case its survival is threatened by foreign threats, nonetheless, it seems determined to confront with all force the growing danger of the “Green Movement” to its internal security. Recent horrific clashes with masses protesting in the streets in the post-elections manifestations are vivid indication that the hard-liners would not allow the demonstrations for reform turn into a real revolution.
How far the Islamic regime is capable to contain the movement or benefit from the revival Iranian nationalism without being victim itself of this reawakening phenomenon? More...

Strategic Implications of Nobel Peace Prize for Obama

Strategic Implications of Nobel Peace Prize for Obama
A. A. Kazemi
October 10, 2009
_______
Whatever the true intention and justification behind the decision of the Committee of Nobel Peace Prize to give this prestigious award to Barack Obama, the event should be optimistically taken as a heavenly grace for peace and order in the Middle East in general and Iran in Particular. Though previous politician winners of the prize failed to achieve much in this respect, there is hope that at this critical point of time, when Iran is under increasing pressure and military threats from outside, President Obama would feel very reluctant to opt for a harsh and hostile strategy against the Islamic regime for its nuclear ambitions. More...

Struggling in Two Fronts for Survival

Struggling in Two Fronts for Survival

A. A. Kazemi
October 2, 2009
___________

Iranian hard-line conservatives are caught in an appalling stalemate in the post-election period. On the one hand, they are facing growing opposition at home in the wake of the unconvinced presidential elections that truly polarized the nation on the credibility and legitimacy of the new government. On the other hand, they are under increasing international pressure for their deceiving maneuvers on the question of nuclear activities. Recent revelations about new enrichment site came as an unambiguous indication that despite its recurrent negation, the Islamic regime is aimed at acceding to a nuclear power status.
Since the mass uprising of 1979 that ended up into the collapse of the monarchic regime, the events which followed the presidential elections of June 12, 2009 will be remembered as a new keystone in contemporary history of Iran. Threatened from abroad for its nuclear ambitions and vulnerable inside for its horrendous performance, the Islamic regime is helplessly fighting in two fronts for its survival.
How far the Islamic hard-liners are capable to carry on successfully the fight in two decisive battlegrounds? What are the plausible outcomes of this concurrent struggle in domestic and international fronts? More....

Iran's National Security and the Nuclear Gamble

Iran’s National Security and the Nuclear Gamble
A. A. Kazemi
September 27, 2009
________________

Recent revelations by US president Obama about Iran’s new secret nuclear site in the vicinity of the religious city of Qom came as a new shock to the already soured relations of the Islamic regime with the West. The timing of this disclosure was quite cleverly calculated by Washington. This came while the United Nations General Assembly was in its regular yearly session and the newly reappointed Iranian president Ahmadinejad was visiting the United States, leaving behind the post-election crisis at home.
How far the new divulgation is susceptible to cause structural trouble for the Islamic Republic, which is now in its deepest political hurdle at home and lowest credibility at the international level? Can Iran continue to gamble on its nuclear undertaking and defy the upcoming fourth resolution on the agenda of the 5+1 powers for the UN Security Council? More...

Iran's Post-Election Political Environment

Iran’s Post- Election Political Environment
A. A. Kazemi
September 25, 2009
________________________________

« Il y’ a beaucoup de choses que ne valent pas la peine d’être dites, et il y’a beaucoup de gens qui ne valent pas que les autres choses leur soient dites, cela fait beaucoup de silence ! »

« There are many things that are not worthy to be said and there are many people whom are not worthy that the other things be said to them, this makes a lot of silence!”

___________

Silence is Gold

Indeed, “silence is gold” at a time when public uprising swabs intellectual discourse. The last time I published an article was exactly on June 13, 2009, just the day after the presidential elections in Iran. The comment was a short review on the amazing result of the election and its plausible consequence for the country afterward. The title of the article bears good witness that we had to expect something unusual after the announcement of the results: “ Iran’s Elections 2009: The End of Hope for Peaceful Democratic Reforms.” I don’t intend here to imply that I had foreseen the social commotion that followed the election, but it is fair to say that there was some truth in the conclusions of the comment about the astonishing results which could spark the long-accumulated revulsion about political repression in Iran. More...

Iran's Elections 2009...

Iran’s Elections 2009:
The End of Hope for peaceful Democratic Reforms
Ali Asghar Kazemi
June 13, 2009
_________________________
Presidential elections of June 12, 2009 in Iran shall be remembered as the end of an era of democratic process toward political reform in a religious-revolutionary regime in Iran. Disregard of the outcome of the event, Iranians have been once again disheartened in their earnest attempt towards exercising their citizen rights in shaping their destiny for a brighter future.
What happened during the campaign for presidential elections in Iran which distinct it from the previous ones? What are the implications of this new trend for political development and democratic process in Iran? Who are the real winners and losers of this historic contest?

Read more

 

Who should be the Next President in Iran?

Ali Asghar Kazemi

May 20, 2009

_______________

Almost three weeks away from the presidential elections in Iran, I have been asked by my students to give them some hints and advices regarding the most suitable candidate in the race. While I have my own personal views and preferences about the potential contenders, I feel very much reluctant to take side in public forum in favor of any of them at this particular point of time. Since, I believe, my duty as an academic is to shed light on the common traits of the would-be president in the present political and international environment of our country, rather than to speak in favor of any particular candidate.

In my previous comments regarding the presidential elections, I have listed a number of reasons for which people of various layers of the society may fell indifferent to participate in the process. Those considerations could still be valid as long as candidates do not explicitly clarify their positions with respect of a number of critical issues entailing the country and their concrete measures and policies to cure them. These issues encompass all sectors of the society including, social, economic, political, strategic, legal, environmental etc.

Of course, as I mentioned before, the president is not powerful enough to bring all the changes we might envisage. But, the least that he can achieve is to demonstrate his determination for change and to assure people of his resolve to cope with many socio-political malaises which inhibit the overall trend of the country towards democracy, human rights, justice and equity.

Here are some main points in my humble view to be considered in our choice of the next president for Iran: Read more

The Logic of War against Taliban and Talibanism

The Logic of War against Taliban and Talibanism
Ali Asghar Kazemi
May 15, 2009
____________________
Ever since September 11, 2009 events, Taliban and Talibanism have been chased and killed by masses, yet, they are still full of zeal and causing widespread troubles in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Recent Pakistani raids on their agglomerations on the initiative of the United States bring about a number of crucial problems about the rationality of Obama’s recent policy in this respect.
While I have no fond of these fanatical groups who fight with rudimentary means the most equipped and powerful forces representing the NATO, I have serious doubts about the logic of this protracted war and the humanitarian aspects involved therein.
In this short comment I venture to examine the flagrant flaws of American policy under Obama to open new fronts against Taliban in Pakistan with the objective of eradicating this movement, which supposedly is endangering the legitimate government of a nuclear power state. More...

Iran: Election and Political Apathy

Iran: Elections and Political Apathy
Ali Asghar Kazemi
May 7, 2009
________________

Aristotle described man as “political animal” on the ground that human being is compelled to live in collectivities within the boundaries of a political system. But, people are by no means equally concerned with political life. In other words, some people are indifferent and others are more concerned with political matters. Among this latter group, only a few get deeply and passionately involved in pursuit of power.
In open societies with developed democratic institutions and popular governments, opportunities for political participation of citizens are available and people are encouraged to get actively involved in formulating their demands through parties and interest groups. On the contrary, in oligarchic societies, citizens tend to choose apathetic approach to political realm and become relatively inactive in deciding their socio-political fate.
Political apathy is usually regarded as a social malaise in developed societies. In countries where civil society is still lagging behind traditional and fatalistic customs, apathy is a way of life to avoid hazards of political stratum. In this case, it is merely a cure manifested as conscious decision to cope with authoritarianism, demagoguery and repression in societies where expressing political opinions and criticisms are considered beyond the realm of citizen rights... More

Iran National Interests and Blind Radicalsm

Iran National Interests Victim of Blind Radicalism
Ali Asghar Kazemi
April 21, 2009
______________
Almost two months before the presidential elections in Iran, on April 20, 2009 president Ahmadinejad made another controversial speech at the UN Conference on Racism in Geneva (Durban II), creating further dismay about this country in world public opinion. While many observers were expecting some kind of softening in Iran’s position with respect to world critical issues at this juncture, the speech came as a cold shower to naïve wishful thinkers.
The unfortunate events that overshadowed the substance of the conference at its start, are now well known to all; since the show was covered live on many world TV’s. Besides Mr. Ahmadinejad direct allusion to Zionism and Israel, which prompted the mass walkout of European delegates from the conference room, he took on other critical issues such as racism, segregation and intolerance that nobody can logically deny the fact as indefensible plagues in many countries including Iran and the West. But, hearing such accusations from the mouth of a pompous character, whose intolerance takes regular victims even among his own entourage in the cabinet (let aside the critics and opposition groups) for expressing their views, is indeed very strange.
How much ideological drives are permitted to encroach upon national interests? Are these conflict-ridden statements intended to promote Iran’s national interests or to satisfy personal hatred of an obsessive individual who happens to assume the responsibility of a nation? ..More

Strategic Games in the Middle East

Strategic Games in the Middle East

Ali Asghar Kazemi
March 5, 2009

______________________

On March 4, 2009 the Islamic Republic of Iran hosted a two-day international conference on Gaza and Israeli breach of humanitarian law and war crimes against Palestinians during the recent armed conflict between the two hostile parties. The conference took place after a similar meeting in Egypt backed by the United States for the reconstruction of Gaza Strip that endured severe material and human losses during the 22-day conflict. While the two conferences had more or less similar themes, they followed diverse objectives. The Gaza conflict can be visualized as a set of strategic games in which actors involved pursued different aims in the Middle East political arena.

How various actors perceive the games they are playing in the Middle East? What are the objectives, gains and losses pursued by rival states? What are the plausible outcome and implications of the games? More

 

Iran: Reform vs. Revolution

Ali Asghar Kazemi

________________________________

“Men do not start revolutions in a sudden passion… Revolutions do not spring overnight. Revolutions come from the long suppression of human spirit. Revolutions come because men know that they have rights and they are disregarded.”

Woodrow Wilson*[1]

Revolution is an old concept in social theory. It has several distinctive indicators that make it different from other kinds of social events and political phenomena, such as coup d’état, rebellion and insurgency. The first and most obvious is that revolution has a large popular support. Secondly, it has a leadership who directs the movement and social forces. Finally, it aims at a redistribution of political power[2], although social, economic and cultural changes may not accompany this change. How can we explain revolutionary movements in our present international order? How much religious fervor in the Middle East is leading to revolution? Why people prefer revolution to reform? More

---

 

Prospects for Iran-US Negotiations

Ali Asghar Kazemi

April 9, 2009

________________________

Barrack Obama’s Nowruz message to Iranians and leaders of the Islamic regime leaves the impression that the new US president intends to demonstrate that he is sincere to put into action his presidential campaign promises with respect to Iran. He had pledged to open direct talks with Iran for the purpose of alleviating the mutual misperceptions accumulated during the past 30 years with the purpose of paving the path for normalization of relations through diplomacy. While the Iranian supreme leader did not reject categorically the offer in response, he nonetheless used harsh words to criticize the United States past policies and advised the new president to take real actions in order to prove his good intentions.

Assuming that the two parties are indeed ready to engage into some sort of talks and negotiations, before this could materialized two important questions should be clarified: first, how to negotiate; and second, what to negotiate? It seems that without resolving these essential problems any ushering of the talks would be doomed to failure. This short comment shall try to discuss briefly the matter as preliminary thoughts on the point. More