Just two days after the US Senate advanced Iran Sanctions Bill, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said putting Qatar under blockade had led to “unintended” humanitarian consequences and called on Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Egypt “to ease the blockade.”

“We’re seeing shortages of food. Families are being forcibly separated, and children pulled out of school…Our expectation is that these countries will immediately take steps to de-escalate the situation and put forth a good faith effort to resolve their grievances they have with each other,” the US top diplomat said.

The call for easing Qatar’s blockade comes as, despite the nuclear deal between Iran and the P5+1 group of countries, the US Senate unanimously approved a bill to tighten Iran sanctions on Wednesday. The sanctions not only have significantly hampered Iran’s international trade, but also created serious obstacles in the way of importing medicines, endangering the Iranian patients’ lives over the past decades.

Meanwhile, the US senior officials have repeatedly accused Iran of sponsoring terrorism with no solid evidence. In the latest case, US President Donald Trump called the Tehran twin attacks the fruits of Iran’s support for terrorism. The attacks, which left 17 dead and dozens injured, were claimed by the ISIS terrorist group.

Trump’s statements which sparked international criticisms across the world stand in direct contradiction with his presidential campaign promises. During his campaign Trump repeatedly blamed his predecessor, President Barack Obama, for supporting Saudi Arabia. He also praised Iran and Russia for their fight against ISIS.

But Trump dramatically changed his positions since taking office and particularly after signing a $110b arms deal with Saudi Arabia. Now, he not only remains silent towards Saudi Arabia as the ideological hub of terrorism, but also accuses Iran of sponsoring terrorism.

It seems that the US expresses concerns about terrorism and accuses certain states of sponsoring terror based on its trade ties with the regional states. With its significant trade relations with Saudi Arabia, the US has already closed its eyes to Riyadh’s dictatorship, violent acts and sponsoring terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda that was behind 9/11 attacks.

Interestingly enough, Washington is against Qatar blockade despite admitting its support for terrorists in Iraq and Syria. During his Friday statements, Tillerson said: “The nation of Qatar unfortunately has historically been a funder of terrorism at a very high level.”

He went on saying: “The emir of Qatar has made progress in halting financial support and expelling terrorist elements from his country, but he must do more and he must do it more quickly.”

The post Blockade, Bad for Qatar, Good for Iran: US first appeared on .

In an unprecedented move Persian Gulf states on Monday cut all diplomatic and economic ties with Qatar. Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates as well as Egypt all announced they were severing ties with gas-rich Qatar. Libya and Maldives also followed the Saudi alliance against Qatar.

To “protect its national security from the dangers of terrorism and extremism” Riyadh decided to “sever diplomatic and consular ties with Qatar, and to close all land, sea and aviation” links, a Saudi official cited by the official Saudi Press Agency said. Qatar’s foreign ministry called the other nations’ decision “unjustified” and vowed that the move would not affect the “normal lives of citizens and residents,” according to a statement reported by Al Jazeera.

Earlier this week, Qatar’s state-run news agency released comments attributed to Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani on sensitive issues. The Qatari emir was quoted as describing Iran as an “Islamic power” and “big power in the stabilization of the region.” The Qatari government then said that the state agency had been hacked and that the remarks attributed to the emir and the foreign minister had never been made. But Saudi media continued attacking Qatar, accusing it of having “betrayed” the other Arab countries particularly at a time when they had attempted to stage a show of “unity” against Iran after Trump’s visit from Riyadh.

First Iranian reaction to the event came from the Political Deputy of Iran’s Presidential Office Hamid Aboutalebi calling the move by Saudi and its allies as the first outcome of Trump’s visit from Riyadh.

Some analysts do not rule out the possibility of a military action or a coup attempt against Qatar.

“I expect more radical moves against Qatar to come. A coup like the one Saudi planned against Egypt’s Mohammad Mursi and in the worst and least possible scenario a military attempt to occupy wealthy and strategic Qatar by Saudi alliance is possible,” Said Mojtaba Mousavi, Iranian political analyst.

“One could expect any radical move from new Saudi rulers who are bombing another neighbor, Yemen, for several years,” He added.

But the situation could also provide an opportunity for Tehran. “If Qatar and some other players can handle the situation to avoid a coup, this situation can be an extraordinary opportunity for Iran to have Doha in its front. Qatar now feels like being a blockade, people are queuing in front of shops and banks and Iran can be the closest and more plausible solution to bypass the blockade,” Mousavi said.

Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Bahram Qasemi also warned about possible Saudi military attempt against Qatar and asked both sides to solve their differences through dialogue and avoid confrontation.

Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif asked Saudi to avoid coercion to reach its political aims. “Neighbors are permanent; geography can’t be changed. Coercion is never the solution. Dialog is imperative, especially during blessed Ramadan,” He tweeted.

In mean time, Iran expressed its readiness to supply Qatar with its food products. Saudi is Qatar’s main source of food supply and about 40% of Qatar’s food is believed to come via Saudi border which is closed now.

Head of the Iran’s Union of Agricultural Products Exporters said today that the country is ready to export its agricultural and food products to Qatar through the waterway and 3 Iranian ports. ” We have coordinated with Valfajr shipping company to export goods from Bushehr, Bandar Abbas and Bandar Lengeh ports,” he said.

In the other hand, some political observers believe the Saudi’s move is backed by the US. “It’s clearly an attempt to get the Qataris in line and not support Iran or the Muslim Brotherhood,” said Peter Sluglett, visiting research professor at the Middle East Institute at the National University of Singapore told CNBC.

In the case of Iran, he added, a key factor is the Trump administration’s threat to review a landmark deal that lifted most economic sanctions against Iran in return for curbing its nuclear and missile programs. “The Americans cannot unilaterally back out of the deal as it is the P5+1, so they are using the GCC and Egypt to put pressure on any countries supporting Iran,” Sluglett said.

– AFP, CNBC contributed to this report.

The post Severed Qatar-Saudi Alliance Ties; What’s there for Iran? first appeared on .

By: Khalil Abdi*

Bahrain regime on June 20, 2016 stripped Sheikh Isa Qassim of his Bahraini citizenship. Ayatollah Sheikh Isa Qassim is Bahrain’s leading Shia cleric as well as spiritual leader of the country’s revolution. An interior ministry statement accused Sheikh Isa of using his position to “serve foreign interests and promote sectarianism and violence.” It added that “he has been in continuous contact with the organizations and parties that are enemies of the kingdom.” The statement was followed by immediate reaction of Bahrainis. Demonstrations in the towns of Bilad al-Qadim, Buri and Sitra erupted into violence following clashes between protesters and security forces and Bahrain Forum for Human Rights has also censured the decision, calling the measure arbitrary and against international laws.

Bahrain regime cited article 10 of Bahraini Citizenship Act (1963) as a ground for deprivation of Sheikh’s nationality. But what is the basis for Bahrain’s claim in the international law?
Article 10 of the Bahraini Citizenship Act is about denationalization of nationality under certain circumstances. It set forth that “citizenship of Bahrain may be deprived from whoever enjoys such nationality on the following cases:
(a) If he enters in military service of a foreign country,
(b) If he helps or engages in service of an enemy country, or
(c) If he causes harm to the security of the State.
Bahrain regime has mostly relied upon section (c) of this article. Whereas Bahrain regime offers no evidence indicative of Sheikh Isa Qassim’s participation in acts which would harmful to the national security of Bahrain. We will examine the position of the international law considering the deprivation of nationality.
Article 8, section (1) of The UN Convention on Reduction of Statelessness 1961 expresses that “a contracting state shall not deprive a person of its nationality if such deprivation would render him stateless.” It is noteworthy that this convention is simply the most important international instrument concerning the nationality issue.
Article 13 of Universal Declaration on Human Rights states as following ” Everyone has the right to a nationality and no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.” Also article 7 of European Convention on Nationality 1997 states that “a state party may not provide for the loss of its nationality, if the person concerned would thereby become stateless.”
The text of the aforementioned provisions –each of them would be considered as the most important human rights texts- is quite clear, and straightforwardly put that stripping a person of its nationality without any conclusive evidences is fully contrary to the international law norms. Therefore, the act of Bahrain regime has violated both contractual as well as customary international law.
For the sake of justification of its illegal act, Bahrain regime has declared harm to its national security as a ground for stripping Sheikh Isa Qassim of his nationality. But what is the stance of such a claim in terms of legitimacy and admissibility in the international law.
Article 4 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 set forth that ” In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, color, sex, language, religion or social origin.” Also article 15 of European Court of Human Rights brings up exactly the same provision. This article clearly emphasizes that even if there is such a condition, instances as race, sex, language, and religion should not be involved in derogation of rights. Interior ministry of Bahrain said the cleric had “adopted theocracy and stressed the absolute allegiance to Shia clergy, as well as trying to establish Shia administration in Bahrain.”
Bahrain regime has obviously stressed its non-compliance to basic standards of human rights, in terms of prohibition of discrimination. On the other hand, almost all commentaries concerning the article 4 of ICCPR has had a very strict interpretation of this article as an instrument to derogate from some human rights obligations. For instance, General Comment 29 of Human Rights Committee, which is the commentary organ of The UN human rights conventions, mentions two necessary conditions for a derogation being permissible. It states that “measures derogating from the provisions of the Covenant must be of an exceptional and temporary nature. Before a State moves to invoke article 4, two fundamental conditions must be met: the situation must amount to a public emergency which threatens the life of the nation, and the State party must have officially proclaimed a state of emergency. The latter requirement is essential for the maintenance of the principles of legality and rule of law at times when they are most needed.”
It is obvious that, in the case Bahrain, none of these conditions has been met; there is no public emergency situation in Bahrain threatening the life of nation, and if so, there has not been any official proclamation about existence of such condition in Bahrain.
With regard to the aforesaid reasons, we come to believe that the act of Bahrain regime in stripping Sheikh Isa Qassim of his Bahraini citizenship, not only has violated the international law, but also relying of regime upon national security clause does not conform the conditions that the international law has set in this regard.

* Khalil Abdi is an alumnus of the Iranian Foreign Ministry’s School of International Relations and expert on International Law.

The post How Bahrain Broke Int’l Law by Revoking Top Shia Cleric’s Citizenship? first appeared on .