A Farsi version of this article appeared in the Iran’s state newspaper Jam-E-Jam, November 12, 2016.

Saudi Arabia has introduced a new phenomenon to the modern world; a kind of political hostage-taking, in which a tribal regime has availed itself of modern international legal instruments to advance its primitive policies. Mandatory residence and resignation of Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Al-Hariri in Saudi Arabia has put forth important questions regarding the reason, legal consequences, response of the countries and international organizations to it, and finally the issue of “breaking the law through legal instruments”- to which the United States has given rise-, and the essay makes an attempt to deal with them.

Why is Saudi Arabia removing its most important ally in Lebanon?
Regional developments have long been against Saudi’s desire; on the one hand, the victory of the Axis of Resistance in the war on terrorism in Syria and Iraq has increased Iran’s regional power and influence; on the other hand, the decrease of Saudi Arabia’s direct military intervention in Yemen, the disagreements between the countries of the Arabian Gulf region and also the unsuccessful efforts to remove Lebanon’s Hezbollah from the power structure have all turned Saudi Arabia into a potential loser in the transition period in the regional power system in the Middle East.
Saudi Arabia has tried to introduce Hezbollah and Iran as the cause of the resignation of Saad Hariri and the emergence of a political void in the Lebanese sovereignty structure so that it could create tension and internal disagreements against the Axis of Resistance while increasing economic pressure on Lebanon as well as making the crisis so critical in such a manner that the only way to sustain the Axis of Resistance would be the retreat of Hezbollah and other political groups opposed to Saudi. In practice, however, the vigilance of Hezbollah and al-Mustaqbal led, unlike Saudi’s desire, to strengthening the unity of the Lebanese, and even the most important Saudi allies in the Lebanese sovereignty were forced to take a firm stand against Saudi Arabia.

An American trick for Breaking the Law through Legal Instruments
Pointing to Hariri’s Lebanese-Saudi citizenship, some analysts say that Saudi Arabia has tried to rescind Hariri’s political immunity following his resignation so that they can detain him as a Saudi citizen by plotting corruption charges. In accordance with Articles 29 and 31 of the Vienna Convention on political relations, officials, including heads of states, enjoy full political and judicial immunity and cannot be detained at any time. Another important point is that the cancellation of a political envoy’s immunity is feasible only through the written declaration of the sending country. Therefore, in this particular case, even if Hariri resigned willingly, the immunities will be enforced until the Lebanese government declares cancellation of his political immunity formally and through a written declaration, and Saudi Arabia cannot detain or rather arrest him under the pretext of Hariri’s Saudi citizenship.
Maybe that is the reason why Saudi Arabia refuses to announce Hariri’s arrest publicly. Saudi’s young leaders are now well versed in these American tricks on breaking the laws in an apparently legal manner. If we take a look at the structure of American sanctions against Iran, and in particular the post-JCPOA sanctions, we see a complex process of legislation that allow the United States to act contrary to the objectives of these laws and treaties without violating international treaties and laws. This is the trick that the new Saudi leaders have taken on the issue of Bahrain, Yemen and now Lebanon, in spite of the fact that their performance seems not as suitable as their American mentors.

Where is the Security Council?
But the third question to be answered is the role of international organizations and the Security Council in solving the Saudi crisis and the modern process of “hostage-taking of officials” by this country. Now even the US State Department, the most important Saudi ally, has implicitly confessed Hariri’s capture in Saudi Arabia. Hostage-taking of the head of government of a foreign country is unprecedented in the history of contemporary international relations and to ridicule all the values and principles that underpinned the creation of the United Nations, the Security Council and international law over the past few decades. If Saudi’s oil and financial strength is the reason why these international institutions are completely silent, then perhaps it would be better to talk about the end of the Western international system and the attempt to formulate a new and collective mechanism, which is what Iran is preparing for.

*Mojtaba Mousavi is the founder and editor of Iran’s View. 

The post Saudi Arabia and New World Disorder first appeared on .

In light of US President Donald Trump’s decision to decertify Iran deal caused heated debate inside Iran about the Trump’s plan for the JCPOA and the best Iranian reaction to US disavowing the nuclear deal. Mojtaba Mousavi tried to discuss the issue with Barbara Slavin, an American expert on Iran and a President Trump critic who believes that the new US president is not a rational player. 

Barbara Slavin is an American journalist and foreign policy expert. She is a Washington correspondent for Al Monitor and acting director of the Future of Iran Initiative at the Atlantic Council’s South Asia Center. She is the author of a book about Iran–United States relations.

This interview originally appeared in the October 16, 2017 edition of Iranian Jamejam daily.

Q: How can Trump prevent the possible tension in US-EU relations while he increases pressure on Iran by introducing new sanctions and threatening to put an end to the nuclear deal?

Slavin: Trump cannot prevent tension in US-EU relations; on the contrary, his “decertification” of the Iran deal and threats to “terminate” the agreement if Congress does not act to address its flaws will increase US-EU tensions to a degree not seen since the US invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Q: You talked about a possible dire US-EU tension. How can such tension influence the Middle East security and the West role in the region?

Slavin: Europeans will be less likely to work with the US on solutions to regional conflicts. This is a big opportunity for Iran to split Europe from the United States.
Q: Would you please elaborate more about the possible tension in US-EU relationship? Which aspects of the EU-US relationship are more vulnerable? Is that possible that such tension evolves into sort of a cold war between the two?

Slavin: I don’t see a ‘Cold War’ between the US and Europe; there are too many long-standing security, economic and people-to-people ties. I think Europeans will do their best to survive Trump and await more traditional and sensible US leadership after he’s gone.

Q: What would be the perfect role Iran can play in the above mentioned scenario?

Slavin: Iran, as I suggested, should avoid Trump’s trap and stay within the JCPOA. It should also work hard on internal reforms and make itself more attractive to foreign — and Iranian — investors by cleaning up corruption and getting rid of burdensome regulations. It should also stop jailing dual nationals on bogus charges as this chills the climate for investment and tourism. Forty years after the revolution, it is time for Iran to stop taking hostages.

Q: How likely is that the Congress would meet Trump’s expectations? How can the Congress (Maybe with the help of other JCPOA parties) address what Trump sees as the deal’s flaws?

Slavin: This is very hard to predict. Congress has struggled to deal with other issues, including health care, and any change in the current law on the Iran deal would require 60 votes in the Senate. Ultimately, this is Trump’s responsibility and he cannot foist it on Congress.
Q: Do you agree that Trump will not push the certain European states (France, Britain and Germany) to end their economic relations with Iran to keep them satisfied while the US is trying to force Iran to budge on non-nuclear issues?

Slavin: Europe is justly proud of its role in initiating negotiations with Iran on the nuclear issue – at a time when President Bush would not talk directly with Iran without preconditions. European businesses have just begun to return to Iran and they do not want to jeopardize those contracts.

This will be a real test of the willingness of the international community to stand up to Trump’s intimidation and of the independence of Western businesses. I hope that Iran continues to abide by the agreement and that Europe – and US allies in Asia – also continue to implement the JCPOA.

Q: Part of Iranian establishment believes that JCPOA would be meaningless for Iran if US withdraws or refuse to abide by the agreement. They believe that EU will choose to stand by the US if Trump raise the cost of working with Iran (through financial and banking instruments). A few minutes ago Mr. Zarif told the Iran state TV that “If they revive the sanctions, we will decide whether to continue staying in the JCPOA or terminating it.”
Do you think, the Europeans can economically endure the Trump’s pressure if US withdraws the deal and introduce through penalties for those who do business with Iran?

Slavin: This is the key question – what European businesses do, not what European leaders say. However, I believe that there is so much anger toward Trump in Europe that there is a good chance that European businesses will remain in the Iran market and that they will be defended by their political leadership. There is also no certainty that Congress – or Trump – will re-impose secondary sanctions, no matter what Trump said on Friday.

Q: I see a quote from President Trump in which he says he has talked with Theresa May and Emmanuel Macron about Iran. “Don’t do anything. Don’t worry about it. Take all the money you can get. They’re all friends of mine,” he has said.
Does that mean sort of coordination between Trump and Macron on Iran deal? Many were hopeful that Macron can play a role in containing Trump. Do you see any ground for Macron and Trump to compromise on a modified version of the JCPOA so all parties including Trump’s US can stay in the deal?

Slavin: As for the influence of May and Macron, I would not count on it. Trump loves it when foreign leaders beg him not to do various things and then he goes ahead and does them anyway. He is a cruel person and the most incompetent American president I have seen in my lifetime.

Q: JCPOA is a very important deal and has implications for the international security. From the other point of view, we are witnessing Saudi’s intensified efforts to develop a nuclear program which, given to the Saudi’s aggressive behavior, can increase the regional instability.
How can this deal, if preserved, shape the future power structure of the region and the world? Do you see it necessary for the US to limit Saudi’s ambitious nuclear program?

Slavin: I am not well informed about Saudi Arabia’s nuclear intentions. Frankly, given all the challenges the Saudis face these days, I would not be too concerned about this.
Q: In a piece for National Interest, Joseph Nye wrote that the real challenge that the US is facing could be called “the rise of the rest”. Some authors such as Fareed Zakaria in his “Post-Americanism World” are pointing to the same challenge. In view of such analysis, do you think the US can overcome those challenges stemming from its power and hegemony? Or is it the Trump’s US has no clear awareness of such challenge?

Slavin: Long before Trump, other countries such as China were increasing their economic and geostrategic power. Trump has accelerated this process with his defiance of international treaties and other agreements such as the Paris accords, the Trans Pacific Partnership and now the JCPOA. He is not making America “great again.” He is diminishing our international role and it will take a lot of work by his successors to restore American leadership.

The post Joint Action with Iran a Test for Independence of European Businesses first appeared on .

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 .