By: Mahmoud Hedayatpanah*

The Turkish army, considering itself as the only founder of the Republic of Turkey and seeing itself as the guardian of Atatürk’s legacy, has always been trying to exert undue influence over and interfere in the politics of modern Turkey in order for them to be on right track for maintaining secularism.With the AKP (Justice and Development Party) rising to power and a process having kicked off in the 1980s, however, the influence lessened over time. The army leaders in Turkey are not that much pleased with it though. The fact that the army does not really have a great deal of room for maneuver in the political affairs originates from the growing political support for the parties.

Another reason given for the army’s reduction in power is the attempt made by Turkey so as to join the EU; as one of the key criteria for gaining admission to the EU is acceding to the parameters of Western liberal democracy, one of which is keeping the army under control by civil and political institutions, that’s to say only the political institutions have the authority, a situation which Turkey has stricken out;  Chief of the General Staff of Turkey, Doğan Güreş, had also claimed in 1992 that Turkey is a military state.

Such processes and the constitution change caused a reduction in power of the military interfering in the political affairs, but its natures did not change whatever. There is evidence showing that the government had nothing to do with the recent incident or at least did not, at all, intended to act as such, but in actual fact it was an attempt by the army to discredit the ruling Justice and Development government. Firstly, Turkey is a member of NATO, so it participates in the military exercises of NATO; it is common, however, for the Russians and NATO members, to intercept planes by jet fighters especially in the Baltic Sea, a trend having been continuing ever since the Cold War. Both the Russian and NATO aircraft have repeatedly approached and even violated one another’s airspace, but they had never clashed; that’s why NATO will not support Turkey regarding this incident as a probable reaction is expected to be done against NATO in the Baltic Sea by the Russians; Barack Obama, as well, in a phone call with Recep Tayyip Erdoğan suggested that they should think out well in order for similar incidents to be averted.

Secondly, a marked increase in trade between Turkey and Russia in 2014, which was $33 billion, was going to reach $100 billion up to 2010. So it is obvious that Russia is considered one of the most principal trading partners of Turkey, at the same time heavily dependent upon the Russian gas resources. Unprecedented, hostile act by the Turkish side may cause a breach between the two countries, and it seems very unlikely that Turkey would act with the aim of getting an important message across to Russia while Erdoğan was able to successfully tackle the economic problems and bring about a slight economic stability. That’s why he would not have intended anymore to get back to the past fragile economy.

A third point holding the attention is the Turkish statesmen backing down, such as Ahmet Davutoğlu stating that Russia is their friend and partner and they tend to keep the channels of communications open with Russia, or both Erdoğan and Davutoğlu pointing out that if they had been informed of the fact that the fighter belonged to Russian, they would not have acted as such, or the failed attempt Çavuşoğlu made in order for him to make contact with Russian Foreign Minister Segey Lavrov. If Turkey tried to get a message across to Russia, they would persist in the fact that the Russian fighter violated Turkish airspace and would be in a strong position against the Russians; but, they showed no insistence on their act in the aftermath of the incident, erroneously, for the sake of maintaining a good relationship between the two countries on Turkey’s part.

At last, it can be stated that with regards to a reduction in power of the army in having influence over internal affairs, the army tends to rely on the international scene so as to discredit the government, thereby reducing his power in Turkey and also causing the Justice and Development Party face domestic crises in order to ruin their reputation and efficiency; an opportunity of which the Turkish generals have taken definite advantage.

* Mahmoud Hedayatpanah, MA in Persian Gulf studies, is a military expert. His studies concentrate on Russian and American  military capabilities. He is fluent in English, Russian and Farsi.

The post Who in Turkery Shot the Russian Jet Down? first appeared on .

Professor Joseph Samuel Nye Jr. is the former Dean of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. He currently serves on the Harvard faculty as a University Distinguished Service Professor. Along with Robert Keohane, he founded the theory of “neo-liberalism” in international relations, and more recently coined the often-used phrases of “soft power” and “smart power”. He is one of the world’s foremost intellectuals in the fields of political science, diplomacy and international relations. A 2011 TRIP survey ranked him as the sixth most influential scholar in the field of international relations in the last twenty years, and in October 2014 he was appointed by the U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry to the Foreign Affairs Policy Board.

following is the Interview of Mojtaba Mousavi with Dr. Joseph Nye which first published in the October issue of the Age of Reflection monthly. 

A quarter century has passed since the fall of the Berlin Wall – November 1989. Many strategic analysts believe that the United States is still using the same pattern of collapse of communism in the East bloc to confront Iran. In the “Soft Power: The Means To Success In World Politics”, you have pointed to the American experience as well as the designation of the Marshall Plan as the means to undermine the Soviet soft power components. Do you believe that the same pattern can be adopted from the Cold War to undermine Iran’s soft power?

I do not think the situation of Iran today is like the Cold War. Communism in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union collapsed from it own internal economic contradictions. The Marshall Plan was forty years earlier and designed to help West European economies recover from the devastation of World War II. The Soviet Union lost soft power after its invasions on Hungary and Czechoslovakia.  If there is a lesson in this for Iran, it is to free up its markets and society, and beware of interventions in neighboring countries.

This rationale has major drawbacks: essentially because Soviet Russia and Iran are profoundly different in not just their ideological makeup but the nature of their soft power. Iran’s Islamic Republic draws its narrative from Shia Islam, while Soviet Russia was born from atheist Marxism. Several critics of the US actually believe the country has ignored those fundamental and philosophical differences which exist in between Iran and Soviet Russia. How do you understand Washington’s position vis-à-vis Iran and are we seeing a repeat of the Cold War strategy here? In which case can this approach really serve the US?

 That is correct, but remember that Shia Islam is a minority and Iran should be wary of intervening in sectarian disputes. I do not see this as a repeat of a Cold War strategy. President Obama expressed an openness to dialogue right from the beginning of his presidency. Iran was initially reluctant to engage in that dialogue.

Although the Soviet Union collapsed and communism was to some degree defeated – Russia after all came to embrace capitalism, Moscow nevertheless preserved its political independence by remaining a non-aligned superpower. Is it not possible therefore to envisage that Iran will accomplish such feat – in that its goals might stray from the initial “revolutionary mindset” but still act an opposition to American imperialism? After all there are more than one way to resist and challenge.

 Capitalism in Russia is highly distorted by corruption. As I show in my book, “Is the American Century Over?” Russia is heavily dependent on one “crop” (energy) for two thirds of its exports. It also faces a demographic decline. This is not good, because declining powers often take greater risks such as Putin engages in now in his invasion of Ukraine and his intervention in Syria. I have no idea what the future of Iran will be, but it would be a mistake to model it on Russia.

President Richard Nixon called the US’ negotiations with Soviet Russia a “victory without war”. What President Nixon introduced and President Ronald Reagan followed into was a series of non-military actions which led to the ‘internal collapse’ of a country.President Barack Obama alluded a similar strategy, when,  in an interview  he argued that the path taken by both Nixon and Reagan vis-à-vis the Soviet Union and China inspired his own policies. Taking into account that his comments were made on the wake of the Iranian nuclear deal do you think the US is looking for “containment” instead of a real rapprochement? Is Obama replicating a Cold War scenario?

As I said above, I do not think Obama is following a Cold War strategy. My personal view is that the Middle East is involved in decades long series of revolutions, primarily in Sunni areas, which outsiders like the United States have little capacity to control.  In that sense, containing the spread of ISIS and its successors makes sense, but large scale intervention like the war in Iraq does not make sense. Where Iran will fit in all this will depend on Iran’s behavior.

Will this Iran nuclear deal lead to an increase of America’s footprint in the ME and therefore see Iran lose influence?

I do not think the Iran nuclear deal will increase the US footprint nor necessarily erode Iran’s influence.  Much will depend on how Iran chooses to behave.

Do you think US’ efforts to increase its soft power and smart power in Iran will lead to a change in narrative within the country, in that Iranians will no longer look on America with suspicion and animosity?

In general, increased contacts can reduce the stereotypes of hostility that can develop among countries. I hope with time this will be the case between the US and Iran.  Soft power can be a positive sum game from which both sides gain.

In a recent piece for National Interest, you 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. There are also philosophers who believe that America as “the” world superpower is coming to an end – For example American philosopher, Richard Rorty wrote in a piece for Decent magazine: “The American Century has ended (…) The spiritual life of secularist Westerners centered on hope for the realization of those ideals. As that hope diminishes, their life becomes smaller and meaner.” In view of such analysis, do you think the US can overcome those challenges stemming from its power and hegemony? Or is it the US has no clear awareness of such challenge? 

Americans have worried about their decline since the early days of the founding fathers centuries ago. In the last half century there have been several cycles of declinism. This tells you more about American psychology than it does about relative power positions of countries. In my book, I explain why I do not think the American century is over. At the same time, the rise of transnational challenges like climate change, cyber terrorism, and international financial stability will require cooperation among countries. In that sense, the rise of the rest as well as the new transnational challenges will require the US to work with others.  There will be no American imperialism or hegemony, but as the largest country, there will still be a need for leadership in organizing global collective goods.

In his September 16 address at a meeting with the IRGC commanders in Tehran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said:  “cultural and political penetration is more dangerous than military and security threats.” You also referred to the ‘culture’ as one of the key elements of soft power – you mentioned both the US educational and popular cultures of America as powerful media – maybe here we could use the term Trojan horses. Iran’s leadership has repeatedly warned against such “cultural invasion”. Iranians have themselves naturally organized into movements to counteract Western cultural intrusion, thus manifesting a national trend. Do you see a situation where Iran would disappear to the US; or could it be that Iran will walk a different path than that of the Soviet Union?

Countries evolve over time, and I have no idea what future choices Iran will make, but I suspect that most of its future evolution will be determined from inside Iran.

The post Interview: Joseph Nye on Iran and the End of American Exceptionalism first appeared on .

“Iran has been in sanctions condition for the past 12 years, and Russia is sanctioned too; so we have some joint interests to discuss. I look over the Iranian market and we know Iran has great experiences in working in these sanctions conditions which is much favored by Russia,” Sergey Lasutenko said in an interview with IransView’s Mojtaba Mousavi.

He said Iran and Russia are two of the biggest oil and gas countries in the world; adding Iran has great oil and gas reserves as Russia does and both countries have some big experiences in exploration and production of crude oil and other hydrocarbon products.

“We have some very close views on the market. The idea is to unify our forces. It is work of professionals to promote these ideas but the potentials in political and economical situations are very big. I think it will be very fruitful to cooperate,” he added.

He said Gazprom does not have many activities in Iran at the moment but it will be doing major projects in the near future.

“In the field of exploration, we can cooperate with Iran. Iran has a lot of experiences in constructing some machines and tools for drilling under the sanctions,” he said.  

He added Gazprom is estimating the Iranian market to estimate the Iranian forcibility and work of equipment production.

“We have technologies and Iran has its own. We have a great experience in offshore works. Gazprom is very good at sea drilling. We know that Iran has two seas: the Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea; the Persian Gulf is very rich with gas and oil reserves and we can cooperate in the field.”

Iran and Russia are much closer than Iran and the US, he said, adding Tehran and Moscow have some platform to discuss in the oil and gas sectors.

Both Iran and Russia have great experience in drilling. Russia’s Gazprom has the biggest pipeline systems in the world, he said.

The post Gazprom after Iranian Savvy Developed Under Sanctions first appeared on .

Tehran-Moscow relations are poised to enter into a historic phase under the current circumstances and given the two countries’ ups and downs in history.

Throughout the past several months, Iran and Russia have stepped up efforts to deepen their ties. The recent Moscow visit by Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, holding the first Iran-Russia strategic relations meeting in Moscow, the Tehran visits of the Russian ministers of defense and energy and, above all, the visit by senior Iranian official Ali Akbar Velayati to submit the message of President Rouhani to Russian President Vladimir Putin are but examples that make the mutual efforts by the two countries to enhance their ties evident.

By sending Velayati, the Supreme Leader’s advisor in international affairs, to Moscow as his special messenger, Rouhani meant to convey to Russians that the Leader has thrown his weight on enhancing ties with Kremlin and that the move enjoys the backing of the Islamic establishment’s highest political decision-makers.

Now the question is: Why should Iran be seeking enhanced ties with Russia?

1. The sitting administration in Iran took office with promises of bolstering foreign relations and international status of the country in a bid to allay the nation’s political and economic concerns. To that effect, Rouhani has spent most of his energy on resolving Iran’s nuclear issue in the talks with the group of P5+1, while the outcome of the talks have disproved being worth his endeavors so far. As the talks drag on and US sticks to its sanctions against Iran, hopes for reaching a final nuclear agreement flare up inside Iran, and the administration has embarked on its Plan B to resolve the nation’s economic problems.

Enhancement of ties with Russia tells the West, especially the US, that the Islamic Republic has a firm Plan B and it would adhere to if the talks fail. It also says that Iran has not limited all its efforts to the future of the talks. “If they [P5+1 negotiators with Iran] fail to make such an agreement, the people of Iran, officials, the honorable administration and others have many different options. They should definitely take these options so that they can counteract and slow the plot of imposing sanctions,” said Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei in speech he delivered on February 8, 2015 in a meeting with commanders and personnel of the Air Force of the Islamic Republic of Iran Army.

2. Taking office of a moderate president in Iran has raised hopes for the peaceful resolution of Iran’s nuclear case with the West. This has stoked Kremlin with fears that more pressure will be put on Russia if Iran’s relations with the West normalize. Iran’s decision to raise interactions and enhance ties with Russia can quell its worries in this regard.

3. In its new approach, Iran has tried to exploit Russia’s dispute with the West in the talks. Dr. Velayati said after his meeting with Putin that new Russian stance in the talks should be expected in the talks.

4. There are several areas where the two countries enjoy common grounds like the crises in Syria and Iraq, opposing US monopoly and Iran’s tender to join the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Tehran-Moscow cooperation can facilitate these areas.

5. Iran and Russia can severely influence the world energy market. As the two countries’ oil revenues have fallen dramatically thanks to the falling oil prices, which they believe is a political plot hatched jointly by the US and its Middle East ally Saudi Arabia, Iran and Russia have been prompted to think out plans to enhance their ties in order to shield their economies against the current and future economic assaults. This was evident when Russian energy minister attended Velayati’s meeting with Putin in Moscow.

All in all, when dealing with Russia, certain points need to be considered:
Iranian decision-makers must be wary of the fact that enhanced relations with Russia must not, under any circumstances, be based on West’s animosity toward the two nations because if this is not the case in the future, Iran will be the side that loses the most. Secondly, Iran must always remember that Kremlin would never prefer Iran over Western allies.

* Soheil Kheiri has an M.A in Eurasian studies from the School of International Relations of the Iranian Foreign Ministry. His articles about the Russian politics are published in the scientific journals and he regularly writes for Iranian newspapers and political magazines.

The post Iran Reaches Out for Russia: Why? first appeared on .

On June 16, 1945, America detonated the first atomic bomb, starting the atomic age and the biggest arms race in the world.

Although the first attempts to make atomic bomb initiated in Nazi Germany they weren’t successful until the US president Franklin D. Roosevelt in cooperation with the British government authorized the “Manhattan Project” in order to research about production of atomic bomb.

A group of top scientists of the time worked for the project with the distinguished physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer being the head of the group. They succeeded to make the first atomic bomb in the US which was detonated in what is now called Trinity in New Mexico.

Perhaps at first it was believed that the US would not use that lethal weapon against the mankind but soon people of two big cities in Japan fell victim to America’s atomic bombs.

On August 6, 1945, a bomber in US Air Force 509th Bomb Squadron called Enola Gay- which is now kept in a museum in Washington- left a US base in the south of Pacific Ocean and detonated an atomic bomb named “Little Boy” over the Japanese city of Hiroshima. The direct and the indirect death toll caused by this bombardment are estimated to exceed 140,000.

This however was not the end as three days after Hiroshima bombing, another atomic bomb, called the “Fat Man” killed 73,000 and injured 74,000 people in Nagasaki, Japan, not including those who later were found to be the victims of the bombing. Of course there was another bomb made in the Manhattan Project which was never used.

Oppenheimer regretted his participation in the Manhattan project after a while and began to speak against nuclear arms, and thus was removed from the project. His regret was of no use though.

The Soviet Union detonated its first atomic bomb on August 29, 1949, with the help of Oppenheimer’s friend, Klaus Fuchs. To keep its superiority in the arms race, the US began the research for making hydrogen bombs and could successfully detonate it in November, 1952.

No country has so far used nuclear arms for military purposes except for the US. There is however concerns over some countries possessing nuclear arms, especially as some of them have refused to sign the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty (NPT).

“[Until September 9, 2009] there are over 20,000 nuclear weapons around the world. Many of them are still on hair-trigger alert, threatening our own survival,” said Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations, in the Annual DPI/NGO Conference. 18,500 of these bombs were made by the US and Russia.

All five permanent members of the UN Security Council –America, France, Russia, China, and Britain- have atomic bombs and have been recognized as nuclear powers in the NPT. The NPT recognizes the countries that owned or detonated nuclear bombs or arms before January 1, 1967 on the condition that they would gradually be disarmed and destroy all their atomic bombs.

But the nuclear powers not only did not move toward nuclear disarmament- that was demanded by Article VI of the NPT, but also in some cases defended some countries who illegally possessed nuclear arms and in some other cases rejected the right to have peaceful nuclear energy for some other countries.

This contradiction in world nuclear powers actions has put many obstacles in the ways of a group of other countries who want to have peaceful nuclear energy, depriving them even of the rights that they legally have under the NPT.

The Article IV of the NPT recognizes “the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with articles I and II of this Treaty,” and demands all the member “to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.”

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is responsible for supervising over the implementation and observation of the NPT and Additional Protocol but it is too influenced by the nuclear powers that so far have fallen short of this responsibility.

For example Iran says it is after producing and using peaceful nuclear energy and there has been no evidence that proves otherwise. The members of Security Council however neither have helped Iran in this regards nor have recognized the country’s right to Uranium enrichment although it is considered as a basic right under the NPT. But when it comes to Israel, some of the nuclear powers who object to Iran’s peaceful nuclear program consider possession of nuclear bombs as the regime’s right not caring about the fact that it is not a member of the NPT. What’s more important is that the IAEA can’t do anything about it; it either keeps silent or sides with the Western powers.

Israel that has not declared itself a nuclear state is the biggest nuclear power outside the NPT. It acquired its first primitive nuclear bomb in late 1960s and now it is estimated that the regime has over half a ton of Plutonium and unknown amounts of enriched Uranium needed for making nuclear bombs. The amount of Plutonium kept by Israel is more that the amount the five nuclear powers possess altogether. Experts believe Israel has nearly 200 atomic bombs.

India, Pakistan, and North Korea also own atomic bombs. So far 188 countries have signed the NPT but India, Pakistan, and Israel has refused to sign the treaty. North Korea also left the treaty after violating it.

It seems that this dual approach towards a significant and sensitive issue like the right of the nations in accessing nuclear energy would only result in discredit of the NPT and the IAEA which can make the future of the world insecure. 

The post On This Day 68 Years Ago The Nuclear Age Began When The US Detonated The First Atomic Bomb first appeared on .

Debates in Iran about the delivery of S-300 missiles to Iran began again after President Bashar al-Assad said on Thursday that Syria has received a shipment of S-300 missiles from Russia.

Iranian media urged the government to pursue its lawsuit against Russia to have it to either fulfill its obligations or pay the $4 billion fine.

Given to the current situation in the region and Russia’s move to deliver S-300 missiles to Syria, Iran expects Russia to abide by its commitment.

Iran signed the $800 million contract with Russia for five battalions of S-300 air defense systems in 2007. However, in 2010 then-President Dmitry Medvedev signed a decree terminating the contract.

After Medvedev’s order, Iran launched a $4 billion lawsuit against Russia’s state-run arms corporation Rosoboronexport in the international arbitration court in Geneva on April 13, 2011.

Moscow is trying to persuade Tehran to withdraw its lawsuit against Russia’s state-run arms export company Rosoboronexport over a cancelled deal to supply S-300 air defense systems to Iran, Russian Technologies (Rostech) CEO Sergei Chemezov said on Thursday in an interview with Ria Novosti.

“The lawsuit is being considered by an arbitration court in Geneva and, unfortunately, our chances to win the case are very slim. We are trying to agree an amicable settlement with Iran, but no progress has been made so far,” he said.

The post Iran Expecting Russia’s S-300s After Syria is Supplied first appeared on .

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad said in an interview with Lebanese Al-Manar TV that the country already received the first shipment of S-300 missiles from Russia and will receive the second shipment soon.

Al-Akhbar newspaper’s website published some important remarks of the President Assad’s recorded interview which is to broadcast from Al-Manar TV on Thursday night.

“We will participate in Geneva-II conference but we are not optimistic to its result,” Assad said. Geneva talk is due to be held possibly in June.

Assad confirmed military presence of Lebanon’s Hezbollah group in Syria and said: “Hezbollah’s forces are in border regions of Syria with Lebanon and they are fighting against Terrorist groups but we are handling the war.”

“Almost 100,000 armed terrorists entered Syria with support of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey,” he said.

Syrian President warned to “respond immediately” to any future attack by Israel.

Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem also said on Wednesday that Syria will immediately respond to “any possible future attacks by the Zionist regime.”

In an interview with Lebanese al-Mayadeen TV, Al-Moallem said that any response from Damascus will be given without a warning.

“Syria will not let any Israeli aggression go unanswered without retaliation. The retaliation will be the same size as the aggression, and the same type of weapons will be used,” he said.

Moallem added that Syria would take part in the upcoming talks in Geneva without any precondition, adding that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad would remain president until the next presidential election scheduled to be held in 2014.

“From now until the next elections, President Bashar al-Assad is the president of the Syrian Arab Republic,” he said.

The Syrian foreign minister noted that any deal reached in the Geneva talks would be put to a referendum inside Syria. “If it wins the support of the Syrian people, we will go ahead with it,” Moallem said.

The post Syria Received First Shipment of S-300 Missiles From Russia, Says Pres.Assad first appeared on .

Iran’s Foreign Minister, Ali Akbar Salehi said in the conference of the Friends of Syria on Wednesday that Syria is disintegrating and continuity of the current situation is threatening the regional stability.

“We strongly condemn the aggression of the Zionist regime on Syrian soil. We reject military intervention and we support the Geneva conference for peacefully resolving this crisis. The people of Syria are waiting for UN efforts to fight terrorism,” Salehi said.

“On political solution for the Syrian crisis, we accede to Iran,” a representative of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon told during the conference, according Iranian Nasim news agency.

Iran is hosting the Friends of Syria Conference in the capital, Tehran, with the participation of representatives from 40 countries as well as heads of regional and international organizations.

The event, which is held under the banner of “Political Solution, Regional Stability,” seeks to find a political solution to the crisis in Syria.

Sayed Abbas Araghchi, Spokesman of Iran’s Foreign Ministry said in sideline of the conference that none of opposition groups invited to the conference.

“This meeting is aimed at materializing this political solution and assisting constructive efforts at regional matter. The proposal has to be looked into and if accepted we can set up contact group,” Salehi said.

“Any action must focus on eliminating the terrorism. We should stop delivering arms to Syria and protect the borders of the country. This requires multi-faceted effort from neighboring countries,” Salehi said.

“Thousands of hospitals and schools have been destroyed. Kidnappings and sexual violence are widespread. Syria is disintegrating in front of our eyes. It is threatening regional stability.”

The meeting in Tehran comes as Russia and the United States have also agreed to convene an international conference on Syria in Geneva. However, no date has been set for the meeting yet.

Russia has said that it is imperative for Iran to join a proposed peace conference on Syria despite reservations from some Western nations.

“The issue of Iran is key for us,” said Sergei Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister, while on a visit to Paris on Tuesday. “Iran, without question, is one of the most important nations.”

The Islamic Republic has repeatedly expressed its opposition to any foreign intervention in Syria’s internal affairs, stressing that inclusive dialog and national reconciliation as well as free elections are the keys to resolving the unrest in the Arab country.

The post Iran’s FM Salehi: Syria is Disintegrating in Front of Our Eyes first appeared on .

In response to reports of Russia’s supply of the sophisticated s-300 anti aircraft missiles to Syria IransView asked an Iranian MP his opinions.

Mehdi Sanaei, a member of the Iranian Majlis’ National Security and Foreign Policy Commission and the Chairman of Iran-Russia Parliamentary Friendship Group said in an interview with Iran’sView: “Russia has employed a more clear and determined foreign policy in the Middle East due to several reasons including the reelection of president Putin, also the enduring American intervention in different countries especially in the Middle East and because of the Libyan scenario.”

According to Sanaei, the U.S. and its allies passed a resolution in the UN [on Libya] but they “operated as they wanted” and denied Russia’s concerns.

He recalled “having the authority to impose a No Fly Zone in Libya, and the violation of international laws by the U.S. in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan, the misusing of the resolution of the U.N. Security Council and the loss of Russia’s interests in Iraq, Libya and now the most important and the most recent one; Syria” as the reasons for Russia’s full political and military support for Damascus.

Sanaei believes that evidence shows Russia is serious in defending against any military intervention in Syria and emphasizes the political solutions based on the Geneva agreement.

On the possibility of Iran’s direct intervention in Syria he said: “Iran, Hezbollah and the so-called “Axis of Resistance” in the Middle East consider Syria as a front for their resistance and they will never compromise on that.”

“Iran doesn’t think direct intervention in Syria is necessary but it supports this country and provides advice and suggestions to the Syrian government”, said the Iranian MP.

“Iran’s and Hezbollah’s support has definitely led to more Russian support and changed the game,” he said.

Recently, contradictory leaks are revealed about the technologically advanced Russian S-300 Missiles transferred to Syria and even some pro-Syria media claimed that soon these missiles are operated in Syria.

US Secretary of State John Kerry reacted to the news and said the sale of S-300 air defense systems by Russia to Syria would be “destabilizing” for the region.

The British weekly Sunday Times quoted an unnamed Russian official as saying Israel has managed to convince Moscow that if the missiles will fall into the wrong hands, they can be used to attack civilian aircraft at Ben Gurion Airport.

But Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said on Tuesday that the air defense system was a “stabilizing factor” that could dissuade “some hotheads” from entering the unrest in Syria.

“We consider these supplies a stabilizing factor and believe such steps will deter some hotheads from considering scenarios that would turn the conflict international with the involvement of outside forces,” Ryabkov said.

He added that Moscow would go ahead with the decision since the contract for the delivery of the system had been signed several years ago.

The post Iran And Hezbollah Never Compromise on Syria: MP first appeared on .

It said that in order to do terrorist actions against Syrian Government, Azeri citizen in Zakayata region, a territory in Russia, are manipulated, armed and sent to fight in Syria through Turkey by Wahhabis.

Ince TV aired several interviews with the parents of these deceived people, and the mothers expressed their objection.

“Wahhabis sent my son to Syria,” said one of the mothers. “If my son wants to fight, should go to Karabakh to fight against Armenia rather than Syrian Muslims,” she said.

This report shows the public opinion in Azerbaijan are against the intervention of Turkey and Wahhabis in Syria and due to this oppositions, the Wahhabis and Turks use the not informant people from Azeri speaking region in Russia like Zakayata to fight in Syria.

The post How Azebaijanis Are Being Sent from Russia To Syria to Fight Assad? first appeared on .