Faisal J. Abbas: An unshackled Iran can only be countered by a firm Saudi Arabia/Dr. Azeem Ibrahim: Is ISIS preparing for its own demise/Camelia Entekhabi-Fard:For economic revival, Iran needs more than just diplomacy

An unshackled Iran can only be countered by a firm Saudi Arabia
Faisal J. Abbas/Al Arabiya/January 18/16

With the nuclear deal sealed and sanctions lifted, an unshackled Iran is now a reality. The region – and the world at large – now holds its breath in anticipation of what kind of global player the Islamic Republic wants to be. Not even the harshest critics of the deal – which was agreed with the U.S. and other superpowers last year – can argue against the fact that the world would be a safer place without the threat of a nuclear Iran. At the same time, not even the most passionate advocates of this deal can comfort regional U.S. allies (namely Gulf countries, who were excluded from the negotiations) that an unshackled Iran will not use its newly-obtained resources and freedom to create further regional upheaval.
‘True Religion’ will never be a pair of jeans
Advocates of the deal will argue that – theoretically – as soon as the Islamic Republic sinks its teeth into a juicy Big Mac and then sips through its first Starbucks latte, it will abandon its extremist ideology and expansionist dreams in favor of rebuilding its economy and raising living standards for its people.
But let’s face it, these are extremely simplistic assumptions and turn a blind eye to the reality of the Iranian regime which has – from day one – sought to use religion to justify the promotion of regional upheaval and extended its reach by providing loyalist paramilitary groups with support. Advocates of the deal will argue that – theoretically – as soon as the Islamic Republic sinks its teeth into a juicy Big Mac and then sips through its first Starbucks latte, it will abandon its extremist ideology and expansionist dreams. Indeed, “true religion” for the Mullahs will never simply mean a pair of jeans. This was evident last year when during the closing stages of the nuclear deal, Iranian officials bragged that their country has now formed a new empire which occupies four Arab capitals. Advocates of the deal also ignore the fact that Iran, despite decades of sanctions, managed to afford to channel billions of dollars to fund regional terrorist groups, according to U.S. government findings published recently in The Washington Times. Iranian money has been used to destabilize the region; from funding Hezbollah in Lebanon, to Asaib Ahl al-Haq in Iraq, to the Houthis in Yemen and even Sunni terrorists such al-Qaeda on the grounds that the enemy of my enemy (in this case Saudi Arabia) is my friend. The obvious question is that if Tehran could do all of this with sanctions imposed, how much more damage can it cause now that they are lifted and the government is due to receive approximately $100 billion?
More recent examples
We only need to consider events which unfolded in the past few weeks to understand that Iran has no intention to play nice. It also appears in no mood to give its moderates the opportunity to use the nuclear deal to truly reform the country. On one hand Iran claimed it couldn’t control its own thugs who burnt down the Saudi embassy in Tehran, and President Rowhani (supposedly a moderate who had hoped to mend ties with GCC countries) was quick to condemn the attackers describing them as “criminals.”On the other hand, Iran seemed perfectly capable and mighty when it swiftly arrested a number of U.S. Marines who barely trespassed into territorial waters. Iran made quite a big show out of humiliating what it describes as “Great Satan” just before President Obama was due to give his final State of the Union address.
One really wonders who Iran thinks it is fooling, but that is not the issue as, at the end of the day, the truth will eventually emerge. We only need to consider events which unfolded in the past few weeks to understand that Iran has no intention to play nice
However, what is really bewildering is the global reaction of astonishment and caution towards Saudi Arabia’s new firm foreign policy. I can’t find a better answer to this than what Saudi Foreign Minister Adel Jubair recently said in a televised interview that the kingdom is in a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” kind of situation. On one hand, Riyadh has repeatedly been asked to lead and fight its own wars to end regional injustice and acts of hostility, but then doesn’t get the support it was promised. On the other hand, I don’t see the U.S. or any of the global powers rushing in to stabilize the region – and I am sure if it did, then all its allies would have been happy to wholeheartedly lend their support. There needs to be checks and balances and so far, the only way to counter the potential threats from an unshackled Iran is to have a decisive and pro-active Saudi Arabia.However, lets always keep in mind that if Iran chooses to abandon its mischief and revert to respecting its boundaries, then there is no doubt that a new era of peace and prosperity will be in everyone’s interest.

Is ISIS preparing for its own demise?
Dr. Azeem Ibrahim/Al Arabiya/January 18/16
The phenomenon of global jihadism has been around in its current, recognizable form since the ‘90s. It achieved definition in the decade of conflict in Afghanistan during its disastrous series of civil wars that lasted in some form or another from the 70s to the early 90s. The Islamist mujahedeen ultimately won that war. And in the process, they humiliated the Soviet Union, who had supported the previous socialist government. It is no overstatement that this conflict contributed significantly to the collapse of the Soviet Empire. What nobody expected, however, was that the ideology of the mujahedeen would rise in the decade following the withdrawal of the Soviets to become the main ideological contender and geopolitical enemy of the liberal West in the wake of the collapse of communism. The Afghan War may have been a key Cold War battleground in the clash between the Soviets and the Western allies who supported, financially and militarily, the Islamists, but outside of that conflict there is no reason why Afghanistan should have been so important for the subsequent geopolitical developments. But that conflict was, for an important group of people, much more than a fight over the Soviets’ sphere of influence. Young, Muslim fighters from a hugely diverse backgrounds, and with different ideological motivations, converged into Afghanistan from all over the Muslim world, and indeed beyond. The place became a melting pot of Islamism and war theology. The end result was the ideology of permanent global jihad that, after Afghanistan, would spread all over the world, to Arabia, Saharan and sub-Saharan Africa, Chechnya in Russia, the former Yugoslav territories in Europe, and ultimately culminated in the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center in the United States.
Ideology of terror
That ideology is now a permanent feature of the world order – and possibly the greatest threat, not just to the West, but to the Western-dominated global system of nation-states. What has made it so is a remarkable combination of ideological and strategic consistency, the aim being the destabilisation and ultimate destruction of non-Muslim powers, with incredible tactical flexibility. ISIS almost succeeded in dragging the West into yet another war in the Middle East – though instead they have caught Russia in the spider’s web. Al-Qaeda was the first organization to become a sort of spiritual leader to the movement, and its tactic has been to draw the West into unwinnable wars in the Middle East. These wars, Afghanistan and Iraq, may not have led to the collapse of the West in the same way that the original Afghan conflict for the Soviets, but it most certainly made it overextend. The West now sits much weakened as a result.
In the past 10 years or so, the West would no longer be dragged into such conflicts. Libya, Syria, post-insurgency Iraq, and even post-withdrawal Afghanistan: the West would not allow itself to be dragged into land wars it understood it could not win, and stood nothing to gain from. Nor would the West be goaded by waves upon waves of terror attacks and attempted attacks on their soil. Yet from the ashes of so many failing states, a new organization came to the fore, with a new tactical approach: the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). While the guerrilla tactics of Al-Qaeda were beginning to fail, the group contended, instead, that they should simply establish a new, Islamic, state to make concrete their alternative vision of the ideal society as a challenge to the Western global order. And sure enough, that got everyone’s attention. ISIS has dominated much of the international political discourse for the past four-five years. It almost succeeded in dragging the West into yet another war in the Middle East – though instead they have caught Russia in the spider’s web. And while the focus shifted towards Syria and Iraq, and to a lesser extent Libya, the Levant region became a sort of global focus for the energies of the global jihadism. Thousands upon thousands of recruits from all over the world clamoured to join the new ‘Caliphate’, and the propaganda machine of the group looked invincible, as many groups in other areas of instability in the Islamic world would pledge allegiance, as well as self-starter terrorist cells in the West. ISIS tried its best to coordinate all these people and all their energy towards planting firm roots for their ‘state’ in the Levant.
Losing momentum
That worked extremely well for the jihadis. For a while. But for the past few months, things are becoming palpably different. For one, the most important propaganda asset ISIS has had was military momentum: the way in which it seemingly came out of nowhere to control large swathes of Syria and Iraq, and took important cities and oil fields. That momentum has long since lost. Initially, they could take territory outside of the Sunni-dominated areas of the Levant, but they could not hold it for long. Now, they cannot even do that. The Kurds in the north have become safely entrenched, with the help of Western air-strikes to support them, Iraq in the east and south east has rebuffed any further advancement with the help of Iran, and Syria in the west, though it looked like it might collapse any moment for most of last year. The Russian intervention in support of Assad has completely turned the tables in that conflict. None of these now look vulnerable. What now seems likely is that ISIS will simply be eroded with a long war of attrition, until the group can no longer gain enough recruits to be able to sustain its gains. At which point, it is likely it will collapse. It will not be easy, and it will not be pretty. But it seems like the most likely outcome.
This seems to have motivated a tactical change, yet again, from the jihadists: a large part of ISIS propaganda has now shifted away from trying to recruit people for the paradise of the Caliphate, back towards the original Al-Qaeda approach to inspire self-starter terrorist actions abroad, to destabilise hostile countries. If and when the Caliphate collapses, expect a wave of these people to spread all across the region and beyond. But in the meantime, local self-starter cells are preparing the way with attacks such as those in Indonesia, Paris, and the U.S. They seem to be aware of the fact that this will be the most effective way to continue their influence on the global state. So ISIS seems to be smelling its own impending doom: we need to brace ourselves for what comes next.

For economic revival, Iran needs more than just diplomacy
Camelia Entekhabi-Fard/Al Arabiya/January 18/16
On January 16, Iran returned to the international community after 12 years of isolation with the implementation of the nuclear accord and lifting of oil and financial sanctions. The sanctions were lifted after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released a report verifying Iran’s commitment to the deal by dismantling large section of its nuclear program. This marked the arrival of a historic day that so many Iranians have been waiting for. The question that now arises is what changes are likely following the implementation of this accord? Iran needs foreign investment and the engagement of the private sector to improve its embattled economic infrastructure. Stability and security are the most important challenges that determine a nation’s economic performance and play a crucial role in encouraging foreign investment. On the face of it, Iran’s diplomacy has succeeded as President Rowhani put it in his encounter with the media on January 17. However, economic revival needs more than just diplomacy. American companies continue to be the world’s biggest investors, especially in oil and gas sectors. The presence of U.S. firms anywhere in the world encourages other companies to enter into the market. Iran has already suffered huge losses as a result of the U.S. ban on companies doing business with in the country.
Funds for good
For Iran, a fruitful outcome of this deal will be the release of its funds frozen in foreign banks. These funds, estimated to be around $100 billion, are certain to come in handy considering Iran’s need for capital. However, according to the country’s central bank governor, the exact amount Iran can have access to is $32.6 billion. The government can use this money to pay off delayed salaries of government employees or cut down its deficit. In the long term though, Iran can invest this money in non-oil sectors to improve its economy. This process is likely to take time. Oil prices, already hovering at the lowest levels in a decade, could plunge even lower with Iran beginning to export the commodity. The country’s oil minister said recently that Tehran will raise oil exports by 500,000 a day within a week after the removal of international sanctions. He also said that the country has no intention to harm the oil market with its planned increase as the market is suffering from overproduction.
Iran needs foreign investment and the engagement of the private sector to improve its embattled economic infrastructure.Owing to the oil embargo continuing for years Iran has lost its customers to other suppliers. Luring them back would entail giving greater discounts. It is estimated that Iran will export oil at around $20-$22 per barrel. The Iranian public expect that the nuclear deal will have positive effect on their lives. This may soon turn into disappointment as the changes wouldn’t come soon. Iran’s regional behavior is going to be another factor and may become a deterrent for the investors.
Some European companies may see great business opportunity in Iran. But concerns over internal tussle within the government may compel them to think about it carefully.
Challenges going forward
Some difficulties and challenges cannot be ignored when it comes to full implementation of the Iranian deal. Iran’s ballistic missile program, and the support it has given to groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas, have labelled the nation as sponsor of terrorism, whether they like it or not. Just a day after the nuclear deal was implemented the U.S. Treasury imposed new sanctions on Iran’s ballistic missile program. “We have consistently made clear that the US will vigorously press sanctions against Iranian activities outside of the JCPOA.” said Adam Szubin, acting under secretary for terrorism and financial intelligence. This action targets 11 individuals and entities responsible for supporting Iran’s ballistic missile program. The next stage for Iran is to demonstrate its commitment to diplomacy and becoming a reliable nation. This will be put to test during the Syria talks to be held in Geneva in the near future. With the influence Iran has on government of Assad in Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon, the world will be watching how this regime acts in the post-sanctions era. President Obama, who appeals directly to Iranians, has urged them to build new ties with the world. We have to wait and see how Iran goes about doing this.