Who’s winning in the Middle East?

Looking at what is going on in the Middle East, it is becoming harder and harder to differentiate between the leaders who are pulling the strings and those whose strings are being pulled. Some might say that it doesn’t matter since the end result is the same and others might claim that there is a symbiotic relationship between the players and the played in which the roles are fluidly changing all the time.

The players in the region can be lumped into 6 distinct groups:

  • The active superpowers: countries who view the countries in the region as bases for proxy wars in their never-ending power struggles against each other – namely Russia and the USA.
  • The regional enemies: countries in the region which are leading “alliances” of other countries in the region – namely Iran and Saudi Arabia.
  • The regional followers: countries who are following the lead of the regional enemies – these include Lebanon, Iraq and Syria supporting Iran and the Gulf/Arab states supporting Saudi Arabia.
  • The war zones: countries in the region which are ravaged by regional, civil and/or proxy wars – namely, Syria, Yemen and Israel/Palestine.
  • The leading fence-sitters: countries who are looking to increase their influence in the region mainly for economic purposes – namely China and the EU.
  • The opportunistic supporters: countries in the world willing to ally themselves to the regional enemies for economic, political, sectarian and/or religious purposes – Turkey, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Malaysia, Argentina, Cuba etc…

Let’s start with the active superpowers. It’s quite obvious that that Moscow has the upper hand over the US in the region for now: the retreat from Iraq and the nuclear deal with Iran, both led by President Obama, have antagonized regional allies and have definitely weakened Washington’s influence in the region while Moscow, under President Putin, on the other hand, has definitely stepped up its game to fill the vacuum. But this balance of power will soon lose its stability as President-elect Trump will take office. While Obama focused his efforts on changing the status quo of allies in the Middle East by forging the nuclear deal with Iran, Trump will most probably try to return to the US’s historical allies, Saudi Arabia. But for now at least, the balance of power is definitely in Moscow’s court.

As to the regional enemies, Iran and Saudi Arabia, it’s quite obvious that, much like its big brother ally, Moscow, Tehran has the upper hand for now. With a nuclear deal which brought Iran out of its pariah status, with new found friends and allies, with trade delegations flying into Tehran to cash in on its market and with Bashar al-Assad on his way to winning the “civil” war in Syria, Tehran is definitely on a roll. Sure, nothing is perfect: Tehran has antagonized many, if not most, of the Arab countries, is watching on the sidelines as the Houthi rebels in Yemen are being crushed and worst of all, is still suffering from a weak economy. Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, lost the warm support of the US, watched as the Syrian rebels it supported were defeated, is suffering from an all-time low in its economy and seems threatened by the possibility that Iran might one day build a nuclear bomb which will be aimed at Riyadh.

But the regional enemies would probably not be so adamant to fight out their fight in the war zones were it not for the regional followers which support them. In the case of Iran, Lebanon is a satellite state while Iraq and Syria are on their way to becoming satellite states as well. These are states which are content to follow in order to maintain strategic alliances. They might send a few troops to a war zone but they are mostly there for moral, economic and political support. Saudi Arabia’s anti-Iran rhetoric would fall flat were it not for the support of the Arab League and the express support of many other Arab countries but these supporters are not yet ready to place their own soldiers in danger yet.

The war zones, specifically, Israel, Syria and Yemen, are where the conflicts surface beyond diplomatic tiffs or hate-filled and hate-inducing rhetoric. These are the areas where the agendas of the active superpowers and the regional enemies clash and explode and where people suffer the most: soldiers and civilians get hurt and killed, civilians live in fear or become refugees and life, on the whole, is on pause for most of the civilians. The leaders in these zones are playing for the visions they have of the countries that they lead and for their own political lives. In all three zones, foreign intervention from the active superpowers and the regional enemies is a basic part of the wars: Iran, for example, supports the Assad in Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas in Gaza and the Houthi rebels in Yemen. The US, on the other hand, support the rebels in Syria, Israel and the Yemenite government. It’s all a big game in which civilians are used as collateral and winning is much more important than peace.

The fence-sitters embody the biggest question marks in the outcome of the conflicts in the region. China and the EU, for example, are trying to maintain alliances with Iran and Saudi Arabia, with Russia and with the US. They don’t want to take sides because taking a side might mean a lost opportunity. They want to profit from the situation. The EU will be selling passenger planes to Iran while China will supply Tehran with fighter jets. Money is the main impetus here and there is always a lot of money to be made from conflicts. For now, they are content to watch the active superpowers and the regional enemies fight it out without taking any side 100%. Oh sure, they feel bad about the victims of the war zones but not bad enough to really do something about it. But the fence-sitters are extremely important due to the potential of their loyalty – imagine if China were to openly ally itself with Iran – but it is exactly this potential which makes them more powerful. The active superpowers and the regional enemies are doing all they can to woo the fence-sitters to their sides but for now, the fence-sitters are doing what they do best: sit on the fence and gain power. For now, they are neither winning nor losing the game and retain their power by simply playing both sides.

And finally, there are the opportunistic supporters. Some are close by such as Turkey or India but some are much further away such as in Latin America. These countries are in the game for one of two reasons: making money or weakening a mutual enemy. Most of these supporters are not really interested in the conflicts in the war zones nor are they seriously worried about the outcome of these wars. They might have been lumped in with the regional followers or the leading fence-sitters but their level of involvement is so varied that it would not do justice to the other groups. They might choose one side or they might choose not to choose. They win if the regional enemy or the active superpower that they are supporting wins. Simple.

So here’s the score for now:

  • Active superpowers: Russia beats US with a wide margin but everyone is waiting for Trump.
  • The regional enemies: Iran beats Saudi Arabia with a wide margin but the game certainly isn’t over yet.
  • The regional followers: One would think that the regional followers of Iran are winning but since two out of three are ravaged by war, winning doesn’t have too many benefits.
  • The war zones: The government forces in Syria and in Yemen seem to be winning while Israel still has the upper hand.
  • The leading fence-sitters and the opportunistic supporters: All countries which are making money or increasing their powers are winning regardless of the outcomes in the war-zones.

And then, there are the ultimate losers – the victims in the war zones and the citizens of the regional rivals whose economies are being extinguished by the costs of war. They are the ultimate pawns for the game played by the active superpowers and the regional enemies. They cannot win unless one side gives up and they can only hope that their side will win.

 

Related articles:

 

 

Advertisements

The nuclear deal and the fall of Aleppo

When the Syrian civil war erupted in 2011, the West looked worriedly on but did basically nothing. Oh yes, President Barak Obama did force Bashar al-Assad to desist from using chemical weapons but, on the whole, the war zones were empty of any Western influence. Assad warned the Western powers to stay out of the war while rolling out the red carpet for Tehran to take over the dirty business of a war which had ceased to be an internal “civil” war and now included Tehran’s own agenda in the area, namely supporting Assad, a Shiite-Alawite, in an effort to Export the Islamic Revolution to Syria. Tehran was only too happy to pour in Hezbollah, IRGC and Shiite militant troops while joining Assad’s warning to the West to stay clear of the region. For three years, the war trudged on with no clear winners and many losers.

In 2014, ISIS began its rampage, claiming to set up an Islamic state which would span from Syria to Iraq and inadvertently, the issue of the West’s support to ISIS in its infancy became the perfect cover-up: Tehran and Assad were killing terrorists who were backed by the Western powers and their proxies in the region, namely Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Every horrifying act of terrorism by ISIS only strengthened this narrative even though the West had stopped supporting ISIS long before it began its rampage in 2014. But Assad and Tehran weren’t only fighting ISIS – in fact, most of the war efforts were focused on eliminating any form of opposition against Assad. These efforts took a heavy toll on the Syrian civilian population and led to a massive wave of Syrians fleeing Syria and seeking refuge in Europe but the West still remained politely out of the war.

Meanwhile, the West was trying to clinch the nuclear deal which would, supposedly, keep Iran’s nuclear program in check. But the issue of the nuclear program seemed secondary to most of the EU representatives who eagerly awaited the cash in on the huge potential of the soon-to-be-opened Iranian economy. As the negotiations on the nuclear deal dragged on, the situation in Syria became worst for all sides and still, the West kept its distance, this time out of fear of endangering the nuclear deal. So while suited diplomats from all over the world haggled over the percentages of Uranium enrichment in fancy board rooms in Europe, Syrian men, women and children kept on suffering and getting killed.

The nuclear deal was finally signed in June 2015 and within four months, the red carpet was once again rolled out by Assad (and Tehran) to Moscow, Tehran’s newest and most powerful ally. Russian planes began bombing Syrian rebels while claiming, as before, that it was there for one reason and one reason only: eradicating terrorists. Moscow’s entry to the war was the beginning of the end for the Syrian rebels. It wasn’t only the issue of the Russian air force, it was the fact that such a superpower openly entered the war while the Western powers maintained their distance, demoralizing the Syrian rebels. All this was done while Assad, Tehran and Moscow continued to hypocritically warn the West to stay out of Syria.

Since day one, Tehran has claimed that the only solution to the war in Syria would be a political one and not a military one while at the same time, Tehran and Moscow have invested in the war in Syria tens of billions of dollars and tens of thousands of troops causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Syrians and the millions of refugees. This glaring discrepancy was once again ignored under the grand goal of eradicating terrorists and the West, once again, sat on the sidelines. As pictures, videos and information regarding the dire situation of the Syrian population leaked out to the world, the pressure on the West to take a stand increased but, once again, nothing. The danger of an escalation which might lead the West to fight against Russia was left the West frozen in indecision.

And then, the siege on Aleppo began and suddenly, the inaction of the West became more unbearable. Most of the troops involved in the siege of Aleppo were not even Assad’s: they were Shiite militants and Hezbollah troops which Tehran had organized. The city was split into two distinct areas: the Western part was pro-Assad while the Eastern part was anti-Assad. As the noose around the rebels tightened, the Russian planes kept on bombing. The war of conflicting narratives sounded like two distinctive echo chambers: One narrative spoke about “liberating Aleppo from the terrorists” while the other narrative spoke about “conquering Aleppo by Tehran and Moscow”. As the siege on Aleppo became more critical, the accusations from the West increased but apart from words, the West didn’t do a thing for fear of “rocking the boat” and being accused of supporting terrorists.

And then, Aleppo fell, or was “liberated”, depending on your point of view and this time, the war of words reached a much higher level. The US ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power, slammed Tehran and Moscow for having “no shame” in fighting Assad’s war and victimizing millions of Syrians in the process while the Russian ambassador to the UN pointed out that the US wasn’t “Mother Theresa” and was far from being a neutral “player” in the war. What he should have done is tell Power that Moscow and Tehran are not alone in having no shame and that the US should take responsibility over the fact that it shamelessly abandoned the Syrian people to a fate in the hands of Moscow and Tehran. History might not forgive the Iranians and the Russians for what they did in Syria but it won’t forgive the West either for what it didn’t do there either or as Edmund Burke said, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”.

 

Related articles:

  • tehran-and-isis-its-complicated/
  • the-black-white-narrative-on-isis/
  • how-exactly-is-tehran-fighting-isis/
  • aleppo-at-the-front-of-a-growing-proxy-war/
  • exporting-the-revolution-is-simply-shiite-colonialism/
  • aleppo-is-liberated-aleppo-has-fallen/
  • syria-key-to-iran-and-to-russia/
  • iranian-involvement-in-syria-escalates-alarmingly/
  • tehran-blatantly-hypocritical-on-syria/
  • tehran-supports-assad-not-syrians/
  • syrians-and-yemenites-caught-in-the-middle/

 

Aleppo is liberated / Aleppo has fallen

The city of Aleppo has been liberated or has fallen, depending on whose side you are on. It’s a victory against terrorist or a massacre inflicted on innocent civilians. It is the triumph of the legitimate leader of Syria (together with his Iranian and Russian allies) for the benefit of the Syrian people or the triumph of illegitimate leader of Syria (together with the foreign meddling of Iran and Russia) for the benefit of Bashar al-Assad’s government. Aleppo is open to interpretation since the narratives surrounding it are bipolar in nature: Each side is claiming that it is in the right and the other side is in the wrong. These two separate “echo chambers” create a situation in which two separate and totally different realities seem to be occurring at once.

Whatever the case may be, the city is totally ruined as can be seen from this video the civilians of Aleppo have paid the price: It is they who were wounded or killed, who starved, who are forced to move to another city. Sometimes, the saying “a picture is worth a thousand words” is spot on. Looking at this picture taken last week in Aleppo following the ceasefire is just such a picture: the victors in the truck could be liberators or they could be terrorists but the civilians trudging their way out of Aleppo certainly don’t look like terrorists and the destruction of Aleppo is clear to all. It might be worth your while to keep this picture in mind as you read this article. You might also want to view this video taken by citizen of Aleppo from his window over the past few years…It’s easy to notice that the rebels don’t look like the hardened terrorists which Assad, Tehran and Moscow are claiming they are.

The fact that even according to Syrian sources, most of the fighting in Aleppo was done by Russian jets and Iranian-backed Shiite militants is one that says a lot about the conflict itself. As such, the battle of Aleppo is as far from a civil war as it could be: This wasn’t a battle between warring Syrian factions but a battle between the foreign supporters of Assad against the Syrian rebels who have lost their own foreign support for a long time.

Meanwhile, Tehran is jubilant over the “freeing”/”liberation”/”victory” of Aleppo: while the Iranian media is ecstatic Rouhani has congratulated Assad claiming that “the victory in Aleppo… constitutes a great victory for the Syrian people against terrorists and those who support them” to which Assad thankfully responded that Iran had stood “on the side of the Syrian people and government in its most difficult moments, and we will never forget it”.  Some Iranians have taken the fall of Aleppo to mean much more: “The liberation of Aleppo indicates the defeat of the political and military power of the (global) arrogance (the US)”.

Both leaders are sharing their versions of the truth and are denying any questions regarding the legitimacy of Assad’s government who has not held a true democratic election since he became president in 2000 and who imprisoned activists who called for democratic elections in 2001 and in 2011.  Nor is either leader questioning the illegitimacy of the “terrorists” who were beaten in Aleppo, Syrian rebels who challenged Assad’s rule since 2011 by calling for the release of political prisoners and demanding democratic reform. No, it is much easier to portray all rebels as terrorists and Assad as the legitimate leader of Syria because in this manner, there is no need for acknowledging the fact that Assad’s government doesn’t really have the backing of the Syrian people. Tehran isn’t helping the Syrian people, as it might like to portray itself, it is helping Assad.

Some voices in Iran are more cautious regarding the jubilation surrounding the liberation of Aleppo and Tehran’s involvement in Syria in general: “the killing of 300 thousand people and the displacement of 12 million others in Syria will only lead to hatred and violence” towards Tehran and the celebrations over the “liberation” of Aleppo are only “two nights’ joy” compared to the worries Tehran will have for the “next 30 years”.

What is certain is that Tehran seems to have successfully exported its revolution to Syria with tens thousands of Iranian troops, Shiite militias and Hezbollah forces fighting in Syria under the direct supervision of Qassem Suleiman, the chief of Tehran’s Qods forces in coordination with Moscow. And much more important than this, the Syrian civil war, together with the nuclear deal, has led to the rapprochement between Tehran and Moscow which has redefined the balance of power in the Middle East.

For now, the US and Russia are content to fight each other on the issue of Aleppo in the confines of the UN: The US ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power asked if the “axis of resistance” had “any shame” on the suffering that their actions have cost while the Russian ambassador to the UN, Vitaly Churkin, quipped back that she certainly wasn’t “Mother Theresa“. The US, nor any other supporter of the Syrian rebels, is not willing to turn Aleppo into a Sarajevo, the city which ignited World War 1 and the fleeing people of Aleppo will have to accept the fact that they are totally alone against the axis of resistance.

For now, the Syrian “rebels” and the Syrian civilians who happen to live on the “wrong side” of Aleppo are trying to restart their lives elsewhere but they are definitely still in danger. Thousands are still waiting for a safe passage and every day, there are new cases in which Shiite militants are murdering Syrian “rebels” before they can get out. The videos of Syrian civilians calling out for help form Aleppo have spread all over the world but no help can be expected in a country which has allowed only foreign influences who are backing Assad but which isn’t allowing any foreign influence which might be construed as being against Assad.  The graffiti written by the fleeing Syrians on the ruined cityscape say it all: “Good by”,  “we shall return one day” and “Under each destroyed building is a family buried with their dream. They were finished by Bashar Al Assad”. For the estimated 50,000 Syrians still waiting to flee the oncoming forces of the axis of resistance, the next few days will be crucial and will literally become a matter of life or death following a “complete meltdown in humanity“.

Related articles:

Rouhani lies outrageously about minorities in Iran

Once again, President Hassan Rouhani is in his campaigning for the presidency mode which means that he allows himself to paint a wonderful picture regarding the state of human rights in Iran. The last time he campaigned, according to the RouhaniMeter, he issued 74 promises of which only 18% (13) were fulfilled and another 36% (27) are “still in progress. The unfulfilled promises include, settling diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia, free the Green Movement leaders who are still under house arrest, assuring equality for women and men, submit bills to empower women’s rights, strengthen the value of the Rial, ending the expulsion of students and teachers because of political reasons etc… Specifically, for this article, he also promised teach Azeri to Azeris in schools,  to respect minorities and appoint members of Iran’s minority groups to become vice presidents.

Well, for the past three and a half years, the minorities in Iran have been oppressed just as they were before Rouhani took office. Sunni mosques were shut down, Christian pastors and believers were arrested, Baha’is have been oppressed through economic and academic sanctions, Kurds and Ahwazis have suffered wave after wave of oppressive measures by the regime, and the Azeris are still forbidden to learn their language in school.

One could easily put such promises aside and throw them in the garbage can labelled “promises by politicians” were it not for Rouhani’s latest take on minorities during a meeting with Sunni clerics in which he glowingly praised the positive role of ethnic and religious minorities in Iran. He began by slamming the fate of minorities under the Shah’s rule, pre-1979, which “espoused a strategy of iron fist where ethnic and religious minorities found no opportunity to live their social and political life”, a mentality which still exists in “some countries” (not Iran, of course). Rouhani then sells his rose-tinted pitch: “We believe however that ethnic diversity provides opportunities for a country, and that ethnic and religious minorities should be given equal opportunities and rooms for social and political activity”.  But that isn’t all…Rouhani then echoed his earlier promise to draft a “Citizenship Rights Charter” which would soon see the light of day and that he wants to appoint Sunnis ministers in his government

Of course, Rouhani doesn’t need to mention any other minorities since they did not have representatives in the room. He spoke to Sunnis so he spoke about Sunnis. There were probably some women in the room, so he spoke about “gender equality”, being “no less important” and added that he wanted to include “Sunni women” as governors.

Of course, Rouhani is no fool and he knows that his listeners can easily find out that nothing has changed since he was elected president the first time. That’s why he adds this telling excuse: “efforts have been directed” to equality for minorities “however, there have been glitches and lack of coordination in some areas, to be honest”.

Well, judging from the fate of the minorities in Iran under his presidency, including the largest “minority” in Iran, women, minorities should not hold their breath until Rouhani’s promises will be fulfilled. Rouhani fully understands that the regime which was born from the Islamic Revolution in 1979 is racist in nature towards women, religion and ethnicity even though it claims to respect women and to strive for Islamic unity. There is no gender equality, nor religious or ethnic equality in Iran and in order for a woman or a Baha’i to be treated equally in Iran, the whole regime would have to fall. So why does Rouhani continue to lie? Well, the obvious answer is that he wants to get re-elected. But can he really expect his disillusioned voters to trust him again after he failed them the first time? Or perhaps, and this is where it could get really interesting, he will blame the “glitches” on the regime and try to renew his promises together with a much bigger promise: to place his fate in the hands of his voters instead of the regime.

 

Related articles:

 

Extended US sanctions do not breach nuclear deal

The US decision to extend its non-nuclear sanctions on Iran for another 10 years has elicited a lot of responses from Tehran. The common denominator of all the responses is that such sanctions breach the nuclear deal, implicating the US on trying to derail the deal. Even President Hassan Rouhani joined in on the cacophony of rants claiming that the US is “the enemy” and that these sanctions will lead to “harsh reactions” from Tehran. What Rouhani and the mullahs in Tehran prefer to not mention is that these sanctions are focused only on US entities and do not affect the economic relations between Iran and the rest of the world. “But, it’s still a breach of the deal, then isn’t it?” you say. Well, here’s where it all gets tricky since the status between Tehran and Washington is still stuck where it has been since 1979. In fact, the ink had barely dried on the nuclear deal when Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei decided to ban 227 US brands from the Iranian market while at the same time, forbidding the chief negotiators, FM Javad Zarif in particular, from negotiating anything with the US that wasn’t nuclear in nature and explaining why chants of “Death to America” while burning the US flag was justified.

Now some would quickly claim that even though the sanctions are not nuclear-related, they infringe on the “spirit” of the nuclear deal. They are 100% correct.

The “spirit” of the deal can be found in the mutual goal of Iran and Western countries to look to the future for peaceful relations instead of looking back to find all the reasons why Iran was isolated by the West in the first place. But from day one, such a spirit never really existed in Tehran. Tehran has always claimed that it would gladly sign the nuclear deal with the P5+1 but such a deal would not normalize in any way relations with the US.

In fact, that spirit, which President Barack Obama tried so hard to sell to the American public was cut down before it even had a chance to develop. Khamenei made sure that Tehran’s negotiating team did all it could to keep the nuclear deal focused only on nuclear issues. The P5+1, specially the US, tried to repeatedly introduce other issues such as missile tests, sponsoring terrorist organizations, supplying arms to the Bashar al-Assad in Syria and to the Houthi rebels in Yemen, harassing US navy ships in international waters etc… to no avail. The message from Tehran was clear: this was a nuclear deal and as such the only issues which would be relevant to the deal would be nuclear issues. As such, the renewed sanctions do not breach the deal itself.

So when Obama claimed that Tehran’s repeated long-range missile tests broke the spirit of the deal, Tehran loudly pointed out that such a spirit doesn’t exist. But this didn’t stop some Iranian leaders to pick up on Obama’s “spirit” of the deal to try to pressure the US to lift all sanctions which might impede the normalization of Iran’s economy.

Many people are wondering what will happen to the nuclear deal once Donald Trump takes over. One thing is certain, if there ever had been a “spirit” of the deal, it lived only in Obama’s administration and it will certainly die out under Trump.

The bottom line is this: Trump might lead the US out of the deal or he might even add a few more sanctions just to make a point. Such a move would not necessarily force any of the other co-signees of the deal to drop the deal but it would place Tehran and Washington back to where they were before the deal was signed – deep in the paranoid mentality that has been the bread and butter of relations between these two countries since 1979.

Related articles:

 

Nazanin Ratcliffe’s freedom is up for ransom

For those who don’t know who Nazanin Ratcliffe is, here’s a summary: Nazanin is a British-Iranian mother who was arrested on April 3ed at the airport in Tehran, with her 2 year-old daughter,  following a visit to her family in Iran. At first she was charged with spying but then the regime clamped down on any information regarding her case. After 150 days in jail, during which she had limited contact with her family and her lawyer, she was convicted to 6 years in jail in a closed-door court for “secret” charges. Obviously, no evidence regarding Nazanin’s “crimes” was shared with the world and she continues to maintain her innocence. But then again, Nazanin’s case only exemplifies the fact that in cases in which the regime is intent on arresting or executing someone, the ideal of “innocent until proven guilty” is traded for “guilty until proven innocent” mixed with severe restriction on a proper legal defense. Her daughter is living with Nazanin’s parents and is not allowed to leave Iran while her husband has remained in the UK out of fear that he too would be arrested. Nazanin’s physical and mental health is deteriorating and word has leaked out that she has become suicidal.

Nazanin is not alone: 6 other dual-nationals from the West (Canada, US and the UK) were arrested under similar circumstances. Dual-nationality is not recognized in Iran and the unfortunate dual-nationals who were arrested were stripped of their foreign passports, losing their rights to involve the help of foreign embassies in Tehran Furthermore, it’s important to remember that following the signing of the JCPoA, 4 dual nationals were freed from jail in what some claim was one of the biggest case of ransom since the US flew out $400 million to Iran just before the prisoners were freed – President Barack Obama claimed that the money had nothing to do with ransoming the prisoners and everything to with the initial implementations of the nuclear deal but no one really knows.

The arrests of dual and foreign nationals is not something that President Hassan Rouhani would really want in view of his repeated invitation for foreign investments in Iran but then again, that’s probably why these people are in jail: Rouhani’s opponents, hardliners within the regime including the IRGC which is responsible for all of the arrests of dual/foreign nationals, are probably using these arrests to weaken Rouhani to the world. These are the same forces which have actually increased the number of executions under Rouhani, knowing that he is powerless to block these travesties of justice. One thing is certain, the hardline elements in Tehran have no qualms of imprisoning or executing people in order to weaken Rouhani.

The issue of ransoming dual-nationals imprisoned in Iran has come again in regards to Nazanin. Word is spreading that Nazanin is being held as a bargaining chip for a debt of 500 million pounds which the UK owes to Iran. The UK foreign office has denied these allegation and maintains that it is doing all it can to help free Nazanin but there is no evidence that such efforts are a reality – the foreign office might be pressuring Tehran behind the scenes as part of its renewed diplomatic relations with Iran but any such efforts, if they exist, are hidden from public scrutiny.

Whether or not Nazanin is being held for ransom, or simply as added pressure on the UK or because Tehran really believes that Nazanin is guilty of some crime which justifies being sent to jail for six years is not clear. But the ransom alternative makes a lot of sense: Tehran needs money, as cash payments or through foreign investments. The UK, on the other hand also wants money by either selling its goods to the Iranian market or through investing in Iran. So, both sides stand to gain financially from good relations. The outstanding 500 million pound debt is bound to be an issue between Tehran and London which will have to be finalized at some point in the near future. Demanding that normalized diplomatic relations should carry a price tag, 500 million pounds, can be “sweetened” by freeing Nazanin. Just as Obama denied paying ransom for hostages, so will the UK government. But at the end of the day, if money exchanges hands and prisoners are freed, the definition of ransom fits the bill.

In the meantime, Nazanin remains in jail, separated from her family while her family in in Iran and in the UK helplessly look on as human rights organizations continue to pressure Tehran without success. Whether Nazanin really is a spy or not is irrelevant to the regime since she is a perfect bargaining chip to make money and a perfect pressure point to weaken Rouhani.