Kleptocracy vs Kakistocracy

The US administration has never shied away from depicting the Iranian regime in the worst and most diabolic forms of governments. Slurs such as the axis of evil, a terrorist-harbouring state, and a deranged theocracy are some of the synonyms of the Ayatollah regime in Iran. Most recently, the US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo delivered a speech in which he accused the Iranian regime of being a corrupt Kleptocracy, insinuating that the overthrow of such a corrupt system was a common dream of Americans and Iranian friends.

Not to be outdone,  Donald Trump issued a dramatic tweet in all caps and with the signature exclamation remark at the end: "NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!"

These intelligent words came after Iran's foreign minister’s meeting with Iranian diplomats, during which he elegantly indicated that America should know that "peace with Iran is the mother of all peace, and war with Iran is the mother of all wars". The comment was a sublime thereat to Washington, warning it against any attempt overthrow the Iranian regime.

Steamy retorts and bellicose rhetoric are not new in the US-Iranian relations. However, it is interesting to see how the pot is calling the kettle black.

Yes, Iran is an autocratic regime. And yes, it is most likely a Kleptocracy. But isn’t the Trump administration the purest form of a Kakistocracy? Both nations are run by inept, dangerous, and violent governments. Both countries pose a dangerous and direct threat to the well-being of their neighbours, and both administrations are run on the basis of vendetta, tantrums, and deep-seated and obsessive love/hate relationships with certain ideologies. Nonetheless, one of them is run by the corrupt, and the other by the unqualified. It is pretty clear which of the two is more dangerous.

The public is most likely tired of hearing such flagrant and intense rhetoric. The fact that Iran is run by a corrupt gang will not justify yet another war that no country has seen before (to use Trump’s insensitive, arrogant, and simply stupid words). By the same token, one can expect and justify international calls for an end to the Trump administration on the basis of absolute ineptness. Unqualified and corrupt figures should be banned from office, but there they are, and that is that. Employing soul-touching rhetoric to justify the overthrow of a government and a makeover of an entire regime is what one can expect from - well - a Kakistocracy.

Perhaps it would be better to go back to the Bush-era terminology, which – although equally intelligent – justified intervention in the Middle East. Fomenting terror, harbouring evilness, anti-Semitism and the like had a stronger impact on the public. Are the Americans ready to finance another war in the name of ridding Iranians from corrupt leaders? Not really.

One quote from a Trump visit to Michigan in April wraps this article nicely: 'Our laws are so corrupt and stupid'. Perhaps the administration should start from there.

Oh but Iran is not going anywhere

     Donald Trump’s agenda was - surprisingly – clear when he met with Vladimir Putin during the July 16 summit in Helsinki. Trump’s wish-list included maintaining the gains made against the Islamic State, constraining Iranian influence in Syria, and gradually pulling out all military presence from the country. It does not really matter who stays in power, as long as the Islamic State in the eastern part of the country has been defeated, and Iran’s influence in Damascus is reined by Russia. It is a question of time before Assad gains control over the entire country – eastern side in particular – and the Syrian Democratic Forces will no longer be recognised as the authority on the ground, including by its US patron. What is left for the US to save face is to appear to have minimised Iran's role in Syria.

The Trump administration clearly wants to kick Iran out of Syria. Russia is neither crazy about Iranian growing influence and power in Syria.  A compromise can be reached between the two world powers…but what about Syria and Iran? Would they agree to such a deal? And would Russia have a change of heart and keep a winning (yet problematic) card at hand?

The Trump administration rightly seeks to limit Iranian influence in Syria, but it would do well to recognise that neither the United States nor Russia can force a complete Iranian withdrawal. At the summit, both leaders agreed that they would ‘do certain things with Syria’ that would contribute to ensuring the safety of Israel. It is quite clear what these ‘things’ are:  containing Iran’s influence in Syria (in exchange for downsizing US military presence).

Interestingly, the issue is no longer the Assad regime, the role of rebels, or the safety and well-being of Syria. With Russia still supporting the Assad regime, the US backing rebels in the east, and Syrians still under fire and siege, everyone somehow agreed that the safety of Israel and curbing Iran’s influence in the region would suffice as goals.

The tragedy is that it does not really matter at all whether such an agreement holds. At the end of the day, Iran’s multiple proxies in the entire Middle East and its ability to shape policies are not limited to its current role in the Assad regime. More importantly, there is no guarantee that Russia would respect its side or the agreement, or that Damascus and Tehran would follow through. In the past, Iran and the regime have brushed aside Russian efforts to reshape the political and diplomatic landscape in Syria—most notably in dismissing Russian’s call for all foreign forces to leave the country. Iran and Syria have cooperated since the 1980s amidst the Iran-Iraq war, and their ‘friendship’ has only grown stronger, forged by common goals, ideologies, geopolitical perspectives, and economic interests. 

To assume that Iran would pack and leave because Russia told it so would be both innocent, and slightly stupid. Now that Assad has reasserted control over the country, made the US fight a successful war against ISIS for him, and strengthened the country's alliance with Iran and Russia, it would be impossible to consider relinquishing such leverage in the name of peace. The Trump administration might be tricked into believing the Russian rhetoric...but oh does Israel really know better.

Shawerma Threats

An article posted in Al Monitor describes the growing tensions between Israel and Turkey over the latter’s activities in Jerusalem Haram Al-Sharif/Temple Mount. Whether it is the rising funds directed to non-profit associations, primarily the Turkish Cooperation and Development Agency, the soaring number of tourists flocking into Jerusalem, or the opening of a series of Turkish shawarma places, Tel Aviv is concerned with Istanbul’s hidden agendas. One concern however seems to stick out - again as reported on the aforementioned article:

´The Israelis are convinced that Erdogan is trying to return Ottoman grandeur to the Temple Mount to intensify tension between Jews and Muslims in the holy places and become the top Islamic figure to protect the mosques and Al-Aqsa. “We won’t let this happen, no way,” an Israeli security source said on condition of anonymity’.

Now, what does this anonymous Israeli security official mean with return Ottoman grandeur to the Temple Mount? Does that mean that the official believe that reminiscing about the past and attempting to revive it are future - actually dangerous – acts that require immediate attention and development of counter measures? Is the Ottoman renaissance dream forbidden for its validity or rather its peril?  

It is quite ironic for an Israeli official to use the history card…after all that is all what Zionism is based on: history. No one is refuting or questioning the rights of Jews in living in peaceful coexistence in Palestine, noting that tracing back Jewish history in Palestine to thousands of years in the past has been a perfectly acceptable excuse for reviving the Israeli Sate. The question that begs itself would therefore be: why would the Ottomans be any different?? Can't one say that presence in the region for five centuries has led to planting roots in the holy land...roots that cannot be denied by history or ethnicity. Furthermore, the Ottoman Empire is much more recent in history, has stretched for five centuries across vast areas in the region, and has introduced political system that reflected – and somehow respected- cultural, ethnic, and religious diversity in the lands it ruled. In other words, the rhetoric employed by Israeli and Jews across the world that Israel is their homeland on the basis of history and religious texts should be viewed in the same lens as the argument of Turkey and Turks across the world that it is only natural for their country to expand its power and presence into foreign lands on the premises of historic rights and religious scripture.

Both arguments are invalid in both cases - but the lesser of two evils is clear to many. Or is it?