Long awaited but here now. ​The killing of Iran’s Qassem Soleimani in early 2020 was one of the most important events to occur 21st century middle east, and that’s saying a lot. In its aftermath as missiles were fired, words exchanges and dicks measured, the world held its breath hoping to avoid another conflict in the Islamic World. Now that cooler heads have prevailed, I want to write a little post about arguably the most powerful man in the middle east for the last 15 years. Think of this as an obituary if you want to the shadow commander, General Qassem Soleimani.
​P.S I recommend you also read my other article "Understanding Iranian Foreign Policy in the Middle East" to truly understand whats happening
​

​Brief introduction into his past. Not much is really known about the General. Born in a village in the mountains of Iran, he joined the IRGC after its founding in 1979. It was here where he thrived. He was placed onto the front lines during the Iraq-Iran war and made himself popular with his peers. After the wars end, he was returned to Iran where he was tasked with fighting drug gangs, something he did well. Little is known about what happened in the next 10 years, but in 1998 he was made head of Iran’s Quds force, the IRGC covert operations group. It was here where Soleimani transformed Iran from a country under siege, to a region powerhouse in under 20 years. It was here that he transformed, into the Shadow Commander

​It was at the head of the IRGC where Qassem started to implement his will. His time fighting in the Iraq war made him many friends (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and then president Khamenei) and respect amongst his peers. Despite receiving little education in his youth, he seemed to be masterful tactician. During the rise of the Taliban and massacre of Iranians in the Afghan city of  Hazaras, many IRGC commanders pushed to invade the country. Qassem opted to instead support opposition groups such as the Northern Alliance. Perhaps it was here in which the General discovered his love of proxy groups.
 
In the aftermath of 9/11 Soleimani saw an opportunity of destroy the Taliban. He instructed Iranian diplomats to provide the US with intelligence, in fact diplomats reportedly arrived with maps of Taliban targets, insisting the US officials take them. After all, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. However, this brooding relationship was not to last, as George W Bush labelled Iran part of the axis of evil, the cooperation soured and both participants turned their backs on each other.

The Iraq war was a pivotal moment in the middle east. The US invaded Iraq in 2003 with the aim of regime change. The second Islamic country to be invaded within 2 years. Regional rivals to US power began to feel threatened, none more so than Iran. To its east, an invaded Afghanistan and to its west, an occupied Iraq. After being labelled part of the axis of evil, the elites in Tehran started to sweat, and it wasn’t because of the Persian sun. The theocratic nation reasoned that if Iraq was successfully turned into democratic state which could push US influence across the middle east, then perhaps the world’s only superpower would set its sights next on Tehran. From the Iranian perspective, Iraq must remain weak for two reasons. Firstly to ensure it can never again attack Iran like Saddam did during the Iran-Iraq war, and secondly to ensure the United States mission of regime change goes so disastrously  to prevent the Islamic republic being next to the chopping block. The man tasked with this goal, Qassem Soleimani.
 
Soleimani began by using Bashar al-Assad Syrian Intelligence community to help funnel Sunni Jihadist into Iraq. He then established Shiite militas (Asaib Ahl al-Haq) to inflict further casualties on US troops. 
The goal was simple, inflict enough harm on the US to destroy their will for war, forcing them to leave the region and a destabilized Iraq to Iranian influence. As more and more groups opposed to the US established themselves, casualties began to mount. That was until a separate war began on the other side of the middle east. In 2006 attacks against coalition groups in Baghdad fell dramatically, particularly attacks from Asaib Ahl al-Haq. The reason was Soleimani had left Iran/Iraq and gone to Lebanon to help Hezbollah in its war against Israel. Upon returning Qassem sent U.S commanders a message “I hope you have been enjoying the peace and quiet in Baghdad. I’ve been busy in Beirut!”. To further add to his notoriety, he reportedly sent General David Petraeus a text via Iraqi president Jalal Talabani saying:

​  “Dear General Petraeus: You should be aware that I, Qassem Soleimani, control Iran’s policy for Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, and Afghanistan. And indeed, the ambassador in Baghdad is a Quds Force member. The individual who’s going to replace him is a Quds Force member"

As you can tell, Soleimani held huge amounts of influence in Iraq, this increased even more when transport minister Hadi al-Amiri (and head of Badr Organisation, i.e another Iranian proxy) permitted Iran to fly weapons through its air space to Hezbollah at Soleimani request.  In fact, this pattern of Iraqi politicians allowing Qassem to do as he wished, either through loyalty or intimidation,  became a hallmark of Iranian-Iraqi relations. Leaked Iranian intelligence documents detail a meeting between Soleimani and al-Amiri’s successor Baqir Jabr al-Zubeidi:
 
"(Soleimani) came to me and requested that we permit Iranian planes to use Iraqi airspace to enter Syria. I put my hands on my eyes and said, “on my eyes as you wish.” Then he got up and approached me and kiss my forehead"
 
The shadow commanders power in Iraq cannot be overstated. Flooding Iraq with Quds force agents and establishing up militias organisations loyal to Iran, Soleimani’s grip continued to tighten around Iraq’s neck, and this was just the beginning.  With the departure of the American and coalition troops, Soleimani had completed his objective of forcing the Americans out of Iraq and placing it firmly beneath his boot.

​The Arab spring created opportunity unlike the Iranians could have ever dreamed of. For years the Islamic republic had tried to export its revolution across the middle east and now it had the political space to do so. In fact ,Qassem Soleimani called the Arab spring the “child of the Iranian revolution”. This however did not go exactly to plan. The Syrian revolution created a threat to Iran’s ally, Bashir al-Assad. Unable to put down the rebels, al-Assad called for Iran’s aid which the Islamic republic could not ignore for two reasons. Firstly the clerics felt it right to defend a old ally. Bashir father, Hafez al-Assad helped train revolutionaries and was the only friend Iran could count on. As stated earlier Qassem had used Syrian intelligence to funnel Sunni Jihadists to fight the Americans in the Iraq war. Secondly if Assad was to fall, Iran would find supplying Hezbollah in the west exponentially more difficult. Iran could not allow Assad to fall and Qassem Soleimani answered the call.
 
Soleimani sought to re-establish the connection to Hezbollah by capturing Qusayr along the Lebanese border. Upon re-establishing the connection, Soleimani helped to usher Hezbollah into the war and took a micromanagement approach with handling them. Qassem had very good relations with previous Hezbollah military commander Imad Mughniyeh, working together against Israel in 2006, they’ve been pictured hugging after long periods apart. However, when Imad was assassinated by a joint CIA/Mossad car bomb in Damascus in 2008, he was replaced by Mustafa Badr-a Din. But when Mustafa and Soleimani had disagreements, the Shadow Commander instructed Hezbollah secretary general Hassan Nasrallah to kill the military commander. Interestingly enough, Mustafa was not replaced. Instead Qassem Soleimani took charge as military head of Hezbollah and micromanaged the organisation. He also brought in Iraqi militias (Khataib Hezbollah) and helped to create new ones as well (Fatemiyoun and Zainebiyoun). It would be accurate to say the Soleimani created the strategy in saving Assad. Not only did he create and dictate the tactics, but he also formed militia groups to bolster the Syrian army which had been plagued with defections. Perhaps the most important milestone was bringing the Russians into the war. It is reported that Soleimani made a number of trips to Moscow (using commercial flights apparently) and conducted meetings with foreign minister Sergei Lavrov and even Putin himself. The Iranian response in Syria was created and spearheaded by Soleimani.
 
With the arrival of ISIS, Soleimani saw the years of stoking sectarian divides personified. He with the dissolution of the Iraqi army, Soleimani sought to create a response and push back the hordes of jihadists. After all he couldn’t have his grand plan stopped by takfiris (for more information on Iran’s grand strategy, see my other post about Iranian foreign policy in the middle east). He marshalled his militias and sought to push ISIS back. Following the fatwa of Grand Ayatollah Al-Sistani to defend Iraq from the oncoming terrorists, the militias of Soleimani swelled in size and became even stronger than before. Soleimani took advantage of this and positioned his militias to be seen as defenders of Shia’s and Sunni’s alike. He then sought to push his militias to run for elections. This was his grand plan, create a Shia crescent ranging from Beirut to Tehran filled with militias and Shia’s loyal to the Islamic republic, and to push them to run for elections. As Iraq, Syria and Lebanon are firmly under his directives, I would say he succeeded.
​

​On January 3rd 2020, Soleimani was killed at Baghdad airport by a drone strike from the US. Why this happened now is uncertain. The US had chances to kill the shadow commander in years past. Both George W Bush and Barack Obama rejected the option, as they felt it was too provocative. In fact, the Israelis once passed on the chance to kill Hezbollah military commander Imad Mughniyeh because he was in too close proximity to Soleimani and the risk of killing them both was too high. The official line for Qassems death was that it was in response to the embassy attack, this however was already proved to be false as Soleimani had been placed on the CIA hit list 8 months prior to the attack, and the IRGC had been listed as a terrorist organisation 1 year ago. One reason the US killed Soleimani could be that Trump wanted to distract from his impeachment. This is a strong possibility - surrounded with war hawks - it would make sense for the president to push for the more controversial approach with Iran, especially with an election coming soon. The president would want to seem tough on an external enemy.
The Second possible reason for this death could be that he, Icarus, flew too close to the sun. As Soleimani travelled across the middle east throughout the Syrian civil war, he could be pictured with many of the militias he founded. For whatever reason, the once highly secretive shadow commander, had stepped into the light and could be found taking selfies and photo ops with militia commanders. In Syria and Iraq his face was revered as a symbol of Iranian excellence and Shia heroism, often seen on the frontlines at battlefields and at the funerals of fallen fighters. Described by Supreme Leader Khamenei as a “Living Martyr”, this celebrity status may have cost him his life as stories of his exploits spread across the Islamic world. If you want to contain and ultimately stop Iran’s foreign policy, best to start with the guy who created, developed and spearheaded the entire program.
​

​Even now after completing this 2000 word post about the shadow commander, I feel it difficult to truly convey how powerful and influential this man really was. By all means, he was a terrible human being, responsible for the deaths of thousands across the middle east. When he wasn’t establishing militias to target coalition troops with Iranian made IED’s, he was ruthlessly squashing peaceful protests in Lebanon, Iraq and Iran with unnecessary violence.  It’s even said he persuaded Bashar Al-Assad not to resign when the Syrian protests began, definitely a what-if moment for the history books.
 
But in terms of strategy, what he was able to accomplish was nothing short of masterful for the Islamic republic. He singlehandedly turned Iran from being out in the dark, to controlling half the middle east, in the space of 20 years. You have the admit, that’s astonishing. A pragmatic General who utilised every tool to push his agenda regardless of sectarian affiliation.  He helped drive America out of Iraq, saved Bashar al-Assad government from falling, pushed back against ISIS, brought Russia into the Syrian civil war and expanded Iranian power across the region. He created, armed, funded and trained militia organisations capable and willing to do the Islamic republic’s bidding. It’s now said that, because of him, Tehran controls four capitals, Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut and Sanaa.  When he wasn’t instructing Khataib Hezbollah to fire rockets on American installations in Iraq, he was directing the course of the war in Syria, then flying to Moscow to meet with officials and back to Lebanon to rig the elections. Kurdish, Iraqi and Lebanese politicians would refuse to talk about him, like a Mafia boss he instilled fear into those opposed to him and demanded loyalty by those praying behind him.  A man the CIA once called “The most powerful operative in the Middle East today”, he was someone who I can only describe as the Moriarty of the Middle East, the Puppet Master of the Islamic World, the Keyser Söze of the Levant, but alas the Persian Napoleon is no more.
 
The Shadow Commander, General Qassem Soleimani, was a man with a combination of intelligence, determination, willpower, ruthlessness and type of strategic thinking we will not see for many years to come, and the world is safer for it.
 
Thanks for reading

​​Iranian foreign policy.  over the last 20 years have changed drastically. To understand how, its best to give a brief history so everyone is kept up to speed. To do this, I would like to divide Iranian history into 3 sections.  Pre Iraq war, Post Iraq war and post Arab spring.
​

​Before the Iraq war, Iranian foreign policy was quite simple, survive. After the revolution, the regime found itself in a not so friendly neighbourhood. The motto “Not east, not west” had much of the world thinking “then where?”. In a bipolar world dominated by the Soviet Union and America, a Islamic theological system arising in one of the most strategic areas in the world raised eyebrows. None more so than perhaps Saddam Hussein (which would be difficult because he had some bushy eyebrows, seriously google them.) Saddam, in his attempt to crush the Islamic republic, invaded and unwittingly helped to shape Iranian foreign policy. A policy which has lasted till today.
 
Iranian foreign policy was essentially to hold off Saddam Hussein and America. The Iran-Iraq war which lasted over 8 years and took the lives of 1million people and provided a traumatic cause to gather around. The fact that Saddam provided backing by America and other gulf states pushed Iran into a corner which it felt it could not overcome. The gulf states treated Saddam as a buffer against the Islamic republic and hoped he would be enough to contain them. Tit for tat attacks against America became habitual. The Hezbollah attacks on American barracks, the downing of Air flight 655, hostage crisis’s and embassy attacks, Iran was acting like a rabid animal backed into a corner lashing out at what it saw as American imperialism. Iran was under siege. People were wondering when the regime was going to fall. And then help came in an unlikely ally.
​

The American invasion of Iraq was perhaps the best thing to ever happen to Iran. The toppling of Saddam Hussein was akin to taking a rabid dog off the leash and to the vet to be put down. Finally the Iranians found an opportunity to expand their influence. However it was not all celebrations in Tehran. Upper leadership were terrified that they were next on the bush administrations hit list. After being labelled part of the axis of evil and watching its two neighbours get invaded by simultaneously, I can image the supreme leader not feeling quite so supreme. Nevertheless, once the Iranian regime felt confident they were not going to be invaded, they set out constructing a new foreign policy which involved more than just surviving.
 
The first aspect was extremely important to them. This was to make sure that Iraq never again grows powerful enough to threaten Iran’s existence. This was primarily done in two parts. The first attempted to flip the status quo on power. Prior to the invasion Sunni politicians had been in power. Iran sought to change this by allying with Shia politicians and elevating them into positions of power. By doing this, Iran hoped to create a government which was more pro-Iran then its predecessors. Politically Iran tried to ensure its influence was always heard. Militarily it sponsored the funding and training of Shiite militias such as Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq which is believed to follow the Iranian Wilyat al-Faqhi ideology. By doing this the Iranians were able to create hard power within Iraq which could fulfil their objectives if political power was not sufficient.
 
However, this also provided another avenue to achieve a different objective, to remove the Americans from the region. By arming militias which caused causalities on America, the support for the war and middle eastern interference would decline massively. Removing America from the region  would allow Iran to take on a fully expansionist role.
​

​The Arab spring changed everything in the middle east. The landscape change dramatically, and subtle power plays became much more overt. Nowhere more so than Syria where gulf states saw the opportunity to reverse what had happened in Iraq. From the Arab perspective, Saddam Hussein Baathist Sunni party had been overthrown and replaced by Shiite pro-Iranian government. The Gulf states wanted to recreate their own version of this in Syria. The Shiite Al-Assad family (which ruled Syria) had been pro-Iran for decades. In fact, it was Hafez Al-Assad which helped train Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corp. The Gulf States saw the Syrian revolution as an opportunity to overthrow Assad and deal a major blow to Iranian influence by funding and arming Sunni extremists. The Iranians, however, were not going to allow this to happen and came to Assad’s aid.  It was this moment in which Iran decided it could again, like in Iraq, slowly entrench itself into another nation’s territory.
​

​ 
 In Iraq it relied on militia groups to give it influence and power, and in Syria it wanted to do the same thing. In 2011, the Iranians asked Hezbollah to fight in Syria, and began sending IRGC operatives to aid in strategy and tactics. The regime sent billions to Assad to help fight off Sunni extremists and insurgents. Its said that Qassem Soleimani’s meeting with Putin and other Russian officials was the reason for Russia’s entry into the civil war. Iran then began to create militia’s in Syria (such as Fatemiyoun and Zeynabiyoun) and asked its Iraqi militia’s to join the fight. During the fight against ISIS, Iraqi Shiite militias helped to defend Baghdad and other Iraqi cities from attack at the order of Soleimani after the Iraqi army fled. When Grand Ayatollah Al-Sistani issued a declaration to fight against extremists, many joined the ranks of Iraqi militias which labelled themselves PMF’s (Popular Mobilisation Forces). While not all were under Iranian influence, much of the larger more powerful organisations such as Kataib Hezbollah were. Over time analysts began to see the outline of a new state being created in the middle east and fulfilment of Iranian Foreign Policy.
 
Iran’s foreign policy today is the same as it was 40 years ago, and that is to expand its power. It does so by taking advantage of chaos to implement its will. With Major General Qassem Soleimani spearheading Iranian expansion, the General has finally created, in the space of 20 years, something of a geopolitical masterpiece. The Wilayat Iman-Ali.
 
The Wilayat Iman-Ali is refers to the land corridor between Tehran and Beirut. The fact that this land bridge is called Wilayat Iman-Ali (meaning state of Ali) means the Iranians and co give it great importance The Iranians have been attempting to create a land bridge between themselves and Hezbollah in Lebanon in an attempt to further push their influence. They have been doing this by taking advantage of instabilities in Iraq and Syria to create Shiite militia organisations. These organisations are then trained by IRGC quds force and given advanced weapons capabilities. Organisations such as Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq, Khataib Hezbollah and Khataib Nujaba act as Irans foreign legion in the middle east, extending its power and reach. Soleimani has been indisposable at creating and maintaining such ties, frequently travelling to frontlines of Iraq and Syria to pose with fighters. He has been photographed numerous times with Akram al-Ka'abi and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis. This connection between Iran and its proxies means that the Islamic republic is able to request extreme loyalty from its pawns, trusting them to conduct operations and act on behalf of the Iranian state. However, as stated earlier, Iran seeks to conquer not such militarily, but also politically. After instructing its proxy forces to fight against ISIS, Iran now seeks to push its militias into the political arena and seek election. The fight against ISIS and other Sunni extremists have gained Iranian backed militias huge amount of praise and resting on the back of Grand Ayatollah Al-Sistani’s fatwa to push back such terrorist organisations, Iranian militias have become popular in some parts of Iraq. They seek to use this popularity to infiltrate state institutions and become the dominant political and military entity. Iraqi politicians are feeling Tehran’s foot on their neck and are unable to wiggle free. In January 2018, Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq, Khataib Hezbollah, Badr organisation and other Iranian backed organisations came together to form the Fatah Alliance political party.  The alliance won 47 seats in parliament making it, and by extension Iran influential in the Iraqi parliament.

​Iran also has a second goal to achieve via the Wilayat Iman-Ali. The Iranians aim to place themselves at the centre of Shia theology. However their strain of Shi’ism (Wilayat al-Faqhi) is not massively popular across the middle east. Despite their best attempts to export it via proxies (Hezbollah, Asaib Ahl al-Haq) it is still not the dominant form of ideology for Shias. Iran seeks to first place itself as the epicentre for Shia thought throughout the muslim world and to transform the city of Qom into more of an intellectual/theological hub, to further expand its influence. However, this is no easy task. Prominent Shia’s such as Iraqi Grand Ayatollah Al-Sistani have spoken against Wilyat al-Faqhi. He and his resident city of Najarf presents an alternative to Iranian Shi’ism in both ideology but also in practice. He rarely interferes in the action of the government and actively dislikes doing so. This is in contradiction to Wilyat-al Faqhi which believes in control via the religious clergy. The only figure to rival supreme leader Khamenei is Al-Sistani, and when he dies, the epicentre of Shia intellectual thought will move ever closer to Qom and away from the city Najarf. Thus further expanding Iranian power in the region.
 
Iran is preparing for such a transfer of power. Across the middle east, it seeks to push Shia’s to reject their national identity and embrace their religion. In simpler terms, to reject their national identity and embrace Iranian Shi’ism. The Wilayat Iman-Ali is instrumental is making this a reality. Throughout the land bridge, the Iranians have been relocating Sunnis and replacing them with Shia’s particularly in southern Syria. It sponsors classes for those wanting to convert from Sunni to Iranian Shia’s. It creates militas such as Liwa-Fatiemiyoun composed of Afghan Shia to fight in Syria,  and uses Lebanese Hezbollah radio stations to push propaganda. This moves are indicative of a regime attempting to push Shia’s living in the land bridge to reject nationality and embrace religion, in particular Iranian Wilayat Iman-Ali.
​

​Henry Kissinger once said, “Iran has to decide whether it is a country or a cause” and I think that we are finally starting to understand which path it chose. After the 79 revolution, there was hope that once the dust settled, that Iran would begin to behave. Not necessarily become an ally but at least conduct itself civilly and join the rest of the world. 40 years later and I think its clear which path the Islamic republic has decided to take. Unleashed by the instability of the Iraq war, and given a lifeline in sanctions relief after the nuclear deal, the regime has bolted down the path of aggressive behaviour throughout the middle east, choosing not to invest in its own people, but rather violent militas which serve to expand Iranian influence. Perhaps Iran had always known what it was, and the west was kidding itself, only now accepting what it had feared. Iran is not a country but a cause, and its cause, is revolution. 

Hope you all had a happy Christmas, time to learn politics.
​Nineteen Seventy Nine was the year that changed the world. I am going to be focusing on 3 main events which help to change the middle east and as a result, the wests response to it. It will not be in any particular order.Nineteen Seventy Nine was the year that changed the world. I am going to be focusing on 3 main events which help to change the middle east and as a result, the wests response to it. It will not be in any particular order.

​The first event I am going to talk about is the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan. This invasion is obviously extremely important for two reasons. One the radicalisation and growth of a Jihadist movement in its early infantile. Second the bankrupting of the Soviet Union due to a decade at war. I will be focusing on the first reason as I am not well versed in Soviet history.
To understand how the invasion radicalised a terrorist movement, it’s a good idea to have a brief understand of the movement beforehand. Prior to the invasion, the ideology of Jihadism was mostly theoretical. It was an ideology which was founded and only lived in the pages and works of Abdullah Azzam, Qubt and Ibn Taymiyyah. It was an Ideology which flourished in prisons of dictators like Nasser and the Saudi Monarchy, but it did not have a galvanising moment. That was until the Soviets invasion of Afghanistan. This invasion provided the ultimate backdrop for extremists to test drive their ideology which so far had been confined to the pages of a book. It was in Afghanistan in which extremists were able to harden their fighting skills, radicalisation and perhaps most importantly their propaganda. Throughout the war, figureheads of the extremist movements such as Abdullah Azzam and Ayman al-Zawahiri sharpened their propaganda and urged Muslims across the Arab world to travel to Afghanistan to wage Jihad against foreign invaders. Once there, recruits would be further radicalised by incumbent extremists and harsh fighting conditions. In addition to this, Arab countries were more than happy to allow their extremists to leave the nest and travel to Afghanistan and die fighting for some archaic millenarianist ideology. However, they didn’t bank on the Soviets losing. This outcome has essentially led to the propagation of extremism. Never before had so many extremists been able to come together, converse and create a dialogue to push forward their ideology to its next iteration. It was the war in Afghanistan which galvanised the movement and matured it. It provided a new form of language which was lacking before the war. Throughout it, figureheads of the movement would state how “lone Jihadists would defeat battalions of Soviet soldiers” or “Angels were witnessed riding into battle on horseback” and “falling bombs were intercepted by birds”. This sort of language and imagery was not possible before the Soviet invasion. Of course there have been wars in the Islamic world but not one which was purely fought via Jihadism and took place in recent history. Thanks to the Soviets, this almost biblical language of a bygone age had been revived and brought into modernity. Keeping in mind that Jihadism and by extension Islamism is of authoritarian predisposition, authoritarian regimes will often use biblical and palingenetic language/imagery to follow and reinforce their narrative. This in turn creates nostalgia and a sense of belonging which relays a cathartic response from the recipient. In this, a sense of loyalty and devotion is produced from the recipient to the regime.  Other authoritarian regimes did something similar. The Nazis imagery/language referred back to the idea of an Aryan master race with blonde hair and blue eyes. The communists were spurred on by imagery of the Soviet worker. Jihadists relied on the religiosity of their actions against the Soviets in Afghanistan to radicalise their adherents. From this, the next iteration of Jihadism came in the form of a particularly notorious organisation by the name of Al-Qaida. Its leaders pushed for its fighters to return home after the war and continue the fight not worrying about spreading its fighters far and wide as it had established a common language. Meanwhile the core group re-focused on a new enemy, the United States. The rest the say, is history. 
​

​ The second event which also occurred in 1979 was the Iranian revolution. I don’t think I need to spend too long on this point as its importance is self-evident. Prior to the revolution, Iran was ruled by Mohammed Reza Pahlavi (Shah) but was overthrown and replaced with Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. The state of Iran changed from authoritarian dictatorship to Islamic theocracy called the Wilayat al-Faqih (Guardianship of the Jurist). The implications were massive. From a political theory point of view, the revolution presented Islamism as an alternative to Capitalism and Communism. The Middle East in the 20th century was a landscape in which capitalistic Arab nationalism was the ideology meant to modernise the  Arab world, but from the depths of the antiquity a new system of governance arose to compete against existing systems. Neighbouring countries were extremely alarmed that nationalism had been so easily pushed aside in favour of a more theocratic ideology. Nations across the Arab world were concerned if Iran would export their revolution. Leaders such as Saddam Hussein, Hafez al-Assad  and the Saudi monarchy were especially concerned due to their Shia populations. Unrest is always bad for business.
It was for this reasoning that Iraq invaded Iran in 1980. Aiming to take advantage of Iran’s internal instability, Saddams Iraq launched a gruelling war which lasted 8 years. Despite having the backing of most western powers and financial help from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, Iraq was pushed back. The Iranians hold this deep In their mindset when talking about distrust of the outside world and is common rhetoric for politicians. From the purely religious perspective, it challenged Saudi Arabia on its position as leader of the Muslim world and has tried to position itself as an alternative, a decision which has wreaked havoc on the middle east.
Since then, Iran has become something of a pariah state, sanctioned from the rest of the world, the regime has become infamous for its support for Hezbollah, hate for Israel, and nuclear program. Its fair to say the revolution is without doubt one of the most defining moments of 1979 and even the century.

​The third event to occur in 1979 lasted only 2 weeks, buts its effect on the world has reverberated to present day. Often called the Grand Mosque seizure, its name is fitting. Before we get into the implications, its best to have a brief understanding of the situation. Armed insurgents numbering in hundreds took barricaded themselves in the Grand mosque in Mecca and took hostages. They believed their leader was the Mahdi (islamic prophet) and aimed to overthrow the Saudi Monarchy. They were eventually defeated after 2 weeks of fighting. The implication of this siege was huge. While the insurgents were essentially proclaiming that judgement day was close and the apocalypse was near, there was one grievance which resonated throughout Saudi society. The grievance was that Saudi Arabia was becoming too western. The monarchy had pursed a policy of liberal westernisation to modernise themselves. This however is at odds with extremist ideas as anything non-Islamic is a sin. The Saudi Monarchy was terrified that a revolution was on the way if they did not improve their adherence to Islam quickly. King Khaled responded to the hostage crisis by giving more power to religious conservatives (Ulama). This has led to the spreading of Wahhabism across the Muslim world which has arguably led to the rise of extremism globally.

​So there it is, 3 reasons why 1979 is extremely important year for the middle east. It played host to an invasion, a revolution and a hostage crisis. These three events were so strong we are still seeing the effects of them today. Thanks for reading. 

​Since before 2002, the Islamic Republic of Iran has been attempting to gain nuclear weapons (or at least nuclear capabilities), and since 2002 the west has vehemently denied them. Finally, on 14th July 2015, the P5 + 1 and Iran managed to come to an agreement despite the war hawks of the right attempts to sow discord. It took more than 13 years to come to an agreement, years of open discussion as to when to invade Iran, should it be in the summer or the winter? All of this to deter them from pursuing a nuclear weapon. The question which must be asked is why? Why is the west so determined to stop Iran from achieving?
 
Nuclear insurance
Well, before we answer that question, we must first answer a different one. Why does Iran want nuclear weapons? This question is simple. Iran wants nuclear weapons for the same reason every other country wants or possess nuclear weapons. Deterrence. Iran has learnt a lot from its fellow “axis of evil”. Both of its neighbors were invaded by a US-led intervention. Libya gave up pursuit of nuclear weapons, look where Gaddafi is now. North Korea, it seems has outlasted all of them. Simply put, the one with nuclear weapons was negotiated with. The ones without nuclear weapons were invaded.
But its more than this. As Iran survey’s the world it notices few friends in a world full of rivals. To its east, an invaded Afghanistan and nuclear armed countries such as India, Pakistan, China and North Korea. To its west (Kind of) it sees a destroyed Iraq, hostile Arabian Peninsula gulf and nuclear armed Israel. Further west a superpower divided on what to do, half shouting for an invasion starting yesterday and the other half being attacked for not wanting it sooner. Furthermore, it is a superpower which is easily susceptible to Israeli lobbying and we all know what happened the last time they lobbied for war (Iraq). North, we have Europe. In the eyes of many Iranian officials, this is a continent is the shadow of its superpower ally. Russia seems to be pragmatist. Slowly expanding its spheres of influence in its backyard while also containing NATO. Its recent entry into the middle east to contain US influence by helping Assad reassures Iran. However, I doubt the Iranians consider the Russians a serious ally, perhaps an alliance of convenience. In fact, Iran’s only real ally was Assad and we know how he’s getting along. On 8th July 2017 a rift had occurred on the Arabian Peninsula among the gulf states. Qatar being ostracized could present an opportunity for Iran to gain an important ally in the region. However realistically, I highly doubt the other gulf states would tolerate such an Idea. 
There are roughly 5 reasons why the P5+1 cannot allow a nuclear armed Iran.
















Nuclear Roulette.
I am going to start with the most ridiculous because it is easy to understand. Also, its late and I want to sleep so starting with this will be the easiest. The first reason why the west cannot allow Iran to gain a nuclear weapon is because they will go ham and nuke everyone. Let me just say this bluntly. This is false. No one thinks this. If you think is a real possibility you should go back to watching Dr Strangelove. Many in the political scene will attempt to frame Iran as a rogue state willing to commit self-destruction just to destroy Israel. This is simply false. Iran nuking Israel would be completely and totally self-destructive. Should Iran launch a nuclear weapon at Israel, it in return would be obliterated by Israeli nuclear weapons.
 
Second reason why Iran cannot be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon is because of the change of power in the middle east. Currently Israel is the nuclear behemoth within the region. Everybody understands this. However, if Iran obtains a nuclear weapon then they may act more violently towards their neighbours through proxies. A nuclear armed Iran may embolden its proxy Hezbollah to conduct more dangerous operations against Israel. Hezbollah and other proxies would effectively be under Iran’s nuclear umbrella. This would result in an Israel which may be limited in response when combating Hezbollah due to fear of Iran’s nuclear weapons.

Third Reason why Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon is it could create a nuclear arms race in the region. A nuclear armed Iran could force the Saudis to pursue nuclear weapons, especially when considering the bold and militaristic crown prince Mohammed Bin Salman (MBS) is currently at the top of Saudi leadership. This is an individual who feels his country needs to take an active role in shaping the middle east since the rollback of America. What better way to do this than with a nuclear arsenal in your back pocket? Turkey would most likely follow as it tries to expand its influence in the middle east. Erdogan is becoming further authoritarian and religious. His view that Turkey also should have a role in shaping the wider Muslim world would be best helped with a nuclear weapon in his pocket too.  This could create a nuclear arms race in an already destabilized region.

​Fourth reason is a bit of a stretch and is short. Like the first point, it is often parroted by the American right. There is a fear Iran could give a nuclear weapon to Hezbollah or another proxy. This is unlikely. Nuclear weapons cannot just be thrown into a brief case and smuggled into Tel Aviv. Radioactive signatures can be tracked and traced.
Final reason is that a nuclear armed Iran would mark the end of the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty (NPT). Signed by 190 countries it aims to prevent the spread of Nuclear arms. You could argue its already dead. India, Israel and Pakistan are nuclear armed non-signatories. North Korea is nuclear armed. But the final nail in the coffin would be Iran (which signed the agreement) then pursuing nuclear weapons. This could be a good thing however. Should the NPT be deemed worthless and ineffective due to countries not abiding by it, it could force the creation of another similar agreement but more effective.

​So, there it is, 5 quick reasons why the west says Iran cannot have nuclear reasons. Hope you enjoyed.