MARIÂNGELA BERQUÓ enfoca a Geopolítica: Reality check on Iran and Hong Kong

How will the outcome of the November 3 presidential election affect Iran’s relations with the United States? If incumbent President Donald Trump gets re-elected, will Tehran be forced to return to the negotiating table and accept whatever deal he offers, as he often claims? Or does Joe Biden, who recently called for the easing of economic sanctions on Iran, have a better chance of securing a new deal with the country?

Most Western analysts expect Iran to start a new round of negotiations with the US in the new year regardless of who wins the election. This prediction has some merit, as Iran’s economy has been in dire straits since Trump’s controversial 2018 decision to withdraw the US from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA, commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal) and impose a new round of sanctions on the country.

This severely damaged the Iranian economy, which was already suffering from years of mismanagement, poor governance and corruption. The COVID-19 pandemic also added to Iran’s economic woes, and led to stagflation – a combination of rising inflation and slowing growth. The Islamic Parliament Research Center of Iran predicted that if the state fails to change the direction of the economy swiftly, 57 million Iranian citizens, or some 70 percent of the population, will soon be pushed below the poverty line.

While it would indeed be beneficial for Iran to break the impasse in its relations with the US, analysts who predict a post-election return to negotiations seem to be ignoring one crucial factor in the equation: Iran’s internal dynamics and the transformation its regime went through since the signing of the JCPOA in 2015.

Iranians themselves will elect a new president in less than eight months, and many expect the new Iranian leader to be someone closely affiliated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the regime’s ideological army. In the past, even mentioning an IRGC member’s possible participation in elections was taboo, but today, many Iranian political analysts are publicly discussing the possibility of a guard member becoming the country’s next president.

While it is hard to predict whether the IRGC will be successful in its bid to take over the executive branch in 2021, the fact that this is a very real – and openly discussed – possibility in itself signals the gradual securitisation and “IRGCisation” of the country’s political arena

This is why, if we want to understand what US-Iran relations will look like after the US presidential election, beyond analysing Trump and Biden’s foreign policy proposals, we should also explore the IRGC’s views on negotiating with the US and the two American presidential contenders.

As the guardian of Iran’s regime and its core security force, the IRGC is highly suspicious of Washington’s intentions.

The IRGC leadership believes that the US is waging a “hybrid war” against Iran that aims to instigate internal unrest and topple its regime through economic attacks and propaganda campaigns that are designed to turn the Iranian population against their leaders.

According to Brigadier General Yadollah Javani, the head of the political bureau of the IRGC, the strategic goals of the US are to prevent Iran’s progress, instil despair and hopelessness in the population, and sway the younger generation from the path of the Islamic revolution.

Due to its perception of the US as a dishonest and aggressive enemy that is determined to destroy the Iranian regime at any cost, as well as its anti-American and anti-imperialist ideological foundations, the IRGC is staunchly against engaging in any negotiations with Washington, regardless of who is occupying the White House.

For the IRGC, Washington’s unilateral withdrawal from the JCPOA proved beyond any doubt that the US is not a trustworthy adversary. As Javani has openly stated, the entire JCPOA saga convinced the guard that they “should not think of any negotiations with the United States any longer”.

Moreover, the leaders of the IRGC do not see much difference between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to their policies on Iran. They believe, as Javani recently warned, a Democratic victory in November should not be seen as an opportunity to return to negotiations, as both political parties are trying to achieve the same result, albeit through different means.

Perhaps even more crucially, as an ideological military force tasked with protecting the regime, the IRGC’s raison d’être is to oppose American imperialism. Ideological indoctrination makes up more than half of the required training to become a member of the guard. And a quick look at the IRGC’s Ideological-Political Training textbook demonstrates how its members view the US: an evil regime hellbent on world domination. In this world view, where Iran is on the side of everything good (jebeh-e Hagh) and the US is the representation of all that is evil (jebeh Boatel), there is no space for negotiations, and the conflict between the two nations will continue until one of them falls.

Participating in, or even appearing supportive of, negotiations with the Americans would undermine the IRGC’s ideological foundations and may be perceived as a betrayal of the revolution by its supporters at home and abroad. Anti-Americanism is the central component of the IRGC’s ideology and the source of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei’s political appeal. It cannot be eroded.

In the eyes of the IRGC, normalising relations with the US is not an overall recipe for resolving Iran’s myriad of economic troubles either. The guard believes, as they state in their propaganda materials targeting the domestic market, that the main culprit behind Iran’s economic devastation is not Washington’s economic sanctions, but the Iranian liberal elites and technocrats who currently dominate the country’s decision-making bodies and engender widespread corruption and inequality.

For the IRGC, negotiations with the US are useless in solving Iran’s multifaceted problems, and, said problems can only be remedied through the establishment of a young “Hezbollahi” (more conservative and religious) government. The “rejuvenation of the regime” was also a central principle Khamenei’s February 2019 manifesto outlining his plans for the country’s future, entitled “The Second Phase of the Revolution”.

Moreover, the IRGC did not forget or forgive the January 3 assassination of IRGC Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani by the US. The demise of Soleimani, who was a charismatic and influential leader, has tactically weakened the IRGC Quds Force and its missions in the region. Mirroring Khamenei, who declared “the regime will never forget the assassination of Soleimani”, IRGC chief Major General Hossein Salami recently emphasised that the guard will do everything in its power to avenge the death of the commander.

In short, the IRGC has little reason or motivation to push for a new round of negotiations with the US. The IRGC is not waiting for a new, more amenable president to move into the White House and restart diplomatic efforts to resolve the problems between Iran and the US. Instead, it is working tirelessly to end the domination of the US in the Middle East and beyond. General Javani made this clear in a recent interview where he said “America is like a cancerous growth that needs to be shrunk and eradicated”, later clarifying that their aim is not to “disappear America from the face of the earth” but rather destroy its capitalist system, which has harmed many other nations as well as Iran.

The IRGC is rapidly expanding its political influence in Iran, and next year’s election may result in the military force also gaining control of the presidency. In terms of foreign policy, this would mean the Quds Force becoming even more active in the region, continuing its resistance to the US and its allies. And in terms of bilateral relations with the US, it means the possibility of a post-election rapprochement, or even a new line of dialogue, is almost non-existent – regardless of who ends up occupying the White House in the new year.

Meanwhile, as Hong Kong heads down the path of decolonization, a sector needing the most urgent attention is its judicial system. The horsehair wigs so proudly worn by judges, Justice Department officials and lawyers are the perfect symbol of the territory’s judiciary — anachronistic, neocolonial and entirely inappropriate in Asian climes.

Moreover, there is a problem of political allegiance. At a time when the US-led West is unprecedentedly hostile towards China, the Wigs’ ranks are riddled with pro-West Sinoskeptics and outright China-haters. In their judgments since the outbreak of Hong Kong’s Black Terror last year, they have blatantly favored “pro-democracy” offenders. Such bias is all too visible to open-minded onlookers.

Amazingly, all 32 of the Chinese Special Administrative Region’s most senior judges are foreign nationals, all from the 5 Eyes Anglophone nations. At the height of the Black Terror, the local High Court even declared “unconstitutional” an anti-mask law passed by the SAR government under colonial-era Emergency Regulations. The ER had been approved by the Chinese National People’s Congress, the country’s highest legal authority and symbol of sovereignty.

Even so, Hong Kong’s legal cabal continues to operate in their black box, impervious to growing public disbelief and dismay. Complaints are brushed aside with the perennial reminder about Hong Kong’s proud tradition of “judicial independence.”

Recently, the Wigs even doubled down on their self-indulgence. Obliged by public pressure, they investigated two judges accused of political bias — and predictably found them innocent. The outgoing chief justice is reportedly considering recommending his wife for a coveted place in the SAR’s supreme Court of Final Appeal (CFA).

Under Hong Kong’s neocolonial system, successive government Chief Executives have treated the Wigs like the high priesthood of some rarefied cult, whose ministrations are beyond the understanding of mere mortals. Under the new National Security Law (NSL), Beijing gave incumbent CE Carrie Lam additional powers over the judiciary — on top of her existing authority as the head of an “executive-led government.” But Lam continues to be the Wigs’ chief defender and protector, recently urging the public not to criticize their Horsehair Highnesses.

The judicial racket may be nearing a tipping point, however. As public anger builds, retired CFA judge Henry Litton recently became the top insider to question scathingly the judiciary’s self-defeating Sinophobia and lack of forward-looking vision. Litton’s criticism was commended by the People’s Daily. Beijing’s authoritative newspaper warned the Wigs not to be like “lost sheep that twist the Basic Law, and distort and even trample on HK laws.” They must “stop being defenders of street violence.” For their “own political ends,” the PD added, the Wigs were “seeking to control the narrative on Hong Kong’s political system.”

In Hong Kong itself, legislator and lawyer Junius Ho is spearheading a drive to push judiciary reform. His recommendations include: Lessening dependence on judges from the 5 Eyes by appointing replacements from other common-law jurisdictions, such as Singapore and Malaysia – their experiences in those countries should enable them to understand HK and its mores better than Western judges; train and groom more and younger Hong Kong judges to fill top posts; establish a committee to set benchmarks for punishments for specific crimes — as per Britain, Australia and other common-law jurisdictions; simplify the arcane language used in courts, so ordinary citizens could better understand what goes on in the courts. It would also boost their knowledge of civic affairs and the rule of law.

Following enactment of the National Security Law, UK Supreme Court President (and HK CFA judge) Robert Reed said that British and other foreign judges might no longer serve in the Chinese SAR, depending on how the NSL was implemented. That seems the perfect opening for Hong Kong to implement its own overdue rectification of the judiciary.

The Listening Post: Debates over free speech and secularism

PALESTINA

"In a move that has further legitimized Israel’s illegal settlement activity in the occupied Palestinian territory, the US and Israel have expanded a number of existing scientific cooperation agreements to now include Israeli institutions in the occupied West Bank and the Golan Heights.

The new agreement, signed on Wednesday between Israeli Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman, amended three existing scientific cooperation agreements between the two countries.

According to the original agreements, which were created back in the 1970’s, cooperative projects between the US and Israel “may not be conducted in geographical areas which came under the administration of the State of Israel after June 5, 1967, and may not relate to subjects primarily pertinent to such areas.”

The new amendments will now for the first time allow US taxpayer money to be spent in Israeli settlements, which are illegal under international law.

The US Embassy in Israel said in a statement that amendment “further strengthens the special bilateral relationship” between the two countries, and that “these geographic restrictions are no longer consistent with U.S. policy.”

The Trump administration broke with decades of US and international policy last year when it announced that the US would no longer consider Israeli settlements to be illegal.

Wednesday’s signing ceremony took place in the mega settlement of Ariel, which lies in the heart of the occupied West Bank — the municipal boundaries of which contain several enclaves of privately owned Palestinian land that were seized by the Israeli state back in 1978, when the settlement was established.

Ariel is one of the largest settlements in the West Bank, and is home to some 20,000 Israeli settlers, and boasts a university, shopping center, industrial zone, hospital, and medical school.

Ariel University, where the signing ceremony took place, is the only Israeli institution of its kind in the West Bank, and unlike other Isralei universities, has been barred from receiving funds not only from the US, but from the EU and the German-Israeli Foundation for Scientific Research and Development.

The university has been the subject of a number of academic boycotts by international and Israeli academics, in protest of ongoing settlement expansion and Israel’s illegal occupation of the West Bank.

Prime Minister Netanyahu said Wednesday’s events were a message to “those malevolent boycotters,” that “you are wrong and you will fail, because we are resolved to build our lives and our ancestral homeland and to never be uprooted from here again.”

“This is an important victory over everyone who seeks to delegitimize anything Israeli over ’67 lines,” Netanyahu said, adding that the agreements being signed at Ariel University were of “huge significance.”

Other Israeli politicians hailed the agreement as another step in the right direction towards Israel’s plain for annexation in the West Bank, with Israeli higher education minister Zeev Elkin telling Axios reporter Barak Ravid that Wednesday’s events were “a big achievement for Israel’s sovereignty” in the West Bank and “another step towards international recognition of our rights” there.

Palestinian leaders and activists criticized the move as another attempt by the US administration to whitewash Israel’s occupation, and further pave the way for Israel to illegally annex more Palestinian land.

Hanan Ashrawi, Executive Committee member of the PLO called the agreement a “blatant unlawful act,” in a statement.

“Extending US funding to the occupied West Bank, including illegal Israeli settlements, is a clear recognition of Israel´s annexation of Palestinian territory,” she said, adding “this upgrades the Trump administration’s involvement in Israeli war crimes to active and willful participation.”

Ashrawi criticized the timing of the agreement, which she said was “a mad rush” made in the eleventh hour to “provide Israel with deliverables before January 2021, including normalization, economic benefits, and endorsement of annexation.”

The timing of the amendment, which was made just a week before the US elections, was criticized by many as an attempt to further as many of Trump and Netanyahu’s policies in the region as possible, in the event that Trump is not reelected on November 3rd.

Critics pointed to reports that, while the charge for the amendment was led by Friedman, it was reportedly pushed heavily by American billionaire Sheldon Adelson who is a major donor to both Ariel University and President Donald Trump.

Haaretz quoted sources as saying that Adelson “pressured the American administration to hold the ceremony ahead of the U.S. election on Tuesday.”

In addition to the timing of the announcement, the amendment is significant not only for its essential recognition of Israeli annexation, but for the fact that because it was made as a diplomatic agreement, it cannot be unilaterally reversed by a subsequent American administration, should Trump lose the upcoming election.

Palestinians have also expressed concerns that the agreement could result in pressure on the EU — the source of the majority of foreign funding for Israel’s scientific institutions — to follow suit.

“This must be a wake-up call to the European Union and individual European States. Instead of contemplating an upgrade in EU-Israeli cooperation as a reward for a blatant lie, the European Union must show moral and legal leadership and hold Israel accountable for its crimes,” Hanan Ashrawi said." Yumna Patel