The measure was approved unanimously sending a clear signal that the theocracy’s actions to continue on its path of enrichment, one that could in fact endanger world security, would not be tolerated.

This closes all loopholes of a previous bill that was passed and empowers President Obama to impose sanctions on any country or company that enters joint ventures with Iran to develop its oil or uranium resource, or provides technology or resources to help Iran with such development.

It also includes measures against anyone who provides goods that “materially contribute to Iran’s proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program or its terrorism-related activities.”

This leads us to today, where the West and Iran met in Baghdad for what can be called a final showdown or on a softer tone, a last attempt at negotiating what seems to be an improbable deal given the distance between the parties and their demands.

On the one hand the Islamic regime wants 3 guarantees while the West has one demand, stop enriching Uranium at undisclosed locations hidden from IAEA inspectors.

But what are the 3 guarantees that Iran is adamant about?

First and foremost Iran wants the West to acknowledge its inalienable right to produce nuclear enrichment for peaceful purposes on its soil.  But hold on a second, everyone knows that under the NPT agreement and the rules of the IAEA which Iran is a signatory of it has such rights to develop peaceful nuclear energy so why make it an issue?

Well, this attempt is simply to assure Tehran that it does not have to depend on foreign countries to provide it with key components to nuclear enriched materials, technology and expertise.  This feeling of dependency has always been a sticky point in Iran – West relations.  But it goes beyond that.

For the past 10 years both the IAEA and the international community have been communicating such a right with the condition of full disclosure and transparency.  But Iran has consistently refused such a candid approach and at every opportunity has shown the world that it has pushed further on its enrichment even passing the 20% mark which puts it closer to weapons grade enrichment and readiness.

Second, Iran wants all sanctions lifted, including the one that was just passed by the United States congress.  The sanctions have had a crippling effect on the regime domestically and it feels that such sanctions if sustained would  ultimately lead to paralysis of the economy and therefore could lead to a domestic revolt.  Already unemployment is at 30% (unofficial records), the bazaar has come to a halt and inflation has had its effects on the average Iranian working 2 or even 3 jobs just to make ends meet.

And the last demand that is less spoken of is that the regime in Tehran wants assurances that the West will not engage in “regime change” because it knows full well that under a more democratic political atmosphere the people of Iran will most certainly be in a position to change the power dynamics of the country and therefore bring an end to 33 years of despotic rule.  And by all indications of the 2009 presidential hijack of an election, Iranians are ready for “change”.

So now the question is can will these conditions be met by the West and will the Europeans bow to Iran’s demands in light of the economic pressures in Europe or will they stand on principles and demand Iran change its course.

We will have to wait for the outcome come daybreak but in my view neither side is any closer today than they were when the talks first initiated back in early 2010.

With increased pressure by the United States on India to curb ties with Iran, the UAE has moved in to fill the gap that would feed the Indian appetite for oil as the country moves forward with it’s growth plans.

Once again Iran has demonstrated its lack of vision, lack of willingness to cooperate with the International community, and remains to take a hostile position that does not serve it’s national interest as economic conditions in the country continue to decline.

Unemployment and underemployment is unofficially at around 25% and inflation continues to make it harder and harder for the middle class to keep costs under control.

According to AFP news agency, anonymous US officials confirmed that the US-administered Al-Dhafra air base  in the UAE had received an unspecified number of F-22 Raptors.

The fighter jet, manufactured by Lockheed Martin and Boeing, includes stealth capabilities and is considered one of the most advanced aircraft in the US Air Force.

The move comes as diplomatic relations between the UAE and Iran have soured over three Iranian islands in the Persian Gulf.

Responding to the news on the deployment of F-22s in the region, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Ramin Mehmanparast claimed the move could “endanger the security of the region”.

“We do not approve of the presence of foreign forces in the region and believe that their presence undermines regional security,” he told the semi-official Mehr news agency.

Iranian authorities have bolstered the Islamic Republic’s military presence on Abu Musa and insisted its ownership over the three islands is “non-negotiable” as per the 1971 agreement that was signed by Iran, England and then the Emirate of Sharjah.

FACTS about the history of the Islands: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musa#Ownership

The ownership of Iran on Abu Musa has been disputed by UAE. The dispute between Iran and UAE started in 1974, three years after the latter’s establishment. The island had been under Persian control until the early 20th century.  After 1908, the UK controlled the island along with the other British-held islands in the Persian Gulf, including what is today the UAE. In the late 1960s, Britain transferred administration of the island to the British-appointed Sharjah, one of the seven sheikdoms that would later form the UAE.

A map from 1891 showing Abu Musa part of Iran. two dotted lines shows Transatlantic telegraph cables

After Britain announced in 1968 that it would end its administrative and military positions in the Persian Gulf, Iran moved to reattach the island politically to the mainland. In November 30 1971 (two days before the official establishment of UAE), Iran and Sharjah signed a Memorandum of Understanding. They agreed to allow Sharjah to have a local police station and Iran to station troops on the island according to the map attached to the Memorandum of Understanding.

Sheik Saghar Welcoming Iranian Troops to Abu Musa and Visiting Iran‘s Artmis Navy Ship-1971

One day before the UK officially left the region, Iran stationed its troops on the island and was welcomed with the Sheik of Sharjah‘s brother; Sheik Saghar; officially.

In 1980, the UAE took its claim to the United Nations.  But it was rejected by the UN security council, and the issue was closed.  In the same year, Saddam Hussein attempted to justify the Iran-Iraq War by claiming that one of the objectives was to “liberate” Abu Musa and Greater and Lesser Tunbs in Persian Gulf. In 1992, Iran expelled foreign workers who operated the UAE-sponsored school, medical clinic, and power-generating station.  In 2012 a visit to the island by Iranian president Ahmedinejad provoked a diplomatic incident. Iran’s historical claim to ownership over the islands roots back to the Parthian and Sassanid Empires, among others. Iran considers the island to have been occupied by the UK and refers to the the agreement between Iran and emirate of Sharjah at 1971.

The aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis and escort ships have entered the area of an Iranian naval exercise east of the Strait of Hormuz.

Captain of a US vessel in the Persian Gulf who wanted to remain anonymous has said that in the event of war, US naval forces would “smash” the Iranian coastal installations within hours. “The Iranian Navy is coastal and can only protect the country’s interests in the coastal waters but in open waters they are no match for us”.

The Russian naval commander agrees with the US statement that “there can be no comparison between the fire power of America and Iran given Iran’s limited offensive military hardware.”

While painting a different picture, Seyyed Mahmoud Musavi, the Iranian Navy’s deputy commander for operations, said that the Iranian Navy was ready to confront foreign naval groups in a real war scenario, while the Iranian Navy held maneuvers in the Persian Gulf.

Despite the tense situation and strong rhetoric on both sides, Kapitanets believes that it is in neither countries strategic interest to go to war and will therefore show restraint.

“The US’s actions are certainly provocative, but the matter is unlikely to go as far as direct military confrontation,” he said. “Certainly, the situation in the region is very complicated, but it is unlikely to grow into military action.” The Iranians say the exercises are within the norms of international law and should be respected. “We are ready to confront the violators who disregard the security perimeters set for the drills in line with international law,” said Musavi.

But beyond this latest diplomatic stand-off one must understand that from a domestic point of view the theocracy in Iran is stuck between a rock and a hard place. The regime knows full-well that the slightest behavior change and a move towards rapprochement with the West will weaken its legitimacy from within specifically because of its 32 years anti-Western rhetoric. Those hardliners who for over 3 decades have towed this line, will inevitably put themselves at great risk of prosecution in the court of public opinion in Iran if they shift from this position. Behavior change in their view is political suicide as it will inevitably lead to regime change and regime sympathizers such as the Supreme leader will not accept this political discourse.

So, now realizing that the regime in Tehran is incapacitated to change because of its innate nature and therefore unwilling to budge, is the West ready to push for regime change by supporting the people of Iran who are ready to start a new chapter of better relationships between their country and the West. It’s time for a new beginning.

While 1979 is still fresh in my mind, as a political commentator and observer of history I couldn’t stop wondering, why the British Embassy, why now, and who were these people that instigated such an undiplomatic act that is nothing short of a declaration of war given that an embassy, according to codes of international relations, is considered part of a guest nations sovereign territory on a host nations soil.

There are two ways to look at this turn of event, one is from the Islamic regimes point of view that wanted to send a clear message to the West that the days of dictating its will on Iran are over and that with the backing of Russia and China as key allies (alternative trade partners) Iran is able to stand its ground and maintain its independence.  In which case this act, as undiplomatic and senseless as it was, intended to send a retaliatory response to the latest round of hard sanctions imposed by the West on Iran.

And the second point of view is that of a power struggle between the more prominent international actors over Iran, namely Russia, England and the United States.  In other words, one has to wonder whether the Embassy attack had Russians fingerprints all over it who encouraged this move as a preemptive strike to force the British out of Iran, or maybe it was the Americans who wanted to get back at the British for their role in the 1979 US hostage takeover, or could there have been other international state actors or non even none state actors in the mix who wanted to create a rift between Iran and England.

Time will tell but I can say this with relative certainty, things don’t look good in Iran and it’s not about to get any better and the Islamic regime is starting to feel the international pressure.

Having said that more competition among nations isn’t necessarily a bad thing if you exclude corporate espionage, wars over resources and capital. But here is where it will get really interesting, the individual citizen (intellectual property or capital) will stand to benefit as a result of this move since they are the engines of the new innovation economy of the future.

And therefore whichever country invests more in developing this resource pool will be in a much stronger competitive advantage in tomorrows economy.

When Dariush Eghbali and Faramaz Aslani, the great legends of Iranian soul music took to the stage the atmosphere turned electric.   The cheering, the chanting and the screaming of affection towards these two great singers warmed my heart.  It was clear that the Iranian people had not forgotten their superstars, nor had they forgotten their past glory.  There wasn’t one song that didn’t have audience participation.  Young and old, post revolution generation and prerevolution generation all joined in as one voice.  Ladies with roosaree (hijab) and without were having a great time and on their feet showing their love for great music and a sense of freedom that they are deprived of in Iran.

Below is a video clip of Dariush singing one of his classics “do bareh meesazamat vatan”  (I will rebuild you once again my homeland).  At the end of this clip you can hear chants of  marg bar dictator “death to the dictator” .    What a memorable night, I just hope someday soon we can have this concert at Azadi Stadium in Iran where millions of Iranians can enjoy such great entertainment.

Now if anyone knows American history they will tell you that white Americans have not exactly been the nicest of people to other races since the country’s inception in 1776.   The indigenous population of America were gunned down by the thousands and removed from their lands, Chinese Americans were forced to work on railways and in mines, African Americans going back to the days of slavery picking cotton from the fields, and even Japanese Americans who had nothing to do with World War 2 where quarantined on farms in suspicion of  being spies or sleeper cells.

And so, while there are many examples of crimes against humanity that white Americans have committed over the centuries and have tried hard to make up for, I don’t think this picture falls into that category, and here is why.

In my view this image and its message is less about hate for Iranians as much as it is  a reaction on the part of an American citizen who has been demonized by a foreign country.  Now why is that?

Well, since the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran and the coming to power of a fanatical group of mullahs and leftists who saw Western liberal democratic values as a threat, America has become a target of wrath.  During the past 32 years the regime in Tehran has called for the destruction of America, has held American diplomats hostage, has bombed American interest around the world through its terror network, and has shown its hate and resentment towards America by symbolically burning the country’s flag and chanting “death to America” at every anti Western rally orchestrated by the state and at every Friday prayer.   And so it is only natural for any patriotic American to feel devastated and angry by the irrational behavior of a country that has set its goal on the destruction of everything America stands for.

Having said that to my fellow Iranians, which includes Iranian Americans, who are raising awareness of this picture on social media I would say,  if we really want to bring this picture down from the walls of this restaurant all that is necessary is  to focus our energy on bring about a regime in Iran that makes us proud and does not damage our good name in America or in any other country around the world.  I don’t think the American is at fault here.
Get political and get moving.

The legislation, which includes sanctions against Iran’s Central Bank and strict curbs on official diplomatic contacts between Washington and Tehran, was approved unanimously by voice vote of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives.

Without a doubt, such legislation making headway in Congress is likely to further tensions in the region, particularly in the wake of US accusations last month that “elements” of Iran’s government plotted to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington DC and word of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu actively considering an attack on Tehran’s nuclear facilities.

My personal opinion on this new round of HARD sanctions and its impact is the following:

a) Israel is done waiting for the International community to make up its mind in how to deal with Iran’s nuclear ambitions and would rather take its chances now rather than later when Iran becomes nuclear with capabilities that as stated by President Ahmadinejad could “wipe Israel off the map”.

b) The United States has finally come to the conclusion that the current regime in Tehran is incapable of engaging in a constructive dialogue with the free world simply for the  fact that it is inherently in opposition to liberal democratic ideals and is hellbent on its own version of how the “new world order” should look like based on expansionist Islamic laws.  And

c) By putting a choke-hold on the oil and banking sector controlled by the IRGC, the free world will certainly increase the chances of an internal revolt that is secular and democratic (the green movement).

It will be interesting to see how the regime in Tehran reacts to this round of hard sanctions.