Sabeel 111 english

0
Strategic Studies Institute of
Andishe Sazane Noor
 The Nature of Israel Military Operation in Lebanon
 Evaluation of actions and statements of Muqtada Al-
Sadr about Iraq’s cabinet
 Netanyahu's Impact on Iran-Russia Relations
 Differences between view of Trump’s team and CIA in
the case of Saudi Arabia
 The achievements of the Swedish agreement for
Ansarullah Yemen
Weekly Journal
of Strategic
Studies of
Sabeel
5thyear,No.111,1Januaryof2019

0
Andishe Sazane Noor

1
The Nature of Israel Military Operation in Lebanon...2
Evaluation of actions and statements of Muqtada al-
Sadr about Iraq’s cabinet …5
Netanyahu's Impact on Iran-Russia Relations…5
Evaluation of the approach of Yenisafak media on the
resistance front (in last week)…7
The public opinion of North African countries to Arab
countries of Persian Gulf …8
Differences between view of Trump’s team and CIA in
the case of Saudi Arabia.…10
Evaluation of the Anatolian news agency's approach
about resistance front …11
The achievements of the Swedish agreement for
Ansarullah Yemen….12
A look at the role of the United States and the Taliban in
Afghanistan's security…13
5th year, No.111, 1 January of 2019
Owner:
Andishe Sazane Noor
Chief Editor:
A’zam Vosoogi
Editorial Board:
Scientific Committee of Strategic Studies
Institute of Andishe Sazane Noor
Designer:
Zahra Mohammadi Tabar
Email:
Info@issnoor.ir
………………………………………………………………………………………
The Institute for Strategic Studies of the Andishe Sazane Noor, for expanding the
intellectual connections between those who are searching for "reality" and working
to reach to that provides a brief overview of the views of experts in various fields,
especially the important political developments in the Muslim world, in a relatively
regular fashion. Naturally, we expect you to share with us your idea and about
different issues of the world especially issues which are related to your expertise. You
may have a different or complementary view about our interpretations, especially
about our expert’s ideas about issues related to your country, we are open to receive
your idea and comment. For sure your response can correct the weaknesses of our
work and solve ambiguities. To do this, you can post comments about the contents of
this publication to the journal's e-mail
Weekly Journal of
Strategic Studies of Sabeel
Contents

2
Weekly Journal of Strategic Studies of Sabeel, 5
th
year, No.111, 1 January of 2019
ionist Regime on December 4, 2018, announced the start of an
operation with the name of North Cross-border and claimed the goal of
this operation is to have access to tunnels of Hezbollah of Lebanon.
While TV channel of 10 of this regime announced that this decision has been
made on security cabinet and in the main base of the army of Israel,
Immediately after announcing this news, it was widely published and some
defined it as Israel’s attempts to start a new war and some called it a usual
action. Regarding this there are some important notes:
1- It has not been a long time from the last confrontation of the Zionist
Regime with a part of the resistance front. Early morning in the last November
13 requested for the cease-fire in 36 hours fight. This cease-fire was that much
important that Netanyahu preferred internal critics to the continuation of
confrontation. So according to our late experience, these actions of the Zionist
Regime are not indicators of a war.
2- The Army of Zionist Regime has claimed there are tunnels in the northern
parts of Palestine near the borders of Lebanon and his attempts are to
neutralize future actions of Hezbollah while as the Syrian war proved,
Hezbollah does not necessarily need tunnels to confront the enemy. In fact, in
the Syrian war, Hezbollah conquered the enemy without tunnels tactic. It
The Nature of
Israel Military Operation in Lebanon
Zionist Regime follows the policy of
regime and military which cannot win the
fight and has no choice but to try to
control the opponent
Z

3
th
seems that the army of Israel is well aware of this and general secretary of
Hezbollah had formally informed that in possible future wars they won’t use
the same strategies. So this question arises that what is the real goal of Zionists
by the operation that they have called it the operation of having access to
tunnels of Hezbollah of Lebanon? It seems that the Zionist regime follows
some goals at the same time:
 Searching operation in the north which includes north of Haifa to the
borders of Lebanon which is 80 kilometers long and 40 kilometers wide
can be a military practice.
 It can be a renewing of defense strategy and adaptation of strategies
with new security conditions of the region.
 Hamas’s experience in the last war and it’s long firing in the region with
30 kilometers of wide and 50 kilometers in length showed that Hamas is
capable for firing more than what has done, and can practically
disconnect north with the center of this regime as it did in the operation
of “Gaza Pods” which disconnected this region from the center. So the
army needs to study the region and prepare new soldiers who have
joined the army in the last 12 years.
 This region is more vulnerable than Gaza, because Hezbollah in Lebanon
is not in the siege like Hamas in the Gaza and Hezbollah has the
connection to its strategic depth in Syria, also Hezbollah is located in the
heights, and north of Palestine is under feet of its influence while in
Gaza, Hamas was on the flat ground and heights were under control of
Israel. But is the Zionist Regime waiting to start a war by Hezbollah or is
Israel willing to start a war against Hezbollah?
3- 33 days war balanced security conditions of Israel and Hezbollah. It means
that it made a kind of defense and military Equality between them. The
strategy of both was deterrence and each of them had considerations and
obligations in making a war. When the Syrian war started- which was a world
war Unlike what the west tries to call it a civil war- Israel supposed this war will
reduce the power of Hezbollah and will influence its position inside the country
but former chief of Israeli security service, Meir Dagan had said the Syrian crisis

4
th
will swallow the Hezbollah and nothing will remain, the war process did not go
as he predicted and Hezbollah could manage the war and won it.
The powerful and influential presence of Hezbollah in the Syrian crisis created
two important security and political consequences that were unbelievable for
leaders and especially the generals of the Zionist regime.
 Its first consequence was in the security arena and military position.
Before the Syrian war, Hezbollah only in a part of Lebanon had influence
and this influence could not spill over other Shia parts of Lebanon. On
the other hand, there were powerful opposing members in the
government of Hezbollah and because of that Hezbollah could not rely
on the government so overall it was a limited Hezbollah. Influential
presence of Hezbollah in Syria and conquering against the enemy
removed the two barriers. Now Hezbollah has an optimal geographical
position and also has the support of the Syrian government. So
Hezbollah in Syria is not the same as Hezbollah in Lebanon.
 The second consequence of the victory of Hezbollah in Syria is its
prominent political success in the elections of Lebanon. Before this
election, Hezbollah had a minimum presence in the parliament and
cabinet of government and its maximum capability was preventing some
security decisions of its opponents. After 33 days war Hezbollah only had
a third guarantor in the parliament and government and could not
expect more. If Hezbollah had failed in the Syrian crisis it would destroy
its political future but with the unexpected victory of Hezbollah in this
war, Hezbollah's political position was consolidated and enhanced there.
After the election of last April, 75 members of 120 members of
parliament are allied with Hezbollah and it means 62 percent of
parliament. It is why Saad Hariri is emphasizing on neglecting elected
Hezbollah Sunnis to reduce the influence of Hezbollah in the
government; this has been a challenge in the formation of the new
cabinet of Hariri. So we can say that the Zionist regime is afraid of the
new situation of Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria.
4- Zionist regime believes that ceasefire will increase the strength of the
resistance in the region. Hence, while this regime is still refraining from

5
th
launching a war against Hezbollah, at the same time assumes security stability
as a major danger to itself. The regime believes it should prevent the war and
its expenses and also this regime believes that long cease-fires are making
resistance more powerful. So the regime ignites security Inflammation but this
ignition doesn’t lead to a war and its aim is to prevent increasing of the power
of resistance. Hence, we see that Israel in Gaza does the same thing as it has
done on the Golan Heights. And on the Golan Heights it does the same thing it
does in southern Lebanon. It means flipping to the security and swiping up its
scope. In all three, the ordering of the Israeli military forces is minimal and at
the same time, it is intimidating.
The Zionist regime at the highest level of decision-making shows it doesn’t
have any plan to enter an intense and time-consuming war. During the Gaza
war, the Israeli security cabinet and even Avigdor Lieberman, who resigned
from war ministry to protest to Netanyahu's decision of hostilities and had
voted to stop the operation and agreed to begin negotiations with Hamas! In
the operation of North Cross-border in the north of Palestine although they
have said it is because of Hezbollah but they have also announced that the aim
of the operation is to close the offensive tunnels of Hezbollah in the north of
Palestine. The same goes for actions of Israeli usurper in Syria. Israel army after
the crash of a Russian airplane which killed 18 people of the air forces of Russia
has stopped his flights in the sky of Syria. These show that Israel continues to
pursue the policy of incitement and frightening the opponent and raising its
costs. This is the policy of regime and military which cannot win the fight and
has no choice but to try to control the opponent.

6
th
he appointment of Adil Abdul-Mahdi as the prime minister of Iraq is
because of his own talent and agreement of victorious political elites of
2018 election. It can be said that Muqtada al-Sadr and Hadi Al-Amiri are
the two most influential characters in Iraq. His statements, Speeches,
and tweets in the political arena of Iraq illustrate this. It seems that
recent conflict between Muqtada al-Sadr and Nouri Al-Maliki has
severely affected Iraqi politics and Adil Abdul-Mahdi to prevent the
postponement of the political process and completion of the cabinet is to
transfer this subject to parliament to relieve himself from its consequences.
n recent years in the relations of Russia and Zionist Regime, Iran as a hot
topic has been discussed more than any other topic. Benjamin Netanyahu
in every telephone conversation with Vladimir Putin has talked about Iran
It seems that recent
conflict between Muqtada
al-Sadr and Nouri Al-
maliki has severely
affected Iraqi politics
Evaluation of actions and
statements of Muqtada al-
Sadr about Iraq’s cabinet
T
Netanyahu's Impact on Iran-Russia Relations
In spite of the Zionist alliance with Russia in terms of
economic, political, military and even social issues,
Netanyahu's over-the-top meetings and talks with Putin
and the direct telephone line of their office, Netanyahu's
influence on Iran-Russia relations and business has been
unsuccessful.
I

7
th
and tried to make Iran and Russia relations cold. Most of Zionist Regimes
attempts were to oppose the presence of Iran in Syria and persuasion of Russia
to force Iran to withdraw from Syria. In this regard, the Zionist Regime which
has put all of its power to the downfall of Bashar Al-Assad tells Russia that if
Iran withdraws from Syria, the survival of Bashar al-Assad will be guaranteed.
Despite Netanyahu's many meetings, talks, and efforts to influence Iran-Russia
relations, Netanyahu has failed to achieve his goals for some reasons:
1- Continuation of Iran's presence in Syria: The statements of Russian officials
not only do not fulfill the Zionist demands but also legitimizes the presence of
Iran in Syria. Putin has repeatedly defended the presence of Iranian forces in
Syria and even equated it with the presence of Russia in Syria, and emphasized
that both Iran and Russia have been present with the request of the Syrian
government. Putin says that if any countries want the withdrawal of other
players from Syria, that country must ensure the security of Syria. This country
should stop financial and logistic support of terrorist groups. In fact, this is in
accordance with the demands of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Russia's Foreign
Minister Sergey Lavrov approved the presence of Iranian forces in Syria and
rejected some claims made in the news that Russia had requested Iran to leave
Syria.
In this regard, the only thing that was assumed in favor of the Zionist regime
was Iran's withdrawal from the Syrian- border, which, of course, did not have
in any effect, because it was a tactic for the liberation of the southern regions
of Syria.
2- Russia's opposition to unilateral US policies against Iran: Following the
unilateral withdrawal of the United States from JCPOA and imposing economic
sanctions on Iran, the Zionist regime was pleased and demanded the
cooperation of other countries with the United States in this direction.
Whereas Russia has always considered this behavior of the US unlawful and
unilateral and has declared its opposition. The foreign ministry of Russia by the
imposing new sanctions against Iran stated: "If Washington, as it claims, is
indeed interested in negotiations with Tehran, the policy of sanctions pressure
aimed at diminishing Iran’s economic and defense potential as well as
undermining the internal political situation there must be revised

8
th
immediately." In addition, Russia has opposed Netanyahu’s attempts to
contain Iran’s missile program. Russia believes that Iran's missile program has
nothing to do with the comprehensive plan of action, and cannot be violated
on the pretext of an issue.
3- Russia's and Iran's increasing efforts to expand ties: Despite the low volume
of Iran-Russia economic exchanges, the two countries have always pursued
great goals in their relations with each other and are seeking to implement it.
The transportation, trade, and energy sectors are among the areas where the
two countries plan to increase the volume of relations and exchanges for it.
The point to be made in this regard is the intention to increase relations is in
contrary to the demands of the Zionist regime. The realization of this intention
depends on their earnestness and perseverance.
If as opponents of Russia- Iran relations believe there are some doubts about
Iran’s benefit in Russia and Iran relations, it cannot be a reason for the
separation of Iran and Russia. Because there are such issues in the essence of
international politics and to the extent which countries benefit from each
other depends on the diplomacy and the power of each one. Therefore, such
doubt cannot be regarded as the separation between the two countries. There
is also the conflict of interest in all relations, including between Russia and the
Zionist regime, as seen in the destruction of Russia's Ilyushin by Israeli or after
that the delivery of Russia's S-300 system to Syria.
Finally, it should be said that in spite of the Zionist alliance with Russia in terms
of economic, political, military and even social issues, Netanyahu's over-the-
top meetings and talks with Putin and the direct telephone line of their office,
Netanyahu's influence on Iran-Russia relations and business has been
unsuccessful.

9
th
enisafak newspaper was established in 1997 and it is published in the
Turkish language. In addition, its website with the address of
www.yenisafak.com published in three languages of Turkish, Arabic and
English. İbrahim Karagül is its chief editor.
Yenisafak is one of the pro-government and ruling party's (Justice and
Development) newspapers, which publishes most of the political stances and
approaches of Turkish political officials, including Erdogan and the top-level
diplomatic officials of the country, and publishes their positions on domestic
and regional issues.
Specifically, the main focus of the Yenisafak is on the internal developments in
Turkey and deals with regional issues in the areas of the Turkish borderlands.
The newspaper, in charge of slaughtering the Khashoggi, adopted harsh
stances against Saudi rule and claimed that the crown prince of Saudi Arabia
was looking for a new Camp David. This media in response to Iran's stance on
Syria and Zionist Regime writes: The occupation regime of Quds, the United
States, and its allies are opposed to Iran and Turkey, and are demanding the
breakdown of these countries.
In the view of this newspaper, the United States has targeted the united front
of Iran, Russia, and Turkey in the region; on this basis, the American game,
which is aimed at preserving and developing the Kurdish corridor, fails to
function and will be neutralized; therefore US policies will not come to fruition.
The Yenisafak newspaper attacks the Crown Prince in connection with the
Yenisafak newspaper
follows the policies of
Erdoğan step by step and
is with the resistance
until it does not
contradict Turkey's vast
policies.
Evaluation of the
approach of
Yenisafak media on
the resistance front
(in last week)
Y

10
th
issue of Palestine and warns with a tone: With the Zionist regime, you cannot
protect Kaaba. This newspaper believes that those who are against Iran and
along with the occupation regime of Jerusalem demand the destruction of
Mecca and Medina.
Overall, the newspaper follows the policies of Erdoğan step by step and is with
the resistance until it does not contradict Turkey's vast policies. There is always
a name from Turkey when it publishes the positions of Iran and Russia in the
headlines of the newspaper.
he Arab countries of North Africa, from Egypt to Morocco have a wide
range of social, political and cultural differences and similarities. In these
countries there are common religion, language and cultural similarities
and in the 18th
and 19th
centuries they had been colonized by the Europe.
The history of these countries has seen revolutionary characters like
Amir Abdul Qadir in Algeria, Amir Omar Mokhtar in Libya, and Jamal Abdul
Nasser in Egypt. They have been anti-colonial heroes with Islamic motivations
who have gained respect in all over the world. Some uprisings of the Egyptian
people or the Algerian revolution became a symbol for other nations in the
struggle for freedom from foreign colonialism. These characteristics have made
special meanings for the phenomena’s of the world. The nature of these
The public opinion of North African countries to
Arab countries of Persian Gulf
in the countries of North
Africa when people
compare their culture to
culture of living of
princes they do not find
any similarities
T

11
th
people is mixed with Islam. Therefore when they observe that Wahhabism and
Takfir which is represented by the Saudi Arabia is advertising with the name of
Islam and finally form Daesh they get regretful and sad. This discourse is in
complete contradiction with the discourse of Al-Azhar in Egypt and Al-
Zaytunah in Tunisia, because for centuries they have been the symbol of
Islamic coexistence and the unity of the different branches of Islam. Similarly,
people in these countries face a serious challenge about civil rights, but they
are clearly observing the horrific situation of human rights abuses in the Arab
region of the Persian Gulf.
In political terms, generally in the countries of North Africa when people
compare their culture to culture of living of princes they do not find any
similarities. The dependence of Arab regimes to the west especially to the
United States and their apparent willingness to the Zionist regime are highly
differential points between people and their leaders.
In the revolutionary dimension and sense of the Arab identity, people of these
countries from Egypt to Algeria and Tunisia who are living with resistance
culture, assume Saudi Arabia coalition against people of Yemen far from Arabic
dignity.
Differences between view of Trump’s team and CIA in
the case of Saudi Arabia
hese days, disagreements over Saudi Arabia have intensified between
the Trump team and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). While Donald
Trump and main members of his government end up supporting Saudi
Arabia, the CIA criticizes the Riyadh regime in its reports.
The obvious disparity in the case of the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal
Khashaggi is apparent. Despite all the evidence, Trump and his associates
denied the role of Mohammed bin
Salman in the terrible killing of the
slaughterers, but the CIA, in a report,
announced that the Crown Prince of
The support of Bin Salman
who has interfered in the
killing of Jamal Khashoggi
could be a big damage to the
American face in the world
T

12
th
Saudi Arabia personally ordered the killing of a Saudi journalist.
Most US-based institutions, including CIA, appear to find that supporting
Mohammed bin Salman is not in line with US strategic interests, but the Trump
government continues to support him. Consequently, some Western media
outlets have claimed that Donald Trump's actions are for his personal interests,
and Trump is increasingly seeking to protect the interests of their companies
which have invested heavily in the Arab Gulf States not US strategic interests.
The support of Bin Salman who has interfered in the killing of Jamal Khashoggi
could be a big damage to the American face in the world and this has led the
CIA and congress to condemn the Prince of Saud for disloyalty.
natolia News Agency was created on April 6, 1920. Its founders were
several journalists headed by Khalede Adib (1964), the Turkish author,
that the Agency’s name was derived from his name. The Anatolian
news agency began its work by publishing the laws of the Turkish parliament.
Anatoly played an important role in the publication of the measures of the
Turkish Grand Assembly and Mustafa Kemal Atatürk in the direction of the
establishment of the Turkish Republic following the occupation of Istanbul by
the British on March 16, 1920, and the dissolution of the Parliament of
Mebusan (the last Ottoman Majlis). During the Turkish Independence War, this
news agency had a heavy duty of reflection on the news and revealed the
controversy of the opposition newspapers. In particular, the main focus of this
news agency is on the internal developments of Turkey, and deals with
regional issues in the areas of the Turkish border countries. In addition, it
The main focus of this news
agency is on the internal
developments of Turkey, and
deals with regional issues in
the areas of the Turkish
border countries
Evaluation of the
Anatolian news
agency's approach
about resistance front
A

13
th
follows most of the approaches of the Turkish government and the ruling party
(Justice and Development).
This media at the beginning of the Syrian crisis adopted parallel positions in the
Turkish government and called Assad's government a suppressor, but it
changed its stance by changing the approach of Erdogan to the coalition with
Iran and Russia and recent developments in the field of resistance. However,
this agency writes about the agreement on the disruption of the Assad
government and says that the Syrian government has created immigrants and
entered to Turkey and other countries. According to this news agency, Syrian
government has already been blocking the deal in Idlib.
Anatolian news agency calls Ansarallah as "militants", and says they use the
human shield to defend themselves. According to this agency, Yemen has
become a source of competition for Iran and Saudi Arabia. This news agency
calls Ansarallah as warlike.
This news agency has a positive orientation towards the issue of Palestine and
the positions of Hamas and Palestinian groups, which seems it is because of its
brotherhood approach. This news agency covers the news and positions of
Palestinian people and defends them. It also criticizes the issue of the transfer
of the US embassy to Quds. This newspaper is against the policies of the
Islamic Republic of Iran, but it does not directly and explicitly express this.

14
th
The achievements of the Swedish agreement for
Ansarullah Yemen
One of the most significant achievements that the Ansarullah movement
achieved in the weekly agreement in Stockholm was the legitimacy and
recognition of this movement by the international community as an effective
Yemeni player. At the start of the military offensive against the Yemeni
coalition, the Security Council passed a resolution (2216) against Ansarullah
and called this popular movement a terrorist group. In addition, one of the
obvious strategies of Saudi-led coalition in the invasion to Yemen was the
repression and disarmament of this movement. Now, after nearly four years of
this massive invasion, Mansour Hadi on behalf of the Saudi military coalition
has concluded that it is not able to advance militarily and political strategies.
Therefore, by having such an approach to Ansarullah, negotiations with this
movement in Sweden, in areas such as the exchange of prisoners, a ceasefire
in the cities of Taiz and Al Hudaydah held and agreed. Of course, the
operationalization of the provisions of the agreement by the Riyadh is another
issue. The UN's invitation from Ansarullah, as an important actor in Yemen to
the Stockholm Summit, dismisses the former claims of the Security Council and
Saudis that the Ansarullah is terrorist organization was neutralized.
The next achievement is that Ansarullah forces with their own resistance were
able to defeat the will of the other side in the siege of food and medicine and,
in accordance with the provisions of this agreement the way for humanitarian
assistance to the Yemeni people would be opened.
Ansarullah forces with their own resistance were
able to defeat the will of the other side in the siege of
food and medicine

15
th
A look at the role of the United States and the Taliban
in Afghanistan's security
The Taliban is a Pashtun group in Afghanistan which claims to establish the
government. To call this big group rebels or terrorists means the continuation
of conflict and insecurity in Afghanistan. The best option for maintaining
security in Afghanistan is to allow the Taliban to enter the political arena as a
political group in the body of politics and power and recruit its military
branches in the military. The United States has opposed this for years because
the Taliban is a non-indigenous group or a small group with little influence on
developments that could be trodden by military action. Rather, it comes from a
part of the Afghan nation that preventing them from deciding to have a part in
the future of Afghanistan means the continuation of the security crisis in
Afghanistan. UN has reported that 42 percent of killed people were died by
Taliban and the number of the civilians who killed has increased 17 percent.
Although the share of government forces and foreigners forces have been said
to be more than 20 percent the reality is that American forces have more share
than this. America’s measures in the move of Daesh forces from Syria to
Afghanistan and statements of American officials about Al-Qaeda and groups
like this is the reason that desecuritizations made by these groups go to the
basket of the U.S. In other view casualties made in Afghanistan is that of
mismanagement of America. Against what the UN reports say a high
If different groups of
Afghanistan put away their guns
and form a strong army, peace
will be made in Afghanistan

16
th
percentage of casualties shows that American forces are not enough capable
to solve the security problems of Afghanistan. America’s policy in the last 17
years in Afghanistan was to confront the Taliban and support the central
government. In fact, the U.S has done its efforts to make peace in Afghanistan.
America tries to make a government allied with the U.S government to control
Afghanistan and the region not building peace. Because there are ant-
American approaches among Taliban forces, America has not been able to
establish a pro-American government in Afghanistan. So it can be understood
that how violating peace can be from strategies of the U.S government in
Afghanistan. The reality is that real solution to solve the problems of
Afghanistan is the withdrawal of America from this country and defining
national benefits in priority and taking part of different groups of Afghanistan
in political procedures of Afghanistan. If different groups of Afghanistan put
away their guns and form a strong army, peace will be made in Afghanistan.

11
Andishe Sazane Noor

11
If different groups of Afghanistan put away
their guns and form a strong army, peace
will be made in Afghanistan
Zionist Regime follows the policy of
regime and military which cannot
win the fight and has no choice but to
try to control the opponent
In the countries of North Africa when
people compare their culture to culture of
living of princes they do not find any
similarities

Sabeel 111 english

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Sabeel 111 english

Similar to Sabeel 111 english (16)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Sabeel 111 english