Iran

The constant tumult in Sudan is keeping the international community on its toes. After months of protesting and violence, the military overthrew President Omar al-Bashir in April of this year and established a transitional military council. The TMC declared there would be a two-year transitional period after which the state would hold elections. Pro-democracy protests continued as demonstrators called for a civilian-led transitional body, citing that the TMC was no better than the previous regime they had fought to remove. On June 3, the TMC massacred hundreds of protestors and instituted an internet black out worse than any during al-Bashir’s rule. After another mass protest on June 30, the TMC and the civilian opposition began negotiating with the help of envoys from Ethiopia and the African Union. These negotiations led to an agreement on a joint sovereign council comprised of eleven members: five military, five civilian, and an unknown eleventh member. This council would govern for three years while organizing elections. The military will rule for the first 21 months, and the civilian government will assume control for the next 18 months. On Thursday, Sudan was rocked by another military coup, an attempt that was shortly foiled by security forces. Skeptics say the coup was fabricated by the military in order to pressure the civilian opposition group into signing the deal. This constant political flux works in the military’s favor, leaving civilians at a disadvantage at the negotiating table.

The People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (Mojahedin-e Khalq), otherwise referred to as MEK, is a left-wing resistance party that aims to overthrow the current Iranian ruling regime. Born from various factions of dissident Iranian students in Tehran, the MEK has operated since the 1960s in various locations throughout Southwest Asia and, most recently, Europe. The group’s name, Mujahedin-e Khalq, roughly translates from Persian (Farsi) into “the People’s Holy Warriors.” With this notion, the MEK has consistently operated against the Iranian government to promote its often liberal-democratic agenda (Goulka 2).

One of the most persistent and enduring enemies of the United States is the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Formed in 1979 following mass protests against the repressive, U.S.-backed Shah, Iran’s government has proven itself to be a significant threat to both the US and its allies in the region (particularly the Sunni-dominated countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council and Israel). Moreover, the ideological underpinnings of the Islamic Republic, its strategic concerns, and its perennial drive to export its revolution using malicious proxies continue to influence its foreign policy (Hilal 2017; Central Intelligence Agency 1980; International Crisis Group 2018; Nasr 2007, 143).

The events in Syria in past weeks show that the civil war has transformed into a greater regional sectarian conflict. Because of the nuanced and complex nature of this conflict, a deeper look at many aspects is required for an adequate analysis. This analysis is the second of two parts. The first focused on al-Qaeda operations and Iranian influence in Syria; this second part focuses on the Balkanizing of the Syrian state, Kurdish autonomy, and the implications of potential US intervention in Syria after the large-scale use of chemical weapons.

Events in Syria over the last several weeks show signs of a looming regional sectarian conflict. This conflict is complicated and requires a deep understanding of many nuanced aspects. Therefore this analysis will be conducted in two parts: the first focusing on al-Qaeda’s operations and Iranian influence in Syria; the second focusing on Kurdish autonomy and the Balkanizing of the Syrian state.