Hammurabi journal for studies

As soon as Iran was able to reach a preliminary agreement with Western countries regarding its nuclear file on November 24, 2013, observers began to talk about the features of a new regional order taking shape. This was accompanied by the increasing victory of the “Syrian state” over the armed groups (1,500 groups according to Lakhdar Brahimi), the Arab and international envoy, and the seven-nation Western-Western alliance that sponsors and supports them. The military solution sought by the armed opposition and those who stand behind it from the countries of the region (specifically Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Israel), or from the Western countries (specifically France and the United States), declined, and with the approach of the political solution sought by the Syrian state, or at least what is consistent with its main demands to preserve the unity of the state, the army and the resistance.

All apparent data points to the existence of an American-Iranian (policy intersection), seeking a regional security system that would spare the region a war that would be difficult to control, which could burn everything green and dry, or a peace that cannot be defended or guaranteed for a long time. This makes it inevitable for the two sides to reach an understanding, even if only formally, i.e. agree on an acceptable framework for the nuclear file first, in the Geneva negotiations, which no one knows how many rounds will last, but which should not stop except with a historic handshake and a declaration of general principles. Second, on regional files, most notably the Syrian issue. All of this means an official global declaration that Iran is a major regional state.

Although the role of the external factor diminished during the Arab revolutions, it expanded after that, especially since the major powers exerted influence on the new regimes, whether by supporting some political movements at the expense of others, or using the tool of economic assistance to direct the policies of the new regimes in accordance with their strategic interests in the region. This created aversion and anger that in some cases turned into violence against foreigners, as happened with the killing of the American ambassador in Benghazi by extremist groups who used the film insulting the Prophet (PBUH), and the targeting of Western embassies, and even the kidnapping of the Libyan Prime Minister (Ali Zeidan) for hours, in response to Washington’s arrest of an Al-Qaeda leader called (Abu Anas Al-Libi). The American position on (30) June and the subsequent freezing of some military aid to Egypt were viewed with great disapproval in the Egyptian media, and some Egyptian demonstrations were also organized rejecting the American intervention, which appeared to public opinion to be in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood, which prompted some to place pictures of Obama and Bin Laden side by side, in a message that Washington supports terrorism ().

The January 25 Revolution sparked a renewed spring of hope in the souls of Egyptians, raising expectations for radical change and a rapid transition to democracy, prosperity, and justice in all its aspects. Each of us began to dream of a different Egypt, where everyone would live a dignified life worthy of the ancient Egyptians, with freedom, democracy, justice, and security for all. We hoped this would happen overnight, only to wake up one morning to find that change had affected everything: no more crowding, no more corruption, no more unemployment, wages and prices that guarantee a decent standard of living, and most importantly, just retribution for the martyrs so that the fire of injustice and oppression would be extinguished in the souls of all of us, not just the families of the martyrs.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is suffering from a complex crisis (internally and externally), which has led to a series of problems facing it in how to contain it, and the search for mechanisms to prevent matters from spiraling out of control. The recent changes that have occurred in the region are pushing towards narrowing the options of the Saudi foreign policy maker, as the Kingdom has relied since the formation of the Kingdom on a single ally, and has lost flexibility and pluralism in its external dealings. This has led to foreign policy being struck by the dilemma of its inability to adapt, in addition to adopting principles that contradict what is customary in international relations, which is the sectarian engine that drives the compass of its relations, orientations and objectives, with regard to all international entities, which is no longer compatible with the realities of the twenty-first century.

Three fundamental factors govern Turkey\\'s geopolitical trajectory, which explain the tense and volatile nature of Turkish foreign policy: the desire to integrate into the European Union, the Caucasus, and the Middle East. Turkish foreign policy is almost in a state of constant testing in the face of these three factors, which have continually created paradoxes in Turkish foreign policy for decades.

One of the most prominent features of the character of this region is the presence of the Pacific Ocean, which is considered one of the largest oceans in the world in terms of area and depth, as its area is about (34%) of the Earth’s area, and the Bering Strait is considered the northern key to this ocean, and its greatest depth is about (300) feet with a width of about (56) miles, and here the border separating the continents of Asia and North America is established at Diomede Island, and the Pacific Ocean is divided into two parts, the first: the eastern part, which includes the coasts of the Americas to the east, and the second: the western part, which includes the coasts of eastern Asia, the East Indies, and Australia to the west.

Many studies, articles, and research reports that have addressed the activities of armed groups linked to Al-Qaeda, such as Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS), have relied on audio or video statements and published decisions issued by these organizations and their leaders, while acknowledging the impossibility of tracking the sources of this information, as there is no tangible truth about these groups and organizations other than their terrorist and subversive actions on the ground. This section will shed light on a set of facts related to the emergence of the two organizations and the numerous roles they play in the intervention projects plotted by the anti-Syrian intervention alliance, within the framework of what is now called \\"jihadist imperialism,\\" the latest product of the United States, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and their sister organizations.

The Libyan case represents a model for the impact of changes in internal conditions in neighboring regions after the Arab revolutions. Post-Gaddafi Libya suffers from complex problems that can spread geographically to its surroundings, whether Arab or African. This is due to its geostrategic location as the gateway of the Arab world to the African continent. Libya, which was an exception in its volatile regional relations with neighboring countries during the Gaddafi era, has become an exception of a different kind in the post-Arab revolution period. This is due to the data of its turbulent internal situation, which ranges from the proliferation of weapons and tribal clashes to revolutionary militias that refuse to join the state’s authority. The state suffers from political and security fragility, in addition to the weakness of the National Transitional Council and its failure to provide a model for a stable political system that brings together under its umbrella all the political spectrum that participated in the overthrow of the former Libyan regime.

Israel had been intent on penetrating all of Central Asia from an early stage, and had a comprehensive strategy. Therefore, in the first phase, it focused on economic penetration through Israeli businessmen of various nationalities, on the one hand, and presenting itself as an active mediator to attract Western and American capital to those countries, on the other. However, this penetration was linked from the outset to the American strategy aimed at dominating the region.

The post-2003 era has removed the cover of what has been raging in Iraqi society historically, both modern and medieval. Through this removal, all the accumulations that had coexisted with the souls and minds of Iraqis, under the sway of force, dictatorship and authoritarian regimes, became apparent. The opportunity has arrived to express all the hidden secrets and their consequences. Some saw in this change a social reorganization and restructuring of the political organization, and the removal of the deep distortions that had struck with their foundations the foundations of social hierarchy for centuries past, while others saw it as keys to rusty locks. Here is the opportunity to assert the national identity, through barricades that were woven even with various external forces. Everyone draws from the available opportunity to affirm their existence by curling up on their sub-identity, reaching the point of linking it to similar identities even outside the homeland, which has made national belonging weak in the face of affiliations that cross its borders.

The steps taken by the Emir of Qatar (Mohammed bin Khalifa) to abdicate power to his son (Tamim bin Mohammed), the Crown Prince, sparked a lot of discussion and astonishment, especially since he is the first ruler of Arab hereditary rulers to take this step, under the ossified ruling systems, where the ruler, emir or sultan does not leave except by death or removal by force. The abdication came in a volatile regional situation, in which the Emir and his Prime Minister were among the main players, whether from the Arab Spring countries or in Gaza, and then put all their cards in the game of regime change in Syria, and this removal was not far from the will of the United States.

The historical circumstances in which the protest and reform movements emerged in Bahrain differed, as each movement was distinguished by its own characteristics. These reform demands continued throughout the 1980s, and were met by the authorities with dialogue at times and repression at other times, without reaching a result. With the beginning of the 1990s, specifically in 1992, the pace of demands to restore parliamentary life and reinstate the constitution (the first constitution) increased, and there was a call to establish political organizations and parties in the country, in order to exercise their role in monitoring and evaluating the work of the government, especially the opposition parties. Protests multiplied from 1994 and continued until 1999.

I got to know Abdul Hussein Shaaban through his frequent appearances on Al Jazeera, analyzing and discussing the issue of human rights and the intellectual and political problems associated with it. I confess that I had not yet read his research works, nor had I become acquainted with the details of his political, social, and intellectual experience. All I was able to know at the time, through his opinions, was that he was Iraqi in origin and affiliation, living the anguish of exile, and longing to see his country emerge from the cocoon of political distress during the days of tyranny, dictatorship, foreign occupation, and later sectarian division, and preserve its unity, integrated, tolerant, and strong. However, circumstances willed that I get to know him closely, and that we participate together on more than one occasion, and that we share ideas and opinions, and that we approach, in agreement and disagreement, many issues that seemed intractable to solution and rectitude in the Arab political sphere, such as (freedom), (reform), (democracy), (tolerance), (development), and other problems that put pressure on the Arab mind with The beginning of the new millennium.