Afghan Refugees Removed From Iran and Pakistan

 

Afghan refugees are being removed from both Iran and Pakistan. The recent wave of refugees was the result of the Taliban's return to power. The US-Afghan War destabilized the country. Iran and the Taliban regime do not have positive diplomatic relations. While both are theocratic governments, the two nations follow different sects of Islam. When it comes to governance, the Taliban is more authoritarian in practice. The Taliban of the 2020s, differs from the Taliban of the 1990s to 2000s. Fears of a US-Israel Iran war also complicate matters. The decline of Iranian and Pakistani relations was evident with the clashes in 2024. Iran was targeting armed groups that were suspected of attempts of sabotage against the country. Seeing as some missile fire was exchanged, this proves the region is not safe. Afghan refugees have little protection in a region with tensions and military operations. The Taliban might attempt to attack to stop emergent armed resistance groups outside of its borders. The Taliban was able to get the recognition of the Russian Federation, which could strain relations with Iran.  Afghan refugees are running out of options for safety. Alternatives are being limited. Afghans could either seek asylum in other Central Asian states . Getting access to the European Union countries would be difficult. The growing anti-immigrant and anti-refugee sentiment is being exploited by the political establishment in the EU and North America. Millions of Afghan refugees are being repatriated. Using repatriated is a euphemistic term for deportation. The press also tries to obfuscate the situation by calling it expulsion.  Iran and Pakistan are doing mass deportations of Afghan refugees. Deadlines are set and both countries want to meet the target of how many should be deported. Those returning to Afghanistan cannot be guaranteed safety or that the Taliban regime will not retaliate.  

Israel Attacks Iran

 

Israel has attacked major Iranian cities. Tehran was hit with airstrikes. Israel's aggression has escalated to the extent of regional war. Iran now is a target of  expansionist regional designs. Israel wants to fight Iran to eliminate competitors in West Asia. The argument was that Israel was attempting to stop Iran's nuclear program. Israel has nuclear weapons, which is more precarious. Israel did an unilateral strike and it further isolates the country. Iran responded with attacks on Tel Aviv. During Israel's attacks government officials were assassinated from the operation. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei vowed that more retaliation would follow. Israel does not have the capability to fight Hezbollah, the Houthi rebels, and Iran all at once. Israel is active in Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and the occupied territories. The Trump administration favors Israel and has an anti-Iranian position. A regional war between Israel and Iran could expand beyond its borders. Nuclear sites were not only attacked, but ballistic missile factories. If the United States continues its support of Israel, military bases will be attacked. Israel is now under a state of emergency. War with Iran has been Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's goal for decades. The Likud Party's belligerent actions could result in mass global conflict. A regional war maintains the possibility of Israel suffering a major defeat. Unless the US and EU countries come to its assistance. Oil production from the Middle East could be disrupted. A Israel-Iran War might result in an energy crisis.   

President James Carter Praises Shah Mohammad Pahlavi (1978)

 

President James Carter wanted to make human rights a priority in his administration. This was more of a sentiment, rather than actual policy. The US supported Shah Mohammad Pahlavi. Iran was engaging in oppression of its own citizens. The CIA helped train Savak. This was a secret police force that was designed to crush dissent and gather intelligence. President Carter during his administration praised the Shah as being a stabilizing force. There was a growing political opposition to the monarchy in Iran. The Iranian Revolution would occur in 1979 and the Iranian hostage crisis became a major concern. US support for Iran was part of a Cold War strategy directed at the Soviet Union. Russia having access to Iranian oil was not acceptable to Washington. President Carter stated that Iran was " an island  of stability in one of the more  troubled areas of the world." Protests were beginning in 1978. The difference was that the US did not expect the Shah to be deposed. He was placed back in power in 1953 by both the UK and the US. The Carter administration could not resolve the hostage crisis and the take over of the US embassy. The hostages did get their freedom, but the poor management of the crisis cost President Carter the presidency. 

The End of The Bashar al-Assad Presidency

 

Syria's government has been deposed by a combination of terrorist organizations, domestic armed groups, and foreign powers. When Hayat Tahrir al-Sham entered Damascus, President Assad was nowhere to be found. Assad and his family prior to the rebel invasion fled to the Russian Federation. So far, there has not been an announcement from Bashar al-Assad about the situation. A possible bloodless coup occurred, which forced him into a type of self imposed exile. Russia did not come to his aid like in 2015. Iran's current military skirmishes with Israel is the focus of their energies. Israel with President Assad removed launched an invasion into Syrian territory. Syria is not going to become a liberal democracy. The Baath Party was just replaced with HTS. Now it appears that Abu Mohammad al-Jolani will have control of Syria. This depends on how HTS will fight its competitors. Assad's exile to Russia is puzzling. Iran and Oman are likely places in which the Assad family would flee to. Turkey remains in the north of Syria and Iraq will be effected by the change of the Syrian government. Syria now has tranfomed into what Lebanon was during the 1975 to 1990 civil war. The United States now is conducting airstrikes against ISIS in Syria. A fear is that when the Russo-Ukraine War is over, there will be attempt reinstall Bashar al-Assad. Russia has two bases in Syria, which could launch an operation. Although unlikely it might explain why Assad chose to get asylum in Russia. There could be discussions about a military operation to clear terrorist organizations and armed groups from Syria. As long as Bashar al-Assad is alive and politically active this could happen. Considering the amount of political instability, the Assad era is over. Ethnic and religious hatreds are growing with escalating violence. The loyalists to President Bashar al-Assad will never accept a new government.  

Renewed Escalation In The Syrian Civil War

 

The Syrian Civil War has been fought for 13 years. Now there is a renewed escalation. The conflict has morphed into a war of proxy, with multiple countries arming terrorists organizations. Armed groups like the Free Syria Army and the Syrian  Democratic Forces  were prominent during the 2010s. ISIS operated between the borders of Iraq and Syria. The country is going through a balkanization process similar to Yugoslavia during the 1990s. Turkey, the United States, and the UAE are providing weapons to these armed groups and terrorist organizations. The sudden resurgence is connected to Israel's aggression in both Gaza and Lebanon. Israel conducted a number of airstrikes in Syria during the long civil war. Removing the Assad government would weaken Hezbollah and Iran. The Syrian Civil War now has transformed into a regime change operation. The Al-Nusra Front  has  done rebrand of its organization. Although still terrorists, they  are no longer collaborating with al-Qaeda. The new name of the terrorist organization Hayat Tahrir al-Sham. Now Hayat Tahrir al-Sham seeks to establish a theocratic government. The last Baathist government in the Middle East is facing threats from old rivals and recent ones. The Gulf monarchies and radical political Islamism are two major enemies to the Bashar Al-Assad presidency. If the Bashar Al-Assad government falls that means Syrian refugees will either go to Europe or Turkey. Israel could use the opportunity to take more territory. Russia and Iran are going to intervene on the behalf of Syria. Russia's war in Ukraine remains a priority, but Syria is a place in which the UK, US, France, and Germany can be undermined. Iran realizes that it is in a state of war with Israel and that Syria is too important to lose. The rebels have taken Aleppo and continue to push further south. If the Baathist government loses Damascus, the war to keep Syria whole is lost.  

Israel's Targeted Assassinations Harm Ceasefire Efforts

 

Global protests and internal dissent has not stopped Israel's war on Gaza. Complicating the situation is the policy of targeted assassination. The murder of Ismail Haniyeh in Iran only complicated matters. Khaled Mashal succeeded him after the assassination. The revelation that hostages in Gaza were killed caused protests in Israel. The protests are not for peace or anti-war causes. Rather it is about removing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu . If Israel continues to assassinate the Hamas leadership having negotiations will be impossible. Six hostages were killed. The accusation is that Hamas did the murders, but considering the bombings of the Gaza Strip Israel may actually kill the remaining hostages. The claim was that the war was to save hostages. Then the real objective was exposed. Regime change was decided upon in the Gaza Strip with annexation ending the process. Simultaneously, there is more violence in the West Bank. Hamas does not have control in that area, but it is being subject to military operations. Hamas is being used for the justification of expanding Israel's borders. Khaled Mashal could also fall victim to assassination. Hamas has not made an attempt to attack Israeli leaders. As causalities mount and territory gets absorbed this is not a war fought for defense. A campaign is underway to create Greater Israel. Hamas is surviving with the help of Hezbollah and by relation Iran. Targeted assassinations escalate conflict in a volatile region.      

Iran President Ebrahim Raisi Dies In Helicopter Crash

 

The IRNA news agency reported that President Ebrahim Raisi died in a helicopter crash. The others identified in the accident also included foreign minister Hossein Amirabdollahian. There is no indication this was an assassination plot. The investigation so far believed that the signal system to the helicopter was turned off. Some have speculated that the helicopter they were in did not have one. The perplexing element of this incident is why a plane was not used. Iran currently is mourning the loss of government officials. The president of Iran is head of government. The Supreme Leader is the head of state. This means foreign policy and domestic affairs will not be changing. Ebrahim Raisi was thought to be a potential successor Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Ali Khamenei is now 85 years old and one of the longest ruling heads of state in the region. At some point his rule will come to an end. An interim president is now in place. The government of Iran has an aging leadership. Most in foreign affairs or the Supreme Leader role are age 60 and over. Before his death President Ebrahim Raisi was visiting the Iran-Azerbaijan border. Meeting with President Ilham Aliyev it was for the celebration of a finished dam on the Aras River. The inauguration ceremony was designed to show appreciation for stronger diplomatic relations between the two countries. International pressures brought a theocratic government in alliance with a secular authoritarian regime. Iran's relationship with Azerbaijan is similar to the partnership with Syria. After a long search authorities were able to uncover the crash site. Elections for a new head of government is getting under way. An election of a new president is set to happen in 50 days.    

The Emergent Conflict Between Iran and Pakistan

 

Iran and Pakistan have been conducting airstrikes into each others territory. The escalation is the result of border disputes and alleged militant activity in Balochistan. Pakistan could be in a vulnerable position considering its major adversary India is on its eastern border. The Taliban came back to power in Afghanistan, which  also poses complications. Iran's target was the group known as Jaish al-Adl. The objective of this terrorist organization is the independence of Baluchestan and Sisten province. Jaish al-Adl operates between borders. This is similar to how armed groups operate in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda. Pakistan and Iran have a common enemy in armed groups and terrorist organizations. However,  bilateral relations are strained by attacking these organizations within certain areas. Iran's strike caused civillian death, which caused much anger in Pakistan. While both are Muslim countries, they follow different sects of the religion. Iran is an Islamic Republic, while Pakistan is a federal parliamentary republic. The military has influence over government like Thailand or Myanmar. The geopolitics are significant, but one element gets overshadowed. The Baluch people desire national self determination. The ethnic group can be found in Iran, Pakistan, and Iran. Their grievances relate to economic inequality and cases of discrimination. The reason for joining armed groups or terrorist organizations is that Iran and Pakistan do not address their hardships. The situation of the Baluchs parallels  that of the Kurds in Iraq, Syria, Turkey ,  and Iran.  Pakistan and Iran are heading for a dramatic decline in diplomatic relations. The fear is a wider war between the two countries. 

Iran and Saudi Arabia Set To Restore Diplomatic Relations

 

Iran and Saudi Arabia are going to resume diplomatic ties. For a region that has been in turmoil for 12 years the announcement  is welcomed by advocates for peace. The hope is that this will bring a halt to the conflict in Yemen. The two countries have been backing various armed factions. Iran provides support to the Houthi rebels, while Saudi Arabia attempts to install a puppet regime. The break through was the work of China under the direction on Wang Yi. Stabilization in Yemen could also mean that Syria could be next on the topics to be addressed. Both Iran and Saudi Arabia have been involved in the Syrian Civil War. The majority of the Gulf monarchies have been attempting to depose the Baathist government. Iran is an ally of President Bashar Al-Assad.  Saudi Arabia has provided arms to terrorist organizations active in the country. Both Yemen and Syria will be major obstacles to keeping Iranian-Saudi relations stable. The decline in relations is rooted in the execution of Nimr al-Nimr. The Shia sheikh was a major figure in the Arab Spring protests of 2011 to 2012. The desire to have elections and representation for the Shia Muslims of Saudi Arabia made him a target by the Saudi monarchy. His imprisonment and death caused much anger in Iran. As Yemen and Syria descended into violence these internal conflicts were morphed into wars of proxy. Now that the situation has changed, some ponder what Israel might do. Saudi and Iranian conflict worked in their favor. Iran is considered Israel's competitor and a peace settlement would hinder their expansionist ambitions. The plan to extend settlements might go beyond the West Bank. The reestablishment of ties shows that China's influence is growing in the Middle East.    

Ali Khamenei's Remarks on Women

 

Ali Khamenei the Supreme Leader of  Iran stated that "women are the stronger gender." He went on to praise their wisdom, decision making skills, and diplomacy. The irony is that the women of Iran enjoy few freedoms and rights. The morality police targeted women and in highly religious societies various restrictions are placed on them. After a series of protests the morality police were disbanded in Iran. The police force was created in 2006 to ensure the religious values of the Islamic republic. Women were harassed over the dress code. Not wearing a hijab started off with a warning. Then arrests were being made for violations. The Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei could have stopped these abuses. The laudation he gave in this video was more about presenting himself as women's allies. An authoritarian theocracy is never going to advocate for women's rights or well being. The current protests will not dissipate until Iranian women's demands are met. The removal of the morality police is not enough considering decades of grievances.  

The Masha Amini Protests

 

The death of Masha Amini has sparked protests over Iran. The morality police have been under much criticism for their conduct in Iran. A new attention to women's rights has been the focus. This is different from the 2009 protests. Those were directed at the administration at the  the time. Iranian women have a new desire to have more freedom and access to the public sphere. The protests are indigenous,  meaning that there is no external force attempting destabilization. If Iran wants to change its government, it will have to come from the efforts of the people living there. Exiles and foreign entities are not going to form a genuine revolution. Other social pressures could be driving discord. Sanctions and the war in Yemen are sources of contention. The growing possibility of a conflict with Israel is a concern. Saudi Arabia continues to be a security risk to the Islamic Republic. The economic and social challenges are not being addressed. The theocratic regimes in the Middle East are some of the worst human rights abusers. Iran and Israel demonstrate why theocracy is not preferable form of government. Women are subject to more abuse under theocratic regimes. More restrictions are placed on women  the more religious a society is. The demonstrations are not as massive as the 1979 Iranian Revolution against the monarchy. The reason is because  the issue mostly effects women. Men probably are not going to be supportive of a social  or cultural change related to sex politics. Although the demonstrations might not be successful, a growing number of Iranian women are reaching a new political consciousness.    

Iran Continues To Ban Women From Stadiums

 

The female Iranian football fan cannot enjoy sports like her male counterpart. Women have been for at least 40 years banned from entering stadiums in Iran. Recently, there have been challenges to the ban and overtime protests could cause its end. From a political perspective, prevent certain types of entertainment can harm the regime. Sports can provide a distraction to the abuses of government. World leaders often use sport competition as a means of instilling patriotism. The ban itself is not written into law or mentioned in a specific regulation. The Quran or Islam states nothing about football matches or stadiums. Religion is being used as a means of authoritarian control in the Islamic Republic. The ban cannot even be completely enforced. Women were present in Azadi Stadium for the World Cup qualifier in 2019. Some women might be able to sneak into matches circumventing the authorities. One exception to the stadium ban is when there are political gatherings. Women are allowed at these pro-government rallies. The ban has gotten the attention of FIFA. The ban violates FIFA statutes articles three and four. These stipulate the support for human rights and non-discrimination. 

Donald Rumsfeld on CNN (2002)

 

Donald Rumsfeld (1932- 2021) served as Secretary of Defense for both the Gerald R. Ford and George W. Bush administrations. During the early 2000s he was making the case for the invasion of Iraq. Rumsfeld made an appearance on CNN September 12, 2002. He was one of the major architects of the Iraq War. Here in the interview Rumsfeld denies that the US provided Saddam Hussein chemical weapons in the 1980s. He was not prepared when archival footage was shown of him visiting Iraq in 1983. At the time Donald Rumsfeld was part of a special envoy to bolster support for Iraq against Iran. Syria  was also discussed in  meetings with Saddam Hussein including the situation in Lebanon. The Bush administration pushed a false claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that Iraq had to be attacked for national security. Donald Rumsfeld also along with other officials made the accusation that Saddam was supporting terrorist organizations. There was no evidence of this and weapons of mass destruction were never found. Rumsfeld left behind a legacy of aggressive warfare, which still effects  the Middle East today.  

Sultan Siad Qaboos Passed Away

Oman lost their longest serving monarch . Previously, Sultan Qaboos  left the country for medical treatment. It has not been confirmed, but it was suggested he was suffering from cancer. His death marks the end of  some of the region's longest serving rulers. Since 1970, he led Oman  through a region that was constantly in conflict. The war of attrition wit Israel, the Lebanese Civil War, the Iran-Iraq War, the Gulf War, and the 2003 Iraq War were events that he witness during his political career. The question remains who will be his successor ? The sultan never married or had children. This may result in a crisis of succession. Oman unlike its neighbors was able to avoid the turbulence of the Arab Spring. The reason for Sultan's Qaboos' popularity was that he used oil revenue to develop the country. Modernization and a neutral foreign policy characterized his reign. There were problems in regards to press freedom and the silencing of political dissent. Oman acted as a mediator between both Iran and the United States in 2013 . This was helpful in launching  the Iran nuclear agreement in 2015. Oman is critical in reducing tensions between Iran and the US. With current conflagrations, the next sultan will have to be skilled in diplomacy. If the successor is not able to handle escalating tensions between the US, Iran, and Saudi Arabia then Oman's security may be at risk. The death of Sultan Siad Qaboos marks the end of an era in Omani history.    

The Dangers of an Iran-US War

When the Donald Trump administration decided to withdraw from the Iran nuclear agreement, tensions with Iran increased. What followed after this decision was more sanctions on Iran. Another provocation was designating the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. The United States has escalated the situation further by sending more troops to the Middle East. President Donald Trump has stated he does not want war with Iran. Actions and policies indicate that the United States is intending to ignite  a large conflict. The neoconservatives present in Donald Trump's cabinet have made it clear that Iran could be the next target for regime change. If more attempts at instigation are made, there could be a US-Iran War. The repercussions of such a confrontation could be devastating on multiple levels. War creates refugees which could result in a large humanitarian crisis. Instability would spread to Central Asia. The loss of human life would be immense for both civilians and soldiers. A war between the United States and Iran would generate a response from other world powers. Russia and China would most likely have to act, in response to a critical situation. Russia would seem more willing to get involved considering their investments in Syria. The European Union countries may be forced to fight with the US simply as a measure to prevent more refugee traffic from previous conflicts. The influx of refugees and migrants from economic devastation as well as war creates an unmanageable situation. That would mean a humanitarian crisis could spread to three continents of Asia, Europe, and possibly Africa. The Iranian Revolution that occurred in 1979 was the point in which Iran and the United States become enemies. When the Iran-Iraq War broke out in 1980, the US decided to favor Saddam Hussein in hopes that a military victory would bring an end to the Islamic Republic. A more complicated reality existed with the Iran-Contra affair, which revealed the US was technically arming both nations in the conflict.  The use of chemical weapons and arms provided by the United States inflicted much devastation on Iran. The war ended with a cease-fire in 1988 and by that time, international politics was changing. Decline in Soviet power and a Middle East going through transition to new era was occurring. Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 altering the balance of power in the region. The reason Iraq was not occupied in the 1991 war was that it would have increased Iran's regional power. When Iraq was invaded and occupied in 2003, Iran's influence expanded. The removal of the Baathist government created a power void in which Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Israel would compete to have dominance. Past events have created an atmosphere for eventual confrontation. This can be prevented, but it requires a revision of US Middle Eastern policy.
          The amount of death  that would occur in a US-Iran war would be astronomical. The highest amount of casualties normally tend to be the nation that is being invaded by the United States. Civilians are the first victims of aggressive warfare. The same method of attack the US could use would be to use the aircraft to bomb select targets. Similar to the Iraq War, a ground invasion could happen. There should be an expectation that the majority of the Iranian civilian population will arm themselves. Very few countries in the world welcome invasion or occupation by a foreign military. The error and arrogance of the United States was the assumption the US would be welcomed as liberators in Iraq. Iran's population only may think the US means harm to them collectively. Sanctions do not harm the leadership rather the population as a whole. If an invasion or some form of strike happens, it only encourages more support for the Islamic Republic. A large portion of the population would be willing to die for their nation who are not in the military. If the Iranian government were to collapse under the strains of warfare, fighting would not stop. Some Iranian citizens will never accept the rule of  an occupying force. More death would come from US attempts to pacify an armed civilian resistance. Conventional warfare contributes to the loss of human life, but what comes afterwards only adds more violence. The United States with much effort could win the war, but it would be another one that follows afterwards. The desire of neoconservatives would be the full use of army, navy, and air forces directed at Iran. The Islamic  Republic of Iran does not have the same military capacity of the United States. The development of missile systems would at least cause some trouble for the US Air Force. The best chance Iran has at fighting the United States is through asymmetric based warfare or prolonged guerrilla warfare tactics. If this happens Iranian resistance could continue indefinitely. This conflict may not even be confined to the Middle East itself.
        The era of globalization and international politics demonstrates that war can hardly be contained between two nations. One of the biggest fears is that a conflict with Iran would ignite a regional war leading to a much larger global confrontation. There are three major power blocks operating in contemporary international politics. There is the US and EU block which is conflict with a Russia-China alliance. The developing nations of Africa, Asia, and South America are caught in the middle of these world powers and subject to their geopolitical designs. Developing nations either have the strategy of allying with one block or another as well as resistance to violations of national sovereignty. Iran has moved closer to Russia ever since the Syrian Civil War. Both Syria and  Iran are important to Russia's foreign policy in the Middle East. This is similar to the relationship that the United States has with Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar. The diplomatic issues with Qatar and other Gulf states could harm this coalition with the purpose to either isolate or attack Iran. Oman would be the least likely to engage in conflict with Iran seeing as it maintains good relations with the country. Oman may remain neutral, unless forced or convinced to change its Iran policy.

      
Seeing as there is a delicate balance of new alliances emerging along with older ones, Middle Eastern nations will have to select sides. A network of rival alliance systems appears to be present. A major factor is Turkey's growing power and desire to have more influence in the Arab world.Which faction it would chose to side with seems unclear, but its actions in Syria puts it indirect conflict with Iran . A large regional conflict would involve Russia, America, the UK, France, and China. The trade war with China, if it lasts long enough may force it to be more active in other regions of the world to reduce economic strain.  There has already been a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia in Yemen's military struggle. Iran has been supporting the Houthi rebels in response to armed groups in Syria and Iraq. Saudi Arabia has attempted to reinstate Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi as president, even though he resigned and fled the country during when Houthi rebels were gaining control of certain sections of Yemen. Smaller armed conflicts would merge into a larger one based around the rival alliance systems both regionally and internationally. Israel under the leadership of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been more belligerent in its political position in relation to Iran. Israel would be part of a US-Iran war, or either the initiator of it. The reason Israel has not engaged in warfare with Iran has do with the factor of US support. Hezbollah also could be a concern in regards to Israel's northern border and the military intervention in Syria. Israel has conducted airstrikes since the conflict broke out in Syria in 2011. Iraq as well as  Syria,  would be encircled between both a hostile Israel and Iran.  One mystery remains in possible outcomes is how Egypt or Jordan would respond in such an event of a massive regional multiple nation war. Depending on which side Egypt chooses Israel could be fighting a war on multiple fronts, if the treaty between the two nations were to suddenly be terminated. Jordan has come to terms with Israel's existence. Both countries would not be fighting for Israel or any other Arab nation. Any collaboration that would occur would be the result of a common fear of Persian power in the Middle East. Israel and Saudi Arabia could fight one another first, followed by external allies getting involved directly. Russia and  the United States forces would come to assist fighting one another directly. Thus, smaller conflicts escalate int bigger ones, while simultaneously attracting world powers and neighboring countries.
     War between Iran and the United States would mean some form of fall out into Central Asia. Iran's neighbor to the north Turkmenistan could see either an influx of refugees or an increase in terrorism. Afghanistan, which has been in a state of war since 2001, which seems to have no end in sight. The war with the Taliban remains a conflict that cannot be won through battles. Attempts for peace have been made by both Iran and Qatar. Talks of peace have failed multiple times. President Hassan Rouhani and President Asharf Ghani  have agreed to bilateral cooperation related to fighting terrorism from ISIL or ISIS active in their region. The reason Iran wants to maintain a friendly relationship with Afghanistan for two reasons. It prevents the US waging a two front war from both Iraq and Afghanistan. It also prevents the Taliban rising again becoming a possible Sunni Muslim competitor. What complicates the situation further is Iran's relations with both India and Pakistan.

India wanted greater access to global markets so it decided to agree with both Iran and Afghanistan for the establishment of the Chabahar Port. The transport and trade corridor was agreed to by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in 2016. US military action would cause more instability in Afghanistan and ruin India's attempts to expand in global markets through economic projects in Central Asia. Pakistan and India seeing as they would be the most stable countries would try to gain more influence in a post-war Iran.  The Central Asian leaders who are either presidents for life or have an authoritarian style of governance under a region with a war torn Iran will find their governments struggling for survival. The two most powerful  leaders President Gurbanguly Berdimudamedow and President  Emomali Rahmon could face Sunni Muslim radical political Islamist insurgencies. Iran's relations with Tajikistan have been less than spectacular with accusations of inference relative to internal affairs. This fragile relationship can be broken with a sudden regime change in Tehran. Relations with Turkmenistan are significantly better with bilateral collaboration in the energy sector. The destruction or collapse of Iran would mean these two countries would lose a trading partner. As a result Turkmenistan and Tajikistan would become more reliant on China and its former colonizer Russia. From this perspective a regime change in Iran would be an economic disadvantage to the United States. The only way the United States could out maneuver both Russia and China would be through India. Pulling India away from Iran would in effect undermine both powers. Gradually, this may be happening with the Trump administration's Indo-Pacific policy. The United States does not have as much influence in Central Asia in comparison to Iran, Russia, and China. The United States attempted to expand influence during the early 2000s  in Central Asia. The argument of the Bush administration is that the Central Asian states were needed in the War on Terror. Therefore allying with longtime authoritarian leaders was justified in the name of fighting Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The US involvement in Central Asia has not established a positive or long term relationship. Growing resentment over US occupation and military presence in Afghanistan only generates negative images with the people of the Central Asian states.Removal of a large Shia Muslim nation would create some form of power void, which would reverberate across a struggling region.

            
There are attempts by Central Asian nations to increase  economic development. Iran although a difficult partner in terms of trade and the energy sector, it somewhat gives them less dependence on their former colonizer Russia. If Iran was no longer a functioning state, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan will lose a pivotal source of trade. The risk of  the whole region being destabilized become even more frightening, with the end of the Nursultan Nazabayev presidency in Kazakhstan. Power transition in the country may not be as simple, which adds to the complexus of regional affairs in relation to Iran.  These states have been held together by authoritarian leaders attempting nation building out of the former Soviet Union. The sudden collapse of the former super power created new complications and political challenges. The deterioration of economic conditions from loss of a trading partner would lead to events similar in North Africa and the Middle East. Rapid regime changes induced by economic turmoil and inequality may follow from a large scale war with Iran. Long term conflict would inevitably put Central Asia in peril of being a series of failed states. The US-Iran war would spill over from the Middle East and has the potential to spark mass global conflict.
         When the fighting stops what arises is the question of refugees and resettlement. The section of the Iranian population that has the ability to flee will seek safety in other countries. Leaving so many people in a horrid condition if a massive war is waged generates global condemnation. The United States, France, Germany, or the UK would have to provide refuge for civilians of Iran. Otherwise, there will be large populations of internally displaced people. The refugee traffic could be so enormous, it light require United Nations assistance. The burden of so many people to aid may require more nations to take Iranian refugees from a war. Australia or New Zealand are possible options. The European and North American countries have to consider what happens afterwards. Refugees may want to stay permanently and if so there must be a means to obtain citizenship. Governments will have to provide jobs, healthcare, education, and adequate facilities for the large amounts of people they let enter their countries. If the economic situation is in a state of deterioration in Europe or America, this will on cause more hardship for refugees who do not have citizenship in host countries or stable employment. A US-Iran war would only exacerbate a refugee crisis that has been a around since the Arab Spring. Programs of resettlement and assistance should be in place prior to any large scale military action. If not, such programs do not exist another humanitarian crisis would be the final product. Iranian citizens who flee and resettle will face serious trauma and psychological shock from the wave of violence as well as the long journey to a new country. The option for a route would be to enter Turkey and then make it to either Bulgaria or Greece. Assuming Turkmenistan and Tajikistan are not disturbed too much by the war, that would be a destination for Iranian refugees. Africa would also be effected by a US-Iran conflict. Sudan still remains active in the war with Yemen being allied to both the UAE and Suadi Arabia. Even with the fall of Omar al-Bashir, the Sudanese government wants to remain in the Yemen War. Sudanese troops remain in Yemen and active in the Saudi led coalition. Sudan, Saudi Arabia, or the UAE would not take refugees after a US-Iran war. The burden and planning would fall mostly to the US-EU block.
         President Donald Trump when he withdrew from the Iran nuclear agreement, my have triggered a collision course for war. Unlike North Korea, Iran has not launched or conducted nuclear tests. So far, the country has been compliant with the measures of the agreement. The real issue is that there is a policy that has become more belligerent since the Bush administration. National Security Advisor John Bolton served in both the Reagan White House and the George W. Bush administration. He continues to pursue what some view as a bellicose and hostile approach to Iran. On his current visit to US allies in the Middle East John Bolton had accused Iran for the oil tanker attacks and it engaged in a region wide conspiracy of sabotage. There is little evidence that Iran has orchestrated acts of terrorism.However, there is the possibility that the Sunni Muslim armed groups fighting in Syria will turn against the Gulf monarchies. The Soviet-Afghan War was an example of the lethal nature of blowback and how it later caused more violence. Groups that are armed by furtive means will not disband when fighting stops. Only with  proper investigation can it be determined what caused damage to the Saudi oil tankers. Excuses are being made for a war, but so far it appears Iran has not been responsive to US demands. The death and disorder that follows an US-Iran war would be a series of failed states and a region falling backward. The economic consequences could last beyond the conflict itself. Markets may panic at the prospect of a long term war. The United States would have to increase taxes even more to keep its war machine going. Combined with the occupation and reconstruction of a war torn Iran the cost would increase to enormous sums . The United States has accumulated so much debt from wars and military spending it is impossible to pay off.  The fall of Iran can result in a drastic change in the world map. Instability could swing between the Middle East and Central Asia. One factor that should be considered is how the Kurdish population would react. The desire for independence has not come to fruition, but it become more in reach with a weakened Iraq, Syria, and Iran. Turkey is the only state that could prevent the formation of a Kurdistan. Without Iran, there would be another regional power void in which the stronger states would fill. Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Turkey would be the strongest states. It would only be a matter of time before these countries would be in conflict with one another. War is not a rational or safe solution to disputes with Iran. The only way to prevent war and maintain peace is to reenter the nuclear agreement. A peace plan must happen in Yemen with simultaneous withdraw of  the Saudi coalition and Iranian support for the Houthi rebels. Intervention in Syria must come to an end by both Gulf states and Iran, so that Syrians can determine the future of their country. The United States must halt attempts at nation building or spreading its paradigm of liberal democracy. If  US and Iranian tensions are not solved diplomatically the world may witness of the worst mass global conflicts spanning multiple continents.