ubuntusafa.com

  The IRGC controls the regime’s security forces, intelligence services, and economic networks, making it the most likely actor to dominate Iran’s immediate post-Khamenei transition. Many imagine the day after Ali Khamenei as a moment of sudden liberation: Iranians shaking off the mullahs and deciding their own destiny. The likelier opening act is far less romantic.  The immediate aftermath will probably look less like a velvet revolution and more like the opening round of an insider power struggle—staged and refereed by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and its allies. The institutions that have grown strongest under Khamenei are not parliaments, parties, or independent courts, but the security state and its sprawling economic empire. Those are the actors best positioned to inherit the republic he leaves behind. Iran’s Transition Will Unfold in Two Phases The most probable political sequence is a two‑step process:  Phase one is an insider succes...

  Azerbaijan could play a critical role in ongoing peace efforts in the Middle East—particularly in engagement with neighboring Iran. At the inaugural session of the Board of Peace on February 19, US president Donald Trump is expected to outline a Gaza reconstruction plan and a UN-mandated stabilization force to secure the enclave. Representatives from at least 20 states, including several national leaders, are expected in Washington. A key focus will be the establishment of a multi-billion-dollar fund that pools member contributions for post-conflict recovery. US officials say Trump will also announce which states have pledged thousands of troops for the multinational force in Gaza. One month into President Trump’s second term, I argued in “The US Geostrategy and the Old World Order” that the United States had begun a historic recalibration of its foreign-policy doctrine. This transformation was long in the making, shaped by three decades of geopolitical realities since the Soviet...

  American support for Syria’s subjugation of “Rojava”—the autonomous Kurdish-led administration in its northeast—is regarded by many of its supporters as a betrayal. “Rojava” is the name that many Kurds use for their homeland across northern and eastern Syria and is part of Kurdistan’s wider geography and history. For decades, the countries of the region have attempted to suppress Kurdish identity in that region, treating the Kurdish language and culture with suspicion and hostility. However, when Syria collapsed into civil war in 2011, the people of Rojava built their own local administration system—both to survive and to take their fate into their own hands, a move that proved critical during the rise of ISIS in 2013. When ISIS swept across Syria and Iraq and declared its “caliphate,” the Kurdish forces rooted in Rojava became the most reliable ground fighters against it. Those forces became the core of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which helped to defeat ISIS in Syria’s e...

  Iran has little interest in sponsoring a terrorist group that does not act in its interests in Central Asia and the Caucasus.  Reports suggests that  Iran   may be using ISIS-Khorasan (ISIS-K) as a proxy to destabilize Azerbaijan. With the   arrest   last month of three individuals accused of plotting an attack on the Israeli embassy in Baku, after which it was revealed that the would-be perpetrators had conspired with  ISIS-K  to carry out the attack. The Islamic Republic, the author argues, has good reason to support such acts of terrorism in Azerbaijan, owing to Baku’s close ties with Israel and the United States.  While there is no denying the fact that ties between Tehran and Baku hit rock bottom over Iranian suspicions of Israel using Azeri airspace during the 12-Day War, Epstein omits some important facts that seriously undermine his case. The major and indeed startling omission in his piece is that ISIS-K claimed...

  The contemporary international system is moving toward multipolarity. The relative dominance of a single hegemon has given way to competitive coexistence among major centers of power, including the United States , China , the Russia , and the European Union . Alongside these actors, middle powers and regional blocs assert greater autonomy. This redistribution of influence does not automatically generate cooperation. Instead, it often amplifies distrust: technological decoupling, sanctions regimes, proxy conflicts, and strategic hedging have become normalized. Within such an environment, Ubuntu—a relational philosophy grounded in interdependence, dignity, and shared humanity—appears vulnerable. Distrust thrives on suspicion and competitive self-preservation; Ubuntu thrives on reciprocity and mutual recognition. The tension is evident. The key question is whether Ubuntu can endure, adapt, or even shape a multipolar order structured by strategic anxiety. 1. Multipolarity and the Sec...

The promotion of democracy has become a defining feature of Western foreign policy since the end of the Cold War. Both the United States and the European Union consistently articulate democracy, rule of law, and human rights as universal values. Official documents, strategic doctrines, development programs, and diplomatic engagements frame democratic governance not merely as a political system but as a normative global standard. Yet critics argue that democracy promotion is not applied consistently. They contend that democratic principles are often subordinated to strategic interests—security alliances, energy access, trade partnerships, or geopolitical competition. This tension raises a central question: Is democracy genuinely being universalized as a value, or is it selectively instrumentalized as a foreign policy tool? The answer is not binary. It involves both normative commitment and geopolitical calculation. 1. Democracy as a Universal Normative Framework Following the Cold War...