Question: On Sunday, 15th January, 2012, i.e yesterday, Mohammed Ali Khateebi, Iran's envoy to the OPEC warned the Gulf states against compensating for Iran's oil by supplying additional crude oil to the markets in case sanctions are imposed on Iran by the European Union. And as reported by the Iranian Sharq newspaper, Khateebi also warned that such compensatory supplies will evoke Iran's reaction which can not be predicted now.

On the same day, the spokesman for Iran's Ministry of Petroleum, Ramin Mehmanparast reiterated his remarks reported by Iran's official news agency confirming that the United States had sent a letter to Iran about the Strait of Hormuz. Earlier on 28th December 2011, Iran had warned of closing the Hormuz waterway in reaction to international sanctions on her. Iran had also announced holding naval exercises in the region. It also said that it had carried out successful tests on missiles of various types and ranges.

So, is Iran serious about closing the Hormuz Strait? Is it genuinely worried about a real war against it, if so who thinks is waging war? Does the current global situation allow such a war now?

Answer: To answer this question, let us present the following:

1. Mohammed Ridha Rahimi, the Iranian Vice-President had warned of shutting down the Strait of Hormuz and said: "If sanctions are decided against Iran, not a drop of oil will pass through the Strait of Hormuz." [IRNA: 27.12.2011]. Gen. Hussain Salami, the Lt. Commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guard threatened that Iran will act to protect its vital interests. Iran conducted naval exercises on 31st Dec., 2011 in the region to demonstrate its preparedness for war if the sanctions were imposed upon her. Iran's Chief of Naval Forces, Admiral Habibullah Sayyari meanwhile eased the tone of threats and said: "Closing the Strait of Hormuz for Iran's armed forces is really easy, or, as Iranians say, it will be easier than drinking a glass of water, however, at the moment we do not need to close it down." (Press TV, December 28, 2011). Thus he indicated that Iran will not move to close the strait at present if the sanctions are not imposed on it and if it is not attacked, and not simply imposing the sanctions.

2. Reports indicate that between 30% and 40% of the international oil passes through the Strait of Hormuz which is 50 kms wide and 20 to 30 oil tankers pass through it daily carrying about 19 million barrels of crude oil. Thus the Hormuz Strait has been strategically important historically, and has also been a contention between the rival European colonialists. During the era of Great Britain, it regarded the Hormuz as the main route to India which it considered as the jewel of its crown. England had imposed its control over the Strait of Hormuz when Iran and other Gulf states were under its area of influence. During the 1970's when the modern era began when the US influence replaced Britain's sway over the region. The US then regarded the region as part of its national security and stationed its fifth fleet command in Bahrain under the cover of a joint agreement with it in 1993. Its ships sail back and forth through the waterway of Hormuz and thus it will not be easy for Iran to close down the strait except with tacit American's nod against the Europeans. During its war with Saddam Hussain of Iraq, Iran had warned of closing the straits but did not act on its threat. Similarly now, after all the warnings, its naval commander has toned down the threats and mentioned above.

3. In the face of Iran‘s threats, Victoria Noland, the US State Department spokeswoman stated: "We have seen lately a great deal of unreasonable behaviour from Iran which makes us believe that "these threats from Tehran as just increasing evidence that the international pressure is beginning to bite there..." she said. [al Arabiyah: 30.12.2011]. Thus the US wants to prove that the sanctions already placed on Iran are sufficient to rein in the Jews from acting on their threats of military action against Iran. The US has over the past several years restrained the Jewish entity from venturing any attack on Iran. Americans have more than once stated that the sanctions imposed on Iran are enough to deter Iran on its nuclear program. Hence the US State Dept. Spokeswoman said, " These threats from Tehran as just increasing evidence that the international pressure is beginning to bite there." The US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has been repeating his statements for months now that the sanctions are sufficient to deter Iran from developing its nuclear program and that the sanctions are the only option. In its attempt to retain the matter under its control, the US asked the Jewish entity to desist from carrying out any attack against Iran coordinating with it.

4. It appears that the US has lately realised the Jewish entity is seriously considering carrying out military attack on Iran's nuclear installations and that Britain is dedicatedly supporting the Jewish entity to carry out such an attack, and this has prompted the US to move and intensify sanctions on Iran including prohibiting dealings with the Iranian Central Bank which was announced by a US official on 13th January 2012, who said that new US restrictions were imposed on Iran last month in order to force Iran to abandon its nuclear program by thus paralyzing the functioning of its Central Bank and making its work with other international banks difficult. Thus the United States is trying to demonstrate that the solution lies in sanctions and intensifying those sanctions, and thus prevent the Jewish entity from undertaking military attack on Iran as well as prevent the Europeans, especially Britain, from playing any role in the matter.

5. There are indications that Europe is for such an attack and is not only encouraging the Jewish entity to undertake it but is also supporting it with whatever is necessary. France had launched a satellite over the region in order to spy over Iran and share that intelligence and images Iran's nuclear installations and facilities with the Jewish entity. Germany has supplied the Jewish entity with the latest submarines which can carry missiles, while the Britain militarily cooperates intensively with the Jewish entity on this issue. Britain‘s Secretary of State for Defence Phillips Hammond warned Iran against any attempts to close the Strait of Hormuz. The British media on its part regularly works to high-pitch the issue and influence public opinion against Iran. The Guardian newspaper reported on 3rd November 2011 that "Britain's armed forces are stepping up their contingency planning for potential military action against Iran amid mounting concern about Tehran's nuclear enrichment program". The British have intensified their consultations with the Jewish entity in the recent months. The American news agency UPA on November 2, 2011 reported that: "The Britain's Chief of Staff Gen. David Richards paid a secret 3-day visit to Israel, while the Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak visited Britain on the evening of 2nd November, 2011 at a time when Israel's military attack on Iran was being discussed intensively." In the context of a report posted on its website on 10th November 2011, the British newspaper ‘Daily Mail' said that officials of the British government have emphasised that there has been a consensus within the government that Israel will attempt to target Iranian nuclear installation sooner than later. The Israeli media had reported in the beginning of November 2011 that the Zionist Air force carried out an aerial exercise at one of the NATO bases in Italy which included all types of air force formations which possibly may participate in a long term attack.

6. "Israeli" threats on Iran's nuclear installations have mounted during the current month. The American newspaper, Wall Street Journal, reported on 14th January 2012 that Washington was worried about a possible Israeli military attack against the Iranian nuclear installations, and this has prompted US officials' intensified messages expressing their disapproval and warning the Israeli officials about the consequences of such an attack. The newspaper said in the context of a report on the issue that the American President Barak Obama, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and other senior US officials have sent a series of secret messages to the Israeli leadership warning them of the dire repercussions of a possible attack. They have also informed them about the US stance which is in favour of giving more time to the sanctions imposed on Tehran so that they bear fruit and only then deter Iran from producing nuclear weapons.

7. That the United States is focused on the sanctions which will prove effective for Iran and that the military option will not yield the desired results especially in the current year 2012 being the year of American elections. At the same time the Jewish state and the Europeans want to exploit this election year to carry out the attacks on Iran when the US administration is led by Barak Obama who is preoccupied with winning a second term in office and is engaged in wooing the votes of the Jews and others. Hence when such an attack in launched, the US will be in an awkward position and will be forced to support it if launched during the election period. Thus the US will be in position of flux in the region which will provide an opportunity to intervene in Middle East for the Europeans especially England, the old colonialist of the region to play an effective role in the Gulf. Thus, they are working to shake the American stronghold in the region and destabilise the situation within Iran. So they are preparing to acquire some sort of influence in Iran which they lost as a result of the Iranian Revolution in 1979 when their agent Raza Shah Pehlawi fell from power.

8. Thus, the American policy is focused on the sanctions being able to bear fruit and it keeps intensifying these sanctions every time the war cry gets louder, which the Jewish state, backed by the Europeans calls for during the current election year. Perhaps the US has missed the opportunity they had at the end of the last calendar year when news was leaked that the end of last year was the expected time for such an attack. [al.mashhad.com/News:10th November 2011]. It reported, "An unidentified British Foreign Office official revealed that he informed the British ministers that the Israeli attack may occur at Christmas-eve or by New Year 2012." That however does not rule out fresh attempts by Europe and the Jewish entity to shuffle cards in the US administration due to the election-year situation. It is expected that the United States will not allow them to exploit this opportunity and will remain in control of the matter. Thus every time the Europeans appear to support the Jewish entity to carry out a military attack against Iran during the election year and thus embarrass Obama in front of Jewish voters, Obama steps up and acts on intensifying sanctions indicating to the Jews that this is the correct solution and not a military attack on Iran! Thus Obama indicates to them that he is working in their interest by intensifying the sanctions in order to gain their votes.

9. As for Iran's statement that they will have to bear the responsibility of compensating the shortfall in crude supplies as a result of sanctions against Iranian oil exports; Iran is issuing such statements threatening to close the Hormuz straits in order to precipitate a crisis in the crude market which will result in higher prices and thus affect Europe especially when it is already reeling under an economic crisis...so that it will not persist in supporting the Jewish entity in taking military action against Iran.

10. As for Obama's letter to the Iranian officials the contents of which though are not revealed, it is likely to be a ‘warning' to Iran and demanding it to soften the tone of its threats to close the Hormuz straits as well as easing the tone of warning to the Gulf States that they bear the consequences of compensating the shortfall in oil supplies. This is intended to reduce the tension that provokes the Jewish state and the Europeans to exploit it for taking military action against Iran in this election year. In the past few days, there have been indications that the U.S. and Iran, however, have taken steps in recent days apparently designed to ease tensions. Iran has agreed to host a delegation of United Nations nuclear inspectors this month. The U.S., meanwhile, has twice this month rescued Iranian sailors in the region's seas. [The Wall Street Journal 14.01.2012].

11. It hurts to see that the Gulf region's land, sea and the Strait of Hormuz as part of America's security among its vital and strategic interest even though it is purely an Islamic region. The Gulf referred to as the Arabian or Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Oman similarly is Islamic, and the Hormuz Straits are Islamic. The Muslims have defended and protected all of these in the face of European attacks be they from Portugal, Holland, France and the Britain...and now the Americans have landed here and are working to control these regions and steal its wealth.
Even more worrying is the fact that this international conflict is able to get its set of rulers in order to achieve its goals. Yet Allah Willing, all this will not last very long and the Ummah as well as the people in Gulf will rise and will become One Ummah under a Single State, the State of the Guided Khilafah "Caliphate", which will cut the ties of these Western countries and prevent them from extending to any part of the Muslim lands. Be reminded that this tomorrow is not far!

In Conclusion:

1. Europe, especially Britain and the Jewish entity want to capitalize on Obama's election race in the United States to launch a military attack on Iran's nuclear installations since during an election year, such an attack will embarrass Obama in the face of Jewish voters if he seeks to stop the attack.

2. Iran is important for Obama and he does not want a military action against it except until Iran crosses the US's redline of the Hormuz Straits as stated by US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on 8th January 2012. At the same time, the Jewish entity is also important for Obama who does not want to lose the Jewish votes. This is why he is trying to demonstrate that the sanctions are the appropriate option to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, a matter that concerns the Jewish state, and shows them that a military strike will not help but contrarily harm the entire region and thus affect the US and global interests.

Therefore, whenever a military strike appeared imminent, Obama set about tightening the sanctions and now he has even covered the Iranian Central Bank stressing that the sanctions and not military strike is the effective weapon against Iran's nuclear efforts. Such a situation of give-and-take is expected to last at least through the US election year. Europe and the Jewish entity will focus on exploiting this opportunity to carry out a military strike on Iran's nuclear installations, while the United States will focus on demonstrating that intensifying the sanctions is the viable solution, and so on...

3. As for Obama's letter to Iran, though its contents are not public, however it is likely to be a ‘warning' to Iran and demanding it to soften the tone of its threats and statements to close the Hormuz straits as well easing the tone of warning to the Gulf, as a move to remove any justification for military strike.

4. It is painful to see that the Western nations fight over our Islamic lands and find their agents in the region who walk the path with them, instead of these lands being our State, the Khilafah "Caliphate" State which will cut any hand that seeks to reach our pure Islamic lands. However, this betrayal will last long and neither this dark phase will last, indeed Allah Willing, Islam will emerge and so will the Khilafah "Caliphate".

{وَلَتَعْلَمُنَّ نَبَأَهُ بَعْدَ حِينٍ }
"And you shall certainly know the truth of it after a while." [TMQ Saad:88].

Recently, the Ministry of Internal affairs revoke a number of District Regulations which prohibit the distribution and sale of alcoholic beverages or liquor (alcohol). The revocation covers District Regulation in City of Tangerang, Bandung and Indramayu.

Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia organized huge demonstrations to reject the government policy: "Restriction of Subsidized Fuel" in the biggest cities in Indonesia.


To respond to Government policy about restriction of subsidized fuel, Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia organized Islamic Halaqah and Civilization under the title: "What's Behind the Restriction of Subsidized Fuel?" on Saturday (28/01) at Wisma Antara Jakarta. This program was broadcasted live through video streaming at www.hizbut-tahrir.or.id

Recent tensions between Western powers and Iran have again embroiled the region in a diplomatic frenzy, as nations scramble to shield themselves from the fallout of America's renewed confrontation with Iran over its nuclear programme. Iranian military exercises laced with fiery rhetoric emanating from Tehran, and the presence of Western warships to enforce sanctions in the Persian Gulf has caused international panic.

Against the backdrop of Iranian threats to close the Straits of Hormuz, oil prices have spiked and speculation is forever mounting about Israeli and American military strikes against Iran. For instance, the US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta hinted at military action in the event Iran went too far. He said, "We have to make sure we are ready for any situation and have all options on the table. We must keep all capabilities ready in the event those lines are crossed." (Tensions high, US warns Iran not to block shipping, AP Online, January 13 2012). The latest bout of verbal dueling occasionally punctuated with threats of military action has sounded alarms bells as far away as Moscow and Beijing. Speaking at a news conference, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned about attacking Iran. He said, "I have no doubt that it would pour fuel on a fire which is already smoldering, the hidden smoldering fire of Sunni-Shia confrontation, and beyond that (cause) a chain reaction - I don't know where it would stop...On the chances of whether this catastrophe will happen or not you should ask those who repeatedly talk about this." (Western strike on Iran would be "catastrophe": Russia, Reuters Online, January 18 2012). Li Song, Deputy Director-General of the Department of Arms Control of the Chinese Foreign Ministry said, "Military action would have a disastrous effect on the peace and stability of the Middle East. Once a war takes place in the region, not only will countries in the region be affected and impacted, world energy security and the world economy will suffer a deadly blow." (Iran attack would be 'disastrous', China Daily Online, January 19 2012).

However, beyond the current military buildup, there are gestures from both sides that are seemingly at odds with the warmongers in Washington and Tehran. The American rescue of hijacked Iranian fishermen and Obama's letters to the Iranian leadership suggests that America wants to resolve the issue diplomatically. Commenting on the letter, Ebrahimi, who is the Deputy Chairman of the Majlis's National Security and Foreign Policy Committee said, "In the letter, Obama has mentioned cooperation and negotiation based on the interests of the two countries. He has stated in the letter that they will not take any hostile action against the Islamic Republic of Iran. This is not the first time that Obama has sent a message and letter to the Islamic Republic of Iran. He has repeatedly spoken in a soft tone about the Islamic Republic of Iran, but, in practice, he has not acted accordingly." (Details of Obama's letter to Iran released, Tehran Times Online, Jan 18 2012)The Iranians have also reciprocated with warm overtures of their own and have stated that the US has a right to move its warships in the Persian Gulf. All of this begs the question: Is this a serious crisis that will lead to war or is the crisis manufactured to support ulterior motives?

One cannot help but notice that over the past six years or so America has had ample opportunities to attack Iran's nuclear sites or initiate regime change, but on each occasion America either downplayed the Iranian threat or gave half-hearted support to the Iranian people to topple the regime. Some of these incidents can be summarized as:

1. In 2005, the Bush administration dismissed Israeli fears of a nuclear armed Iran after the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) revised its estimate from 2010 to 2015, the date by when Iran would possess an atomic bomb. Additionally, and more significantly, the NIE claimed that Iran had abandoned plans to weaponize its nuclear program in 2003.

2. In 2007, America's ambivalence toward Iran was again on display when another close ally, Britain, found its naval personnel captives of Iranian forces. American indifference was deliberate, as Washington feared that Britain had engineered the naval fiasco to instigate an attack on Iran.

3. In 2008, America also refused to sell Israel advanced versions of its bunker-buster bombs and dismissed Israel's show of air power over the Mediterranean, which was widely interpreted by many observers as a dry run to attack Iran

4. In 2009, protests in Iran erupted against Ahmadinejad's re-election. The protestors were strongly supported by the European Union, but America's support was cagy at best. America's patchy support was out of step with European support for the Iranian people and underscored America's reluctance to take decisive action against the Iranian regime.

But one may argue that all of this was in the past, and that the US has finally come round to attacking Iran and thereby addressing Israeli concerns. Supporters of this view bring several evidences to justify their stance. For instance they point to the advance weaponry that is being deployed in Israel as well as the GCC countries, and covert actions to sabotage Iran's nuclear programme. For instance the Wall Street Journal revealed that the White House will provide the United Arab Emirates (UAE) with "thousands of advanced ‘bunker-buster' bombs and other munitions, part of a stepped-up U.S. effort to build a regional coalition to counter Iran. Another source mentioned 500 Hellfire air-to-surface missiles in addition to the other munitions. The Wall Street Journal report added: "The Obama administration is trying to build up the six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council, which comprises Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, U.A.E. and Kuwait, as a unified counterweight to Iran. The newspaper reminded its readers of a $67 billion arms deal initiated by the White House with Saudi Arabia in 2010 to supply the second nation with 84 F-15 fighter jets and 2,000-pound bunker-busting bombs, 72 Black Hawk and 70 Apache Longbow attack helicopters, Patriot Advanced Capability-2 and other missiles, and warships. The Wall Street Journal also reported that the U.S. Defence Department plans to supply Stinger missiles and medium-range air-to-air missiles to Oman. (US Plans Bomb Sales in Gulf to Counter Iran, Wall Street Journal, November 11, 2011). The news media is rife of reports regarding Israeli covert actions that include a campaign of assassinations, bombings, cyber attacks and defections to weaken the Iranian regime and to halt the country's attempts to develop nuclear capabilities.

However, by deploying advanced weaponry in Israel, arming GCC countries and conducting clandestine activities against in Iran does not mean that the intended US target is Iran. The US can easily point the weaponry elsewhere.

Furthermore, the most important question which observers forget to ask is why the US would risk further instability in the region and attack Iran.

It should be noted that Iran has played a pivotal role to help entrench US hegemony in the region. These are:

1. Iran has provided stability in Iraq through the governing Shia leadership much of it was developed and nurtured under Tehran's tutelage.

2. Tehran has also provided invaluable support to American forces to contain the Afghan Pushtun resistance from spreading westwards.

3. Iran continues to buttress Assad's regime in Syria by providing military support as well as soliciting support from movements and countries across the region.

4. America has adroitly exploited the Iranian threat to bolster its military agreements with Israel and GCC countries. Hence, Iran is a pillar of US stability in Middle East, and the US has often regarded Iran as the leader of the Shia crescent stretching from Lebanon to Yemen, and act as her watchman over the Middle East's hydro-carbon reserves.

5. America has exploited Iran's nuclear programme to justify its missile shield for allies in Europe, the Middle East and parts of Asia.

So by attacking Iran the US will only undermine her interests in Iraq, Afghanistan and other parts of the Middle East. Simply put, America has too much to lose. Additionally, the high price of oil that would naturally ensue from such a conflict would exacerbate the US economy and hamper the miniscule growth that the US is currently experiencing. Obama cannot afford to go war, as his re-election depends on the US economy generating more jobs for the unemployed.

The reason behind the imposition of sanctions and clandestine operations in Iran is to assuage Israeli security concerns, and secure much needed Jewish votes for the Obama administration ahead of the US general elections in November 2012. America is fully aware that this is the maximum pressure it can apply on Iran without toppling the Iranian regime and impacting America's regional hegemony.

As for the Jewish state, it still harbours ambitions to hoodwink America into a military confrontation with Iran. Israel's defence minister Ehud Barak is said to have told General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, that Israel will give the US no more than 12 hours notice before it ventures to demolish Iran's nuclear installations. As a result the US postponed its military exercise with Israel (US miffed as Israel hints at unilateral strike on Iran N-sites, Times of India, January 23 2012). America is treading carefully with Israel, and trying to ensure that it does not launch any military strikes. The Europeans on the other hand are keen to support Israel covertly, hoping that any confrontation with Iran would drag America into another war that it cannot afford and would eventually bleed America to death. Nonetheless, the European effort is timid, as Europe is consumed with the economic crisis. All of this means that unless Israel gets support from Europe in particularly the GCC countries that are loyal to Britain, the chance of a military strike is of diminutive proportions.

This then leaves the unanswered question of the timing of the tensions coupled with the rapid buildup of arms. The tensions between Iran and America were accentuated in response to the IAEA report, and serve two objectives. First, America sought to address Israeli concerns by demonstrating its seriousness to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions by enforcing sanctions and talking tough. Second, America is preparing to intervene in Syria and the buildup of weapons is in part to address this eventuality. The timing of the intervention will depend on how quickly the US can get the Syrian opposition united to take over from Assad's regime. Russia is acutely aware of American intentions to invade Syria and has warned America that it would not support a UN resolution authorizing force.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said, "If some intend to use force at all cost ... we can hardly prevent that from happening. But let them do it at their own initiative on their own conscience, they won't get any authorization from the U.N. Security Council." (Russia warns against military action against Syria, rejects criticism of munitions delivery, Washington Post Online, January 18 2012). To dissuade the US, Russia has sent shipment of weapons to Syria, signed a military jet deal worth $550 million and stationed some of naval ships in Syria.
The other reason for flooding the region with arms is that America is preparing for an eventual war with major powers such as Russia, China and Europe over the control of the oil and gas supplies of the Middle East. She is also preparing for the return of the Caliphate and will use her agents to delay the unification of Muslim countries in the region.