The Big Time

Friends and allies should not be chosen from the victims. 
First of all, the system will not take a new position on Qatar before stabilization of the situation, whether reconciliation or continuation of dispute among the GCC. Although, this hostility is a significant opportunity for the system. 
There is no doubt that emergence of neo-left in the U.S., Europe and even Iran is an undeniable fact, which can be distinguished from the traditional left. Nowadays, traditional left plays in the ground of centrism, while neo-left is successor of traditional left’s former position. The approach of neo-left toward human rights can help it to improve in long-term. Thus, the newborn discourse of neo-left needs a powerful platform in order to achieve the political goals and does not have a similar fate like Greens. 
Although the right to an adequate standard of living is a principle of basic human rights and elimination of poverty is essential but according to historical experiences, low-income classes cannot be considered a reliable support for the left-wing and socialists. In the fascism era, many of so-called "proletarians" left alone socialists to be sacrificed. Nothing has changed, in the U.S., the blue collars backed Trump for presidency and not a socialist candidate like Bernie Sanders. The middle class, was the main supporter of Sanders and if he considered human rights at his platform, he would certainly gain more success in the election. 
Therefore, the issues of middle class and human rights must be on the agenda for the neo-left. In addition, be sure that supporting low-income class would not lead to capturing their votes. For obtaining low-income classes votes, one should only require someone to be able to contact them in a friendly by a non-political, non-academic and even non-revolutionary tone. Keep in mind, although low-income classes have the right to vote but it is not translated into their socialization and thus, they provide their own sub-culture against popular culture. And also, there is a grave difference between their needs and demands. Improving the economic level of their life must be their basic need but their main demand is to be practically recognized. The first step in the recognition is speaking with their specific literature while educated politicians has no tendency to it or find it as a sign of populism. But in fact, one should be a prophet at first to become a politician because it is a requirement to contact everybody just like their own social language, culture and even the level and capacity of knowledge. It is the true meaning of recognition of others including minorities, sub-cultures etc. Sometime a leader must take advantage of all his social and scientific position to be a nation's advocate and sometime he should forget all of them to achieve the same.
Thus, it is more convenient for the neo-left to focuses on economic and social concerns of middle class including jobs and human rights.

The Issue of Merchants: Russia and Sanctions

In order to realize the process of the continuation of sanctions against Moscow, both Washington and Brussels require the vote of confidence from merchants and commercial companies. Therefore holding continuing meetings with them is necessary because the recent sanctions have affected short- and long-term interests of merchants and trading companies of the West.
It is obvious that each of their individual vote to continue the sanctions regime will be negative (which also includes business companies that have identified Russia as a potential business partner in their own business future) but undoubtedly, their collective vote will be positive to continue these conditions. In other words, if a large number of businessmen and heads of corporations be invited to a meeting, you can easily attract their trust and agreement to the continuation of sanctions against Moscow.
We will get more familiar with the business approach, through a question:
Why merchants or businesses companies financially support political candidates in elections?
The goal of the formation of such support from the merchants is to get the helm of "political economy" in favor of their economic interests.
In the assumed meeting, an invisible competition would be made to get a share of the helm of political economy between the invited merchants in the meeting and the loser of this competition will be the one who objects to the policies of the country. Thus, the mechanism of competition will automatically lead to the merchants' agreement with the continuation of sanctions against Russia.

European Version of the Monroe Doctrine

Events of the Orange Revolution and its fall clearly showed that European Union (EU) doesn't support poor European countries. But currently, Russia sells its gas to Ukraine for half the price of the market. It also frequently feeds the economy of this country by providing financial assistances. There's no doubt that these privileges wouldn't be given to a pro-western government in Ukraine.
But can the EU's supports, replace the Russian supports of Ukraine?!  
Events occurring after the Orange Revolution in Ukraine showed that the EU is reluctant to provide economic supports for a poor European country. Maybe it caused the triumph of the Russian government's pressure politics over Ukraine.  
On the other hand, the events of Greece and the decision making procedure of the EU concerning the economic support of that country showed that the foreign policies of the European Union is closely tied with economy.  
Even right now, it's the US government which is going to send an economic aid package for Ukraine and not the EU.
Certainly the political behavior of the EU regarding Ukraine contains a political message for the white house: The European Union doesn't need poor members or ailing economies such as Ukraine. 
The conflicts of interests of the US and the EU in the affairs of Europe cause the EU's lack of serious supports regarding the US foreign policies in Europe and also regarding Ukraine.
It seems that the implied modern doctrine or the strategy of the EU has replaced the classical doctrine of the white house in the affairs of Europe. According to the EU's implied doctrine, investment in a government is done for the return on investment and not for the goal of winning in a political competition.