I'm very happy to see sparks of science in Syria, but I have to say this is a very confused paper, and the mistakes are elementary.
The author starts with a higher-derivative regularization of the propagator that takes the form of
I don't have an immediate gripe with this although it's well known such regulator is not guaranteed to respect renormalizablity and unitariry of QCD, as oppposed to dim-reg in which the two are concretely proven. But the author seems to be in spirit more concerned with the "physical" aspects, so I can let this go for the moment. However, later the author makes the hypothesis that the regulator is physical and makes no attempt to remove it, and interprets the second pole mass offered by $1+a^2k^2$ as a pion. This is very wrong, notwithstanding the completely sabotaged gauge invariance/renormalizablity/unitarity, now you have two poles in an allegedly-particle propagator at free field level, that normally just means you don't really have a particle interpretation of your field theory, and to have a second particle at free propagator level, you need a second fundamental field. I guess the author confuses himself partly because he only comes to realize the existence of such a pole after a loop calculation on page 12, while in fact the pole is there at the very beginning. Plus, if one considers chiral symmetry breaking, the degrees of freedom just run wild if a pion is really what the author claims it to be.
In addition, the author has a confused discussion on confinement. First he gets the definition of confinement wrong, confinement is a long distance phenomenon, while the author demonstrates a linear potential at short distance $r<a$, here (page10) he also confuses cutoff scale with energy scale and gives a wrong justisfication for the scale at which confinement happens, on top of that here he seems to be willing to freely tune $a \to 0$ while this is in contradiction with identifying $1/a$ as the physical mass of a pion. Also, the way he gets linear potential is basically expanding a Yukawa potential to $O(r)$, in such way he might as well claim massive $\phi^4$, or any interacting theory with a massive particle for that matter, to be confining. And even if he had done everything right, it's destined to fail trying to prove confinement within perturbative QCD, since perturbation series is probably divergent (at best asymptotic), using perturbation theory to probe confinement, which is a strongly interacting effect, is doomed both in principle and practice.
I didn't read the rest of the paper.