Will Tehran take Washington’s threat seriously?

Will Tehran take Washington’s threat seriously?

- in Releases
88
Comments Off on Will Tehran take Washington’s threat seriously?

Despite the US, Western and Iranian understanding and consensus on the selection of the President of the Republic of Iraq and understanding and harmony also on the Iraqi political personality , which will occupy the post of Prime Minister of Iraq, but tension is the master of the situation between Washington and Tehran in Iraq. According to information obtained by the Iraqi government that there is an imminent attack on US interests in Baghdad and in an attempt to prevent it, the Iraqi Special Forces deployed in the Green Zone and adjacent to it and issued a warning “C”, but the attack occurred in another place of Iraq, according to special information obtained by the Rawabet Center for Research and strategic studies, the Basra airport, where the US forces were bombed by two missiles. This bombing is a serious military development, a message that carries many of the political and military implications to Washington by Tehran; especially it came after the events of Ahwaz in Iran. Despite of that, this attack demonstrates that Tehran did not take seriously the US threats it received from political figures.
According to the information obtained by the Rawabet Center for Research and Strategic Studies, officials considered that any attack on the US Embassy in Baghdad and their military forces and their nationals on the ground in Iraq, and the interests of their country, is a declaration of a state of war against the United States of America. They added that Tehran would be responsible if any Iraqi militia or armed faction attacked US interests in Iraq, and Washington would respond militarily to the attack. Therefore, Washington sent this time and through a number of countries a a clear and direct threat message to Tehran. Given the seriousness of this threat and the high credibility, Tehran has dealt it with high pragmatism, it is now working to exercise restraint and calm the situation in Iraq rather than escalate because any escalation would be dangerous to it before being dangerous to Washington. But what Tehran fears is that any faction or group will attack US interests without approval, in this case, Washington will resort to the military option to respond to that attack. Therefore, Iran must end the security chaos created by its militias in Iraq, and is able to do so if it wants.
In the light of this US-Iranian tension, Iraq is in a sensitive position, so in this situation, Iraq must abide by neutrality in this tension and work to end it and not stand by a state at the expense of another country, so as to avoid all the dangers resulting from this tension, and not to be an arena of setting political, regional and international scores so that both must respect Iraqi sovereignty, no Washington is using its military bases in Iraq to launch an attack on Iran. In return, Iran should not use Iraqi territory to attack US interests and Arab and Western diplomatic missions in Iraq. .
Another factor that fuels American-Iranian tension is the Iraqi politicians. The allies with Washington find themselves pro- Americans who defend Washington’s interests more than US administration officials and the same is applied on Iran’s allies of Iraqi politicians. They defend Tehran in a “surprising way” “It is more effective for these politicians to defend in the first place the interests of Iraq. History will not stand by in desperation and watch every politician who once allowed himself to fail Iraq and to give priority to the interests of other countries at the expense of his homeland Iraq. Therefore, the allies of the two countries in Iraq must overcome the language of reason and dialogue because the whole situation in Iraq is very dangerous. The question that arises in this context: Is the destiny of Iraqi people to remain in the cycle of wars? Is not enough that Iraq has suffered economic , social and national losses caused by the emergence of a terrorist organization ISIS on their land in June 2014 and the high price they paid to liberate their homeland from its dirt , to find themselves, once again moving from a war of liberation to an international war that Iraq will be the first of countries affected in the Arab and regional environment , is it better for Iraq to go a head after all this to join the future through the stage of reproducing the Iraqi character that is capable of construction and reconstruction.
That the tension in US-Iranian relations may push Iraq to pay high price, especially if this tension took an upward curve may lead to direct confrontation between Washington and Tehran. “Iran’s leaders have plundered their nation’s wealth and spread chaos, death and destruction in the Middle East,” Trump said in a speech to the General Assembly, pledging not to allow Tehran, which he described as the world’s biggest supporter of terrorism, to possess the most dangerous weapons. The US president is due to chair a UN Security Council meeting on the prevention of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction on Wednesday for the first time. He will demand a tougher international stance on Iran in Iraq and Syria. The question that arises in this context: Will the US-Iranian tension will see a dangerous turn in the era of Trump? This is what the coming days reveal.
The bottom line: After the picture has been revealed largely about the next President of the Republic of Iraq and his Prime Minister, Washington and Tehran instead of competing on Iraq, they have to respect the Iraqi constitution and help Iraq to get out of multiple crises, Iraq after the battle to liberate its land from terrorism ISIS , has become in a dire need to the help of all countries to promote it, politically, economically, security and militarily by supporting the Iraqi army and its security institutions. A strong Iraq is better for itself and for its Arab, regional and international environment than a weak fragile Iraq.

Iraqi Studies Unit
Rawabet Center for Research and Strategic Studies