Washington: From direct military war to a policy of dying against Tehran

Washington: From direct military war to a policy of dying against Tehran

- in Releases
101
Comments Off on Washington: From direct military war to a policy of dying against Tehran

Contrary to all the political analyzes and media reports that the US war against Iran is coming, we say that Washington will not sound the drums of military war against Tehran, but will pursue punitive measures against it to reach a state of death agony , not death. Washington is not going to wage a war with Tehran on behalf of the Gulf States. The sharp political statements that Washington is making against Tehran are making a false conviction among some Gulf States that the war is coming and this thing is not going to happen. Washington wants to employ hostility among some Gulf states and Iran to serve its interests noting that on one hand it exerts economic policies against Iran that increase its regional and international isolation where it make some Arab gulf states that it goes towards war against Iran , and by pursuing this policy , Washington will not spare any effort to deplete the financial gulf resources under the pretext of protection it from the Iranian threat .

In Iraq, Washington is trying to convince the Gulf States that it is conducting military operations against the popular crowd. This is not true. If you see US soldiers in the streets of the Iraqi capital or the provinces of Iraq like Mosul, Anbar and Salah al-Din and take pictures of them, you must know those soldiers are walking in the streets with the knowledge of the Iraqi government and under the protection of Baghdad operations or the operations of the provinces responsible for providing security for them, and under the attention of the popular crowd. It is worth mentioning here that the popular crowd (Hashed Shaabi) in Iraq is expanding all over it. They have geophysical aircraft, naval force and reception offices in all the hospitals in Iraq, while the Iraqi army does not have those offices. In contrast, the US forces are confined to it. They try to arrange their affairs in Iraq through agreements with Iraqi government after its withdrawal from Syria.

It can be said that the pragmatic dimension of the “opportunist” is present and strongly in the American foreign policy towards the Gulf states, it does not mind it to provide protection for the Gulf states inside the Gulf and not outside in exchange of the money paid to Washington. What is the meaning of this ? That there are secret negotiations between Washington and Tehran to reach an agreement that satisfies the two countries to stop the military operations by the Arab alliance in Yemen in return for curbing Iranian influence in Syria and most importantly in Iraq. Iran’s tough economic conditions due to US sanctions may force it to make non-substantive concessions to avoid the failure of those negotiations.

It is not in the interests of the individual, whether he is a senior official in his country or a simple citizen in the Middle East environment, especially the environment of the Gulf states, Iraq and Iran to ignite a war in the region, because this war has very severe consequences on the peoples of those countries. There is no doubt that we strongly support the reduction of Iranian influence in the Arab Mashreq, especially in Iraq, but through political settlements. All wars ended with diplomatic compromises of political, economic and security dimensions. It is not necessary to wage a ferocious and devastating war in order to be satisfied afterwards that the diplomatic settlement is the optimal solution to settle the conflicts.

What makes difficult to find a diplomatic settlement with Iran is that since 1979, Iran has been run by two wings that may show contrasts. The first represents Iran, the state wing, while the other wing represents Iran … the Revolutionary Guards (Soba). Iran… the state is running internal and external affairs of Iran and carrying out the general policy of the state at the internal and external levels and is responsible for providing a decent life for the Iranian people , therefore, the Arab countries must deal with the Iranian state and work to strengthen it to weaken Iran , the Revolutionary Guards.

But Iran… the state is a weak in front of Iran..The Revolutionary Guards. For example, Iran… the state is supplying Iraq with electricity and natural gas, and this has resulted in financial dues of nearly two billion dollars, because of the weakness of Iran .the state. Iraq does not pay these dues! On the other hand, Iran. the IRGC has many economic and investment projects in the countries under its influence, until its influence reached the appointment of ministers in those countries. It is a tragic paradox between Iran..The state and Iran… The IRGC.

The evidence of the sincerity of this analysis is that Iran… The RG has become more stronger than Iran… the state where foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, is one of its members. As, it was announced on Monday yesterday his resignation on his official website at the Instagram site. The resignation of the Iranian diplomacy chief came as a surprise, without mentioning its reasons and backgrounds. It also appeared to have been published first through social media sites, not through the state media. In his first press statement following his resignation, Mohammad Javad Zarif attributed his decision to his absence from the meetings of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Tehran with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and Iranian President Hassan Rowhani. “After the pictures of today’s meetings have been published, Jawad Zarif is no longer as a foreign minister to the world,” Zarif told the government’s Web site “Intikhab”.

Iranian media have noticed the absence of Zarif from the reception of the head of the Syrian regime, both during his meeting with the Supreme Leader Khamenei, attended by senior officials, or the meeting of Assad with Rouhani. It was noticed the the presence of the commander of the Quds Force in the Revolutionary Guard Qassem Soleimani in the two meetings, where analysts considered that this means that the helm of foreign policy has become Sulaimani’s hand and with the blessing of the Murshed while Zarif was marginalized. Observers say that Zarif’s absence and they didn’t call him for meetings with Assad was the biggest insult to him, especially as he was under intense pressure from the militants in recent times. There were earlier reports of Zarif’s intention to resign due to escalating differences between the wings of the regime on the outcome of the nuclear agreement that the hardliners see Iran made significant concessions in return for not getting anything, especially after the exit of United States from the agreement. The Iranian leader. Murshed also opposes any new negotiations with it. He described those who accept the offer of renegotiation as “agents and traitors” in response to Zarif’s statements in which he announced Tehran’s willingness to negotiate on conditions.

It is possible to say that Zarif exposed the Iranian regime, the mechanism in which it operates, and deliberately deviated from the rules of the state because of a sense of dignity, as a result of not inviting him to attend the meeting with Assad. This means explicitly that Iran’s involvement in Syrian affairs is not within the work of the State Department, and the same applies to other files in which Iran is strongly involved, such as Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen.

The world knows that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Minister is not within the narrow circle that decides foreign policy. The world realizes that the minister and the ministry implement policies set by another department, which is under the authority of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. The world also knows that the president and the presidency have formal authority ,on the strategic issues, but the new is that a witness from his family came to stamp on these facts, and says frankly that the institutions of the state is marginalized and with no role, and who governs the country is the Murshed and the Revolutionary Guards. Therefore, the actual meeting between Assad and the leader (Murshed) was confined to the national security apparatus, and the second meeting between Rouhani and Assad included Qassem Soleimani.
The timing and context of the resignation reflect an internal situation that has no consensus on Syria, as envisioned by the Iranian propaganda machine. It seems that the differences in views reached a critical point, the resignation came to make it public. Hence, the repercussions of this resignation will not stand at this point, and is likely to interact in the foreseeable future.

Zarif’s resignation is only the starting point of an internal struggle that reached the top of the government. The Foreign Minister would not have raised his voice if he had not been confident that there was a broad tide behind him. This was reflected in the refusal of President Hassan Rouhani his resignation and the signing of 135 deputies demanding the minister to give up to resign. This means that this wing scored a goal in the direction of the other direction represented by Qassim Soleimani, as the architect of the foreign military adventures in which the Supreme Leader was behind. The confrontation may not be resolved overnight, but it is open at a time when Iran is experiencing a suffocating economic blockade. It can develop and take on wider dimensions depending on the effects of the blockade. It is clear day after day that the interventions of Iran outside in Arab area will cause damage to Iran itself and its share of the damage is not less than the countries that paid the price dearly.
Over decades, Iraq has suffered the scourge of wars and economic sanctions that have greatly affected the structure of the Iraqi state and society. Now that the air force of the international coalition, the Iraqi army and the popular crowd have fought a fierce war against a terrorist organization ISIS that has purged Iraq from its desecration., thus, Iraq is not far away from the war against Iran, and does not support it, but stands against it. Iraq, in December 2017, came out of the provisions of Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, and does not want to return to it again, but economically, Iraq’s money obtained from the sale of oil hichis under the protection of the US Federal Reserve.

As for the military, Iraq needs the continued support of the international coalition. Where the Iraqi army is now much better than it was when the fall of Mosul in June 2014, with the presence of non-politicized cadre. However, Iraqi military forces and the Popular crowd Forces remain unprepared unfortunately and lack the necessary human resources, training and equipment to get rid of the new insurgency of the terrorist organization ISIS in Nineveh, Kirkuk and Diyala. For this, the international coalition will remain united. Some anti-Washington factions will seek to distance the United States (and the United Kingdom) from other partners in the international coalition, hoping to weaken US intervention in the process without losing European support. But in fact, there are good reasons behind Washington taking over the leadership of the coalition: the United States provides most logistical support, intelligence assets, air assets and funds, and the International Alliance Mission in Iraq (and the NATO Training Mission in Iraq) will not be possible, not politically and not at the logistical level without the United States. This means that the whole structure of the international coalition – and not just the US forces – could collapse like a house of paper, depriving Iraq of full support, if the debate rages about the American presence and raised a decision to withdraw in the “Oval Office” from the international coalition, Iraq will deteriorate in its international relations, Iraq has been diplomatically and economically isolated – suffering from neglect and lack of support – before the international coalition, and will return to this situation if coalition forces are no longer “involved in the game.” The military partnership of the International Alliance is the source of many new and fragile diplomatic relations for Iraq.

Therefore, Iraq is in dire need of establishing a balanced relationship with Iran , the state and Iran, the Revolutionary Guard and strengthening its relations with the Arab countries and Turkey, in this balance and openness to the countries of the region , Iraq restores political, economic, security and military recovery , Iraq with the principle of zero of problems with all countries of the world, especially Arab and neighboring ones , and against the policy of the axis, and with the policy of all winning, he aspires to become Baghdad a forum for Arab and regional policies away from the policy of regional polarization that does not serve Iraq and neighboring countries, Arab and non-Arab countries . Is Iraq capable of doing so? According to special information received by the Rawabet Center that the Iranian President Hassan Rouhani will visit Baghdad in mid-month and meet with Iraqi officials, will Iran to sign several agreements in various areas with Iraq to confirm its influence over it , and thus will bring the anger of Washington on it , and this confusion is not to his interest, will Iraq escape the trap of the Iranian visit?.

In bottom line, it is wrong to think that the United States, the United Kingdom and the international coalition will one day wage war on Iran. These countries will not fight a war on behalf of others, but will exploit the state of hostility between some countries of the Arabian Gulf and employ it for its interests, on the one hand , it will practice the policy of strangling Iran economically, politically and security until the stage of dying “not real death and prosperous life, but miserable,” and on the other hand to exploit Gulf states financially to protect them from it which represent a source of external threat for it . The US strategy toward Iran does not mean direct military war in the end.

Iranian Studies Unit
Rawabet Center for Research and Strategic Studies