Is it time for a historic paradigm shift in the Persian Gulf?

Seyed Hossein Mousavian

Middle East security and nuclear policy specialist at Princeton University and a former spokesman for Iran’s nuclear negotiators.

After the recent attempt by the United Arab Emirates to reduce tensions with Tehran, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani sent a letter proposing a peace plan to heads of the Gulf Cooperation Council (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE, Oman and Bahrain) and Iraq.

Since the 1979 Revolution, Iran and its Arab neighbors have never been able to forge a deep and sustainably friendly relationship. In fact, they have been trying to maintain minimalist diplomatic ties with each other, viewing the status quo as the most effective mode of relations.

Over the past few years, however, the degree of hostilities between Iran and Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain has reached unprecedented levels, to the extent that observers saw prospects of military confrontation in the region.

The reasons behind the increasing tensions are worth discussing. After the Saudis waged war in Yemen starting in 2015, the UAE and Bahrain became parties to the conflict on the Saudi side, whereas Iran supported the Houthis. In 2016, Saudi authorities executed Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr — a popular Shiite cleric critical of the Saudi government — which was followed by an attack on the Saudi Embassy in Tehran by an angry mob. As a result of the attack, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain cut diplomatic ties with Iran, while the UAE reduced its diplomatic relationship. Last but not least, President Donald Trump's policy of maximum pressure against Iran was supported by US allies in the region, namely, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain and Israel.

While rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia has taken hold all over the region, including in Yemen, Lebanon, Iraq and Syria, news about improvement of diplomatic ties between the Arab states of the Persian Gulf and Israel shook Iran. Ongoing Israeli attacks on Syria and Iraq — including on Iran’s bases in these two countries — and the decision by the Trump administration to declare Jerusalem the capital of Israel and recognize the Golan Heights as part of Israel could not have come at a worse time for a Middle East experiencing mounting tensions.

With the new wave of turmoil in Beirut and Baghdad, where determined demonstrators have occupied streets for many weeks calling for the removal of the entire political class, the Middle East is desperate for a serious reconsideration of policies by all parties involved in the region. While the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains the most vital point of contention in the Middle East, resolving rivalries among the countries around the Persian Gulf, especially Iran and Saudi Arabia, would have a substantial impact on resolving crises in Yemen, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. But for such efforts and a reshaping of policies to be effective in the Persian Gulf, attention needs to be paid to the following points.

First, for the decades following the 1979 Revolution, the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) have been allied against Iran, which has added much to the ethnically belligerent dichotomy of Arab vs. Persian. Over the past few years, tensions between the neighboring Arab countries also increased dramatically. Greater tensions began when Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990; more recently, a high point in hostilities between GCC countries took place when Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain cut diplomatic ties with Qatar in 2017. Thus, hostilities in the region are not just limited to Arabs vs. Persians, but also Arabs vs. Arabs. Hence the old formula to ensure peace, security, and stability is obsolete and we need a new one.

The second point comes as a result of the time and energy I have spent in recent years studying — in dialogue with experts of the Middle East and North Africa — both the contemporary and past history of the Arab world and its relations with Iran. It has been obvious to me that there are three main varieties of “fear of hegemony” among the smaller states in the Middle East, namely, the UAE, Qatar, Oman, Bahrain and Kuwait. The “blatant fear” is about Iranian hegemony. The “hazy fear” is about Iraqi hegemony. And the “subtle fear” is about Saudi hegemony and dominance in the region. The new model for sustainable peace and security should leave no place for anyone’s hegemony. I call this the “zero dominance and hegemony” model.

Third, all members of the GCC along with Iran and Iraq have complaints about the lack of respect for their sovereignty, interference in their domestic affairs and the tendency for sectarian policies to be bolstered. Therefore, the foundations of the new model for sustainable peace and security should be based on seven factors. These are non-interference; respect for national sovereignty; mutual respect; commitment to abandon sectarian and pan-nationalist policies; commitment maintaining the geographic status quo of the region; commitment to secure mutual interests among states; and commitment to collective security.

While Iran and its neighbors have both contradictory and opposing interests, they also have vital mutual interests. In fact, they share more common interests than contradictory ones. Hence, the neighboring countries must be willing to invest more on common interests rather than on those that are contradictory.

Coexistence and cooperation between the GCC, Iraq and Iran would lead to fundamental changes in the relations that Sunni Muslim communities have with their Shiite counterparts in the world of Islam. It would lead to more solidarity and brotherhood, which would then lead to better prospects of security, stability and economic development on a global scale.

In 1987, under UN Security Council Resolution 598 on the Iran-Iraq cease-fire, the council asked the secretary-general to examine measures to enhance the security and stability of the Persian Gulf in consultation with Iran, Iraq and other states of the region. This was a key task for the secretary-general, but unfortunately no efforts were made to carry out this essential mandate.

Sustainable peace and security in the Persian Gulf require a regional cooperation system similar to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. Such a system would include the six members of the GCC plus Iran and Iraq to deal with common security concerns, including terrorism, extremism, sectarianism, organized crime, asymmetric threats/warfare and drug trafficking.

This regional cooperation system should take responsibility to guarantee safe maritime passage of energy exports through the narrow Strait of Hormuz and security for a quarter of the world's international energy exports and production with stability in pricing of the region's oil and gas resources. The member states could establish a task force to deal with regional crises such as in Yemen, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan through multilateral diplomacy and cooperation with influential foreign and regional players such as the United States, the European Union, China, Russia, Turkey, Egypt and the United Nations.

With a United States willing to reduce its presence in the region, such a regional cooperation system could facilitate a gradual withdrawal of US and other foreign military forces from the region by taking responsibility for security in the Persian Gulf region.

The time has come for a new and innovative model for peace in the Persian Gulf. Oman and Kuwait have already made good efforts toward achieving friendly relations and now the role of the UAE could be definitive. Some sources have confirmed that Tehran has received a positive response from Saudi Arabia and Bahrain to Rouhani’s letter on a peace plan with neighbors. In all of this, the UN Security Council must play a more robust role to ensure that security and peace are achieved in the region.

Iran encircled by 45 US military bases; who is really threatening whom?

There are no Iranian naval ships off either the Pacific or Atlantic coasts of the U.S. nor does the Islamic Republic has any military bases anywhere in North and South America that might threaten the US, so why is Tehran blamed by Washington as a threat to international peace and security.

Stay with us for an article by journalist Shane Quinn for ‘Global Research’ titled: “Iran encircled by 45 US military bases; who is really threatening whom?”

A month ago President Donald Trump spoke of his desire to “avoid” war with Iran, as anxieties simmer between the United States and the Islamic Republic. It is likely that the Trump administration is sincere in its hope to steer clear of a full-scale military conflict against Iran, as bitter memories of the debacle in Iraq remain prominent in Washington.

Yet there may also be other factors lurking in the background for the present denigration of Iran that go almost unmentioned. Trump himself is quite likely exploiting the tensions with Tehran for political purposes, in a bid to boost his chances for re-election in November 2020.

Concocting images of fierce enemies abroad is an old ploy utilised by politicians in order to improve one’s popularity, or to win over fearful, uncertain voters with an election on the horizon. Similar stratagems were used by past US presidents, from Ronald Reagan and his supposed concerns over the Nicaraguan Sandinistas who he claimed were “just two days’ drive from Harlingen, Texas”; to George W. Bush and how Saddam “must not be permitted to threaten America and the world”.

The truth is that, Iran unlike Iraq or Nicaragua, represents a far greater obstacle to the United States. Trump’s cabinet, like those before it, is surely aware of the challenge that Tehran poses to Washington. Geographically for example, Iran is among the most mountainous of all the nations on earth and its highest peak, Mount Damavand, stands at over 5,500 meters tall. Mount Damavand, a potentially active volcano which erupted most recently seven thousand years ago, is located just over 40 miles from Tehran. Iran’s capital is home to more than eight million people, and is a city which itself stands at mountain altitude above sea level.

Iran, as with China, comprises one of the world’s oldest human civilisations, dating thousands of years into history. Nor is Iran easily intimidated by Washington, and has consistently pursued policies independent of America during the past 40 years. This has been a continued source of concern in the White House. Iran is a country of especially high importance, due in part to its location at the centre of the world’s greatest energy producing areas. Iran in addition contains the second biggest known gas reserves on earth, and the fourth largest quantities of oil.

When the Iranians look around beyond their boundaries, they are ringed by US forces. There are at least 45 American military bases almost surrounding Iran, positioned around the Persian Gulf and further east. These US bases are situated in Persian Gulf states like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, Bahrain and Kuwait, in which there are tens of thousands of American soldiers permanently stationed. There are further American bases erected in Afghanistan, a country bordering Iran to the east, along with almost 15,000 US troops.

Despite the fact that Iran has friendly ties with Iraq, the United States also retains military installations on Iraqi soil, where around 5,500 American soldiers present.

It has been claimed by Western politicians, like US vice president Mike Pence, that Iran is a major threat to “peace and security”. Yet who is really threatening whom here? Iran’s arms expenditure is much smaller by comparison to Western allies like Saudi Arabia and Israel, not to mention a tiny fraction that of Washington’s. These realities are often overlooked, however – but US intelligence has reported to Congress, in the US capital, that the Iranian arms outlay is continually low by West Asia-North Africa standards.

US aspirations regarding Iran are to continue in applying heavy pressure against the leadership of Tehran, and especially the Iranian people, in the hope of bringing about critical destabilisation. This is the principal reason underlining the continued US sanctions implemented on Iran. These economic measures are designed to weaken the foundations of Iranian society, stoke dissatisfaction and unrest among Iran’s populace, in the hope of changing the government. Much of the same thinking has been behind Washington’s 60-year embargo of Cuba.

Due to years of the above policies, the Iranian people have become increasingly embittered against America. According to a December 2018 study conducted by IranPoll, more than 80% of Iranians have an “unfavourable view” of the US.

Iran is not a poor or underdeveloped country. The Human Development Index (HDI) places Iran in 60th position among the 192 countries of the world – which puts Iran just outside the “very high human development” bracket. According to the Human Development Index, the overall living standards in Iran are higher than in major states like Turkey (64th), Brazil (79th), China (86th) and India (130th).

Were the United States to regain control of Iran, it would be a massive boost to American power in the West Asia-North Africa region, and thereby reverse some of its decline elapsing since 1949 with “the loss of China”. President Trump has been increasing America’s military presence in the Persian Gulf, by dispatching greater numbers of US soldiers to the region. The continued ramping up of tensions could result in some unforeseen incident that may spark a confrontation which would spread. The repercussions of an all-out conflict between America and Iran could literally destroy West Asia and parts of North Africa.

Amid all of the Western commentary expounded over the years, Iran is not a threat to world peace, but Iranian policies are clearly a threat to American hegemony in the West Asia-North Africa region. Tehran has provided assistance to President Bashar al-Assad in Syria, a figure that the United States desired to have ousted, and whom Washington views as a long-time ally of both Russia and Iran.

US hopes in Syria have since been dashed with the government in Damascus having practically won the war, mainly because of Russian and to a lesser extent Iranian support. Russia and Iran are now the dominant players in Syria, despite Turkey’s move into northern Syria to destroy the Kurdish factions there. Though Syria is not as vital a country as Iran, it is still a strategically important state that shares frontiers with Israel, Iraq and Turkey, among others.

Iran has furthermore been supporting the Ansarallah Islamic movement in Yemen, which is in opposition to the US-backed Saudi autocracy, in what has been a brutal war directed by Riyadh and made possible with Western arms and funding. Saudi Arabia has been an American ally for many decades, and was described by the US State Department in 1945 as “a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history”. Saudi Arabia is a huge oil nation, and today is the largest producer of this lucrative substance on the planet.

Iran is also mistrusted by Washington due to its backing of Hezbollah, the popular Lebanese resistant group. Hezbollah is a long-time opponent of Israel, another key US ally, and is an organisation that was established as a result of the destructive 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Hezbollah eventually drove out the Israelis from Lebanon, and the group is by now an integral part of Lebanese society. Hezbollah has been acting as a deterrent to another Israeli attack on Lebanon.

Tehran has likewise been providing support for Hamas, the Palestinian association, whom the US and Israel allege to be ‘a terrorist group’. Akin to Hezbollah, Hamas was founded (in 1987) as a response to Israel’s expansionist foreign policy acts, in this case the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.

Worryingly from the US and Saudi viewpoints, Iran retains relations with mineral-rich Qatar across the Persian Gulf, in the form of commercial and cultural ties, while the two countries share access to natural gas fields. Qatar holds a southern border with the Saudis, who frown very strongly indeed at their relationship with Iran. One of the main factors behind the recent diplomatic crisis between Saudi Arabia and Qatar, was Riyadh’s dismay at its neighbour’s enduring links to Iran.

The US maintains its desire to hold sway over the West Asia-North Africa region, an ambition which again dates to World War 2. Dwight D. Eisenhower, America’s famous general and president from 1953 to 1961, described West Asia as “the strategically most important part of the world”; in other words, a region that the US must dominate if it is to preserve its position as the planet’s undisputed top power.

Another of Washington’s core concerns regarding Iran, a Shi’a Muslim country, is the spread of its influence to neighbouring states also rich in resources. Since the US invasion of Iraq 16 years ago, Tehran has used the growing strength of fellow Shi’a Muslim government in Baghdad to develop closer ties with Iraq – which was a serious defeat for US policy in the West Asia-North Africa region. There are also fears in Washington regarding the possibility that Tehran could increase relations with the long suppressed Shi’a Muslim majority in eastern Saudi Arabia, where most of the Saudi oil reserves are located.

Thus, it is clear that it is the US which is a threat to Iran and the peace and security of the whole region, and not vice versa as alleged.

Security architecture in the Gulf: Troubled prospects

by Dr James M Dorsey

Russia, backed by China, hoping to exploit mounting doubts in the Gulf about the reliability of the United States as the region’s sole security guarantor, is proposing a radical overhaul of the security architecture in an area that is home to massive oil and gas reserves and some of the world’s most strategic waterways.

Chinese backing for Russia’s proposed collective security concept that would replace the Gulf’s US defense umbrella and position Russia as a power broker alongside the United States comes amid heightened tension as a result of-tit for-tat tanker seizures and a beefed up US and British military presence in Gulf waters.

Iranian revolutionary guards this weekend seized an alleged Iraqi tanker in the Gulf of Hormuz.

Iran said the vessel was smuggling oil to an unidentified Arab country. The taking of the Iraqi ship followed last month’s Iranian seizure of the British-flagged tanker Stena Impero.

The seizure was in response to the impounding off Gibraltar of an Iranian tanker suspected of breaching EU sanctions against Syria.

The Russian proposal entails creation of a “counter-terrorism coalition (of) all stakeholders” that would be the motor for resolution of conflicts across the region and promote mutual security guarantees. It would involve the removal of the “permanent deployment of troops of extra-regional states in the territories of states of the Gulf,” a reference to US, British and French forces and bases.

The proposal called for a “universal and comprehensive” security system that would take into account “the interests of all regional and other parties involved, in all spheres of security, including its military, economic and energy dimensions.”

The coalition, to include the Gulf states, Russia, China, the US, the European Union and India as well as other stakeholders, a likely reference to Iran, would be launched at an international conference on security and cooperation in the Gulf.

It was not clear how feuding Gulf states like Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arb Emirates and Iran would be persuaded to sit at one table. The proposal suggested that Russia’s advantage was that it maintained good relations with all parties.

Chinese backing of the Russian proposal takes on added significance with some analysts suggesting that the United States, no longer dependent on Gulf oil imports, is gradually reducing its commitment despite a temporary spike in the number of US troops dispatched to the region as a result of the tension with Iran.

They suggest that the US response to Iranian racking up of tension has been primarily theatrics and hand wringing despite the Trump administration’s bellicose rhetoric. Warnings of “severe consequences” have proven to be little more than verbal threats.

“The United States is leaving the Persian Gulf. Not this year or next, but there is no doubt that the United States is on its way out… Leaders in Riyadh, Abu Dhabi, Doha, Manama, and Muscat understand what is happening…and have been hedging against an American departure in a variety of ways, including by making overtures to China, Russia, Iran, and Turkey,” said Steven A. Cooke, a scholar at the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations.

Recent tanker statistics suggest that Saudi Arabia is sending an ever-larger portion of its crude to China. On a visit to Beijing last month, UAE crown prince Mohammed bin Zayed and Chinese president Xi Jinping elevated their two countries’ relationship to that of a strategic partnership.

Perceptions of a reduced US commitment may make the Russian proposal of a multilateral approach more attractive in the short term. However, longer term banking on a continued Russian Chinese alliance could be tricky. The alliance could prove to be opportunistic rather than strategic.

That could force Gulf states to accelerate taking charge of their own security. So far, greater Gulf assertiveness has proven to be a mixed bag.

Fuelled by uncertainty about US reliability, perceived regional Iranian expansionism, and persistent popular discontent across the Middle East and North Africa, produced the debilitating Saudi-UAE intervention in Yemen, a failed Saudi effort to force Lebanon’s prime minister to accept the kingdom’s dictate, and Saudi and UAE projection of military force and commercial clout in the Horn of Africa.

A recent meeting between UAE and Emirati maritime security officials, the first in six years, as well as a partial UAE withdrawal from Yemen could, however, signal an emerging, more constructive approach.

If adopted, the Russian proposal could, however, suck China and Russia, despite having been able so far to maintain close ties to all sides of regional divides, into the Middle East’s multiple conflicts, particularly the Saudi Iranian rivalry. A multilateral approach could also bring latent Chinese Russian differences to the fore.

Dubbing the Russian Chinese alliance ‘Dragonbear,’ geo-strategist Velina Tchakarova cautions that it is s “neither an alliance nor a marriage of convenience, but rather a temporary asymmetric relationship, in which China is predominantly the agenda-maker, while Russia is mostly the agenda-taker.”

The Russian Chinese rapprochement operates in Ms. Tchakarova’s words on “the maxim ‘Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.’ A status quo relationship would remain acceptable and be further developed so long as China’s rise is not a direct threat to Russia’s strategic interests of self-determination and security along its peripheries,” including the Middle East.

The question is less whether and more when Russia starts perceiving Chinese interests as a threat to its own. One divergence could be energy given that Russia is one of the world’s major oil suppliers while China is its top importer.

By the same token, China may longer term not want to be dependent on Russia for both its imports and the arrangements that would secure them.

Said Russia and Eurasia scholar Paul Stronski referring to the sustainability of the Russian Chinese alliance: “With China now recognising it may need to strengthen its security posture…, it is unclear how long that stability will last.”

Dr. James M. Dorsey is a senior fellow at Nanyang Technological University’s S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, an adjunct senior research fellow at the National University of Singapore’s Middle East Institute and co-director of the University of Wuerzburg’s Institute of Fan Culture

Coup Replaces Coup to Crush Aspirations of Sudanese Muslims

 

By: Kayhan Int’l 

The events rocking Sudan are certainly no revolution, nor is the fall of General Omar al-Bashir and his 30-year long dictatorial rule a relief for the Muslim masses of that country. 

It is a mere ceremonial changing of the guards at the presidential palace in Khartoum, as the replacement is also a military general. In other words, it is a coup to replace the coup of 1989, with the long suppressed aspirations of the Sudanese people taking a back seat yet again.

General Abdel-Fattah al-Burhan Abdur-Rahman, like all other coup leaders anywhere in the world, has formed a so-called transitional council of men-in-uniforms with a vague ‘promise’ to hand over rule to a civilian government in future – which is unlikely to come. 

No one takes him seriously, especially the group that has been leading the protests, the Sudanese Professionals Association (SPA), which rejecting the coup declaration, has called on people to press on with demonstrations and to stage a sit-in outside military headquarters.

SPA, an umbrella organization of doctors, lawyers and journalists, said in its statement: "The regime has conducted a military coup to reproduce the same faces and entities that our great people have revolted against.”

It added that protests would continue until power is handed over to a civilian transitional government.
This means the people should brace for more bullets and greater number of the dead and the wounded, to prove they possess the indomitable spirit of sacrifice to change the status quo. 

It will be a gargantuan task for the Sudanese people, and only time will tell how determined the masses are in the face of the current economic crisis.

At the moment, however, the new military leadership, which includes old faces like Defence Minister Awad Mohamed Ahmed Ibn Auf, has won the backing of reactionary Arab regimes of the Persian Gulf with whom General al-Burhan was clandestinely working, even as they pretended to play poker with al-Bashir – a replica of their game-plan to deceive and topple Egypt’s only elected president, Mohammad al-Morsi in 2013, while grooming General Abdel-Fattah as-Sisi behind the scenes. 

Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt, have thus hailed the fall of Bashir, the same Bashir, whom they had recently feted in their capitals and greased his palms with a fistful of dollars to cut diplomatic ties with the Islamic Republic of Iran and to establish relations with the illegal Zionist regime, in addition to providing them dirt cheap soldiers for their suicidal war in Yemen – all on the false promise that the UN and the US would drop charges against him as a wanted war criminal.

Al-Burhan may or may not hand al-Bashir to the International Criminal Court for war crimes in Darfur a decade ago, but one thing is certain, he will cozy up to the godfather of terrorism, the US, and provide bases to the Americans, so that he could be permitted to rule unhindered for some years at the expense of the Islamic and democratic aspirations of the people of Sudan.

This is all indicative of an intricate plot to spread the tentacles of Israel in Northeast Africa and the Red Sea region to compensate for the setbacks suffered by the unholy American/Zionist/Arab Reactionary trinity in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon at the hands of the Resistance Front inspired by the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Yemen has become the Vietnam of the Saudis, and there are growing fears in the Arab and Western capitals that the trend of events might positively impact the protesting people of Sudan. Hence the sudden change of mask in Khartoum in order to abort in the embryonic stage a likely Islamic uprising having the potential to reignite the Muslim mass demonstrations against Sisi’s Zionist-backed misrule in Cairo, with dangerous consequences for Riyadh, Amman and the Persian Gulf sheikhdoms.

5 Reasons Why Washington Was the Main Culprit in Ahvaz Terror Attack

TEHRAN (FNA)- On Sunday, September 23, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani couldn’t be more accurate when he said the United States is a "bully" that wants to create insecurity in the Islamic Republic, following an attack on a military parade that killed 26 people, including members of the country's Islamic Revolution Guards Corps.

Rouhani further accused the US-backed Persian Gulf Arab states of providing financial and military support for anti-government terrorist groups inside Iran.

This is not out of the ordinary. President Trump’s last year visit to Saudi Arabia, during which he loudly pushed for general hostility toward Iran, can’t help but also be noted for being followed so quickly by virtually unheard of terror attacks and unrest in Iran. On balance, the Trump administration isn't eyeing America's safety as much as a regime change:

1) Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, while addressing a recent rally staged by the anti-Iran terrorist group of Mojahedin-e Khalgh Organization (MKO) in Paris, called for regime change in Tehran. MKO or MEK was once listed as a terrorist organization in the US and Europe and is still widely viewed as a death cult built around the personality of its leader, Maryam Rajavi. During the gathering, Giuliani said, “We are now realistically being able to see an end to the regime in Iran… which must be replaced by a democratic government which Rajavi represents. Next year I want to have this convention in Tehran”!

2) In May, Trump abrogated the 2015 international nuclear deal and ordered a campaign of intense economic pressure, threatening sanctions against any foreign company doing business with Iran and calling for an end to trade in Iranian oil by November. In the Paris convention, Giuliani said the recent wave of protests in Iran was being orchestrated from outside. “Those protests are not happening spontaneously,” Giuliani said. “They are happening because of many of our people in Albania [which hosts an MKO compound] and many of our people here and throughout the world.” “Our people” means the US and the MKO and other terrorist groups, which have no support in Iran and are widely hated for their use of violence and close links to Saudi-Israeli intelligence services.

3) The policy of the Trump administration is not officially to call for regime change, but top officials have often made that clear in public. Outlining his approach in May, Pompeo said it was up to the Iranian people to relieve the pressure on the country by changing their government. However, regime change is on the agenda, as it involves waging economic war against Iran and backing terror attacks within the country, like the one that was carried out in Ahvaz, for which the terrorist groups of ISIL and Al-Ahvazieh with links to the US and Saudi Arabia claimed responsibility.

4) The Trump camp itself is open to the dark arts. Trump has selected John Bolton as his national security adviser. Bolton’s appointment, along with the nomination of Iran deal critic Pompeo as secretary of state, helped to kill and bury the nuclear agreement and pave the way for confrontation with Iran. Bolton has spent the better part of a decade calling for the US to help overthrow the government in Tehran and hand power to the terrorist group of MKO. Also speaking at the Paris convention, Bolton said the Trump administration should embrace the MKO’s goal of immediate regime change in Iran and recognize the group as a “viable” alternative. “The outcome of the president’s policy review should be to determine that the Ayatollah Khomeini’s 1979 revolution will not last until its 40th birthday,” Bolton said. The 40th anniversary of the Iranian revolution will be on February 11, 2019.

5) The Trump administration views terror attacks and protests as the best avenue for regime change in Tehran without a US military intervention. To that end, Pompeo says the US is stepping up its propaganda broadcasts to Iran with help from Persian-language TV channels based in Europe and the US, and portrays the sanctions as targeting the government, even though the unjustified economic pressure ultimately touches Iranians of all walks of life.

Overall, the notion that Iranians are clamoring for the fall of the Islamic Republic and welcome American assistance in precipitating that fall is the same kind of “we will be greeted as liberators” nonsense the Bush administration believed in the lead-up to the illegal Iraq War in 2003. Iranians want a better life, but the Syria-style collapse of their economy, society, and state is surely not the kind of change they have in mind. After all, we now know that their guild-related protests discouraged the US since their numbers never went beyond a few thousand, which never lasted more than a week, despite what had been promised by the US and its puppets. Picking up the MKO and the son of the deposed Shah has been the best service the US could render to the government in Iran as it encouraged even those few thousands to go back home after they came to see the truth.

In addition, the fact that Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and of course Israel are influencing the Trump administration’s anti-Iran strategy is further evidence that Washington didn’t act alone in supporting the terrorists that carried out the September 22 attack in Ahvaz. The aim of their plan is not for Iran to pursue internal reform and external dialogue as Trump would like to claim, but for the Islamic Republic government to collapse entirely so that it can no longer stop their regime-change fantasies and undermine their illicit interests and designs in the region. Little wonder they hardly cared when the Southwestern city of Ahvaz was violently attacked.