From Venezuela to Iran

Though Donald Trump won the US First Election in 2016 with the “First US” slogan, the slogan did not stop US interventions in other countries. In the Tramp presidency, as before, things that are inherently in the jurisdiction of countries are subject to serious US intervention.

Iran and Venezuela are two of the countries that are subject to the most aggressive American involvement. In both countries, the United States is seeking economic warfare, the overthrow of its political system, and the deployment of its dependent government.

1. In recent days, the United States has intensified its movements in Venezuela and chaos in the country. One of its main reasons is the effects that Venezuelan developments can have on its hostility toward Iran and other countries.

2. In the first case, Americans are seeking “modeling” a subversion in Venezuela to make a version available to other countries such as Iran. In this model, after a period of war and economic invasion and creating mass dissatisfaction with the masses of the people, the general base of the ruling political system is targeted, and then, with the advent of a dependent leader, the ground for the collapse of the government is provided.

3. The other is that, at the strategic level, Americans need victories in Venezuela to win victory over Iran in many ways. One of the effects of US sanctions against Iran is the lack of stability in world oil prices, which is not a pleasure for the Trump government. Venezuelan state-owned deployment, which has a daily production capacity of about 3 million barrels of oil, can fill the gap caused by the suspension of Iranian oil exports.

4. Finally, the developments in Venezuela will, in the eyes of the US government, be a message to allies and opponents of the country. The Americans hope that the success of their plans in Venezuela will force other countries that oppose US-based superstitious policies, including Iran, that they are determined to confront and overthrow their opposition.

Photo: Carlos Garcia Rawlins / Reuters

Advertisements

America and Iran sanctions

Following the decision of the United States to unilaterally withdraw from the nuclear deal and restore Iran’s anti-Iranian sanctions, the oil boycott and the “zero” delivery of Iranian oil exports were placed on the agenda of the US government. But after more than two months of Iran’s sanctions imposition, the United States has not yet been able to meet its demands and push pressure on Iranian oil buyers to stop imports from the country. Why?

  1. The US government is in a state of inaccuracy in the current situation. On the one hand, the Iranian oil sees its sanctions as the backbone of its sanctions strategy against Iran, and on the other hand, it does not like the increase in world oil prices as a result of the sanctions.
  2. This inferiority led, firstly, at a time when the Iranian oil embargo was announced on the 13th of November last year, the US government resigned from claiming “zeroing” Iran’s oil exports and issuing exemptions for eight states.
  3. Now that the term of the exemptions has expired, there are indications that the unbalanced “sanctions on Iran’s oil – the rise in world oil prices” have once again confused Americans with compelling countries to stop buying Iranian oil. Particularly, Saudi Arabia has recently announced it will cut its oil production. Brian Hook recently responded to a journalist’s question about whether the US government would extend the exemption, which has not been able to answer this question for the time being.
  4. The result is expected to exhaust the exemptions for Iran’s oil purchases under the unfavorable influence of the United States unless it can compensate for the shortage of oil in the world by increasing its oil production or countries like Saudi Arabia.
Photo: AP/Vahid Salemi

Israel’s strategy towards Hezbollah and Lebanon

Israeli President Reuven Rivlin visited Sunday on a military operation to demolish alleged Hezbollah tunnels on the northern border of Palestine, saying that the battle with Hezbollah over these tunnels would ultimately lead to the destruction of Lebanon. “We know the Lebanese government for what happens on its territory,” he added. The attempt to equate the whole of Lebanon with Hezbollah is a strategy Israel has been pursuing for several years. After the victory of Hezbollah and its allies in the 2018 parliamentary elections, Israeli education minister Naftali Bennett wrote “Hezbollah = Lebanon”. Prior to him, several political and military officials of the regime have repeatedly emphasized this equation. But what is the purpose of Israel to instill this equation in the Lebanese nation and government?

– Specifically, Israel is working to unify Hezbollah and Lebanon, making it possible to pressure Hezbollah from inside Lebanon and limit its behavior. In this context, Israel tries to push Hezbollah from two perspectives;

1. The Lebanese nation: Israel seeks to impose the Hezbollah-Lebanon equation in such a way that all Lebanese people will be regarded as Hezbollah partner in future battles and have to pay for it. If Israel succeeds in inducing this equation while repeating the possibility of a war with Hezbollah, it is likely that some people will reduce their support for Hezbollah and some will increase their opposition to it. This change of behavior can also affect the type of government’s exposure to Hezbollah.

2. The Lebanese government: For Israel, Hezbollah is equal to Lebanon, and so the Lebanese government must respond to the actions of this movement. Repeating this proposition, with pressures directly affecting the Lebanese government, could increase the possibility of government restrictions on Hezbollah.

– The results of the parliamentary elections of May this year showed that Hezbollah has behaved in its domestic politics, with which, in effect, more people have been with him. Some survey research also confirms this. But US-Israeli efforts continue to weaken ties between Hezbollah and Lebanon.

khashoggi case; Putin, G20 Summit

In the face of Saudi Arabia, Putin should be Putin as a different man on the first day of the G20 summit. While the main stand of the cast was not warm at the meeting with the young Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman, it was Russian President Vladimir Putin who, without any concern for the murder of jamal khashoggi, had a warm temperament with Ben Salman. But why did Putin deal with him when he knew how to deal with bin Salman, an issue of media sensitivity? The two main points in this regard can be described as follows:

Russia’s perception of Turkey’s treatment of Saudi Arabia over the murder of jamal khashoggi is that Ankara is seeking to play the case and seeks to weaken Saudi Arabia. In Moscow’s opinion, such an attempt by Erdogan ultimately leads to more power in Turkey, which is not desirable. In fact, Russia’s relations with Turkey, however good it is, is still a NATO member state, which is characterized by a lot of foreign policy changes. Therefore, Russia prefers a kind of balance in the region on Ankara’s excellence.

Russia is trying to get closer to Riyadh in the midst of the crisis caused by the killing of jamal khashoggi and the relative isolation of Saudi Arabia, who knows well that he will have significant economic gains. That at this meeting, the G20, and while Ben Salman does not have a former position, the energy minister of Russia wants to meet his Saudi counterpart, has a clear meaning. The current behavior of Moscow for the Riyadh authorities will create the mental impression that Russia remained in Saudi Arabia on hard days. It is natural that in the foreign policy of Saudi Arabia, this accompaniment will be an answer.

The European Supplementary Package is subject to “deconcentration of Iran and the United States”; a few points

According to the chairman of the National Security and Foreign Policy Commission of Iran’s Parliament, Europe has postponed its support package to JCPOA for “deconstruction of Iran and the United States”.

  1. The European protection package from JCPOA came after the United States unilaterally withdrawn from the nuclear deal in a “tense action”.
  2. It should not be forgotten that the aim of the European security package is “safeguarding the interests of Iran” in JCPOA and that any condition for its implementation should be in the interest of Iran. The nuclear deal will continue as long as the interests of Iran’s participation in that agreement are more than the benefits of leaving it.
  3. The next thing to note is that the main source of tension in US-Iran relations was the United States itself, the latest example of which is the withdrawal of a multilateral international agreement and the imposition of unilateral and illegal sanctions.
  4. The suspension of the implementation of a relief package with the United States is somehow “dropping the ball in the land of Iran” and “creating a new commitment” for our country, in case of its failure to execute it, not Europe, which would be blamed on Iran itself. Such a condition could give Europe a justification for not providing a practical guarantee of Iran.
  5. In addition, European policy towards action must be seen in the context of its broader policy toward Iran. It should not be forgotten that Europe continues to press Iran in some areas, such as allegations of terrorism and human rights. Such clauses in relation to JCPOA could open Europe’s hands in this direction.
  6. Desertification with the United States also means entering regional and missile talks with the country in which Europe and the United States share common positions with Iran.

America, Iran and the reconstruction of Syria

The United States Secretary of State recently said that by destroying ISIL, his country pursued two other goals in Syria: the peace and withdrawal of Iran and its proxy forces from Syria. Of course, he also has a condition for the Syrian government: if Iran and its forces do not leave Syria, they will not even contribute to the reconstruction of Syria for a dollar. Three remarks are worth mentioning about these remarks;

Although Pompeo’s apparent stance of power is conditional, it has a significant meaning; the Americans, who in the early years of the crisis, did everything he did to escape Assad, now to take part in the rebuilding of the country, for He bets. This is clearly a failure to achieve the main goal. Of course, in such a case, the United States tries to use the flexibility to take advantage of the advanced conditions.

There is no rational consistency in Pemo’s statements. He has urged the Syrian government to expel Iranian forces from the country, whose presence in the country has been illegal in the country without the permission of the Syrian government and thus illegitimate. On the other hand, Pompeo speaks for the Syrian government – whose sovereignty has been violated by the United States – of participating in reconstruction, provided that they expel Iranian forces. In other words, the United States violates the Syrian government, but it recognizes it as a reconstruction.

Pompeo’s remarks show that the United States intends to play with a rebuild. Given the urgent needs of Syria in the area of ​​reconstruction, the game will only fail if the governments with Syria, such as Russia and Iran, and some moderate countries will enter this field.


The Syria conflict has rebalanced regional axes of power in the Middle East ( Getty Images )

Iraq’s new prime minister

Adil Abdul Mahdi has now been nominated as the new prime minister by Barham Salih to nominate the cabinet for a month’s vote in parliament. He has several features that interact with him, requiring clever and possibly different considerations.

One of Abdul Mahdi’s most important features is his emphasis on being technocratic. The fact is, though he has a history of membership in the Supreme Council, and there are now interactions between him and this parliament, he has tried to make himself independent and technocratic by going back to the past few years.

Iraq is not in a good position to provide services to the general public. The problems with water and the frequent shortcomings of electricity and corruption in the country’s administrative and financial system, on the one hand, and the widespread wings of the government with the relative end to the security scourges caused by the presence of ISIS in the country, has caused the people of this country to expect A special case of the possible government of Adel Abdul Mahdi.

People’s expectations and Abdul Mahdi’s emphasis on being technocratic will make him more strenuous in addressing the problems of the people, to the extent that he is likely to adjust part of Iraq’s foreign relations to such a necessity. Therefore, the exact understanding of the conditions of Iraq and the principles of Adil Abdul Mahed’s behavior is an indispensable necessity in the current situation to consolidate Iran’s relations with Iraq. Any false prioritization can provide grounds for plotting against the two countries.