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 )

Advertisements

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.