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”.
- The European protection package from JCPOA came after the United States unilaterally withdrawn from the nuclear deal in a “tense action”.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
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 )
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.
Friday night, in Iraq, some people attacked the Iranian consulate building in Basra and set fire to it. Meanwhile, one of the main al-Shaabi air bases in Iraq, the south, and specifically in Basra, is to the point where the people of this city have provided many martyrs in the clothing of al-Sha’abi and fight ISIS. Therefore, the attack on the Iranian consulate in this city is different from the culture and manners of its people.
On the day when the Iranian consulate was attacked in Basra, the film was caught in the cyberspace claiming that a group of people in Abadan protesting the presence of Iraqis in the city were protesting and urgently asking for their departure!
In the planned plan for the sedition between the two peoples of Iran and Iraq, the people of Iran leave Iraqis and consider the Arabs and Iraqi people as well as the Iraqis as Iranian interventionists. So, at the same time as a temporary move on these maritime borders, more suspicious events take place across the borders to complete the puzzle. In the design of the enemy, both nations must attack each other in order to undermine the political cooperation of the two countries, in addition to the erosion of their religious and humanitarian symbols that are acquired in vibration. We must design the enemy’s social and political knowledge.
1- The Iranian Action Group has been established in order to establish a counteraction to Iran. The United States government, which believed that the Islamic Republic would re-negotiate at the negotiating table shortly after the departure of the United States from the JCPOA to deal with the components of its national power, the formation of the headquarters sought to exacerbate political action against the country.
2. The counter-Iran group is the political arm alongside the Ofac economic arm.
3. This political arm will play two major roles:
– An attempt to reach a consensus on Iran in international and multilateral environments;
– An attempt to bring other countries into compliance with the Ofac sanctions (as an economic arm).
4. In addition, one of the most important reasons for creating such a mechanism is the attempt to coordinate internal measures and to resolve some of the bureaucratic obstacles in the State Department. The counter-Iran group is a mechanism created by the Department of State to implement the Pompeu and Bolton commands.
5- However, it is unlikely that the group will confront Iran internationally (at least in the nuclear issue). The United States government’s disregard for many international norms and institutions has made it hard for the country to make a nuclear consensus. Perhaps the main reason for Brian Hook’s desire to “expand the dialogue with countries against Iran in non-nuclear areas” was the same.
Israel, targeting the T4 Air Base, which has resulted in the martyrdom of several Iranian military advisers, was exploited by the use of the tense atmosphere of Russia and the United States following the assertion that the Syrian government’s chemical attack on the Duma. In this regard, what is certain is the need to respond to Israel at least at the same level as the attack on T4. But the other question is when the response time should be. However, immediate responses will mainly increase deterrence, but there are already considerations for it:
The Syrian government and its allies are on the road to victory over the terrorists and the United States and its allies have lost some of their means in Syria. Hence, the hasty movement in the atmosphere where the level of tension between Russia and the United States is high is likely to trigger a larger war for Syria, which may destroy the achievements of the past or worsen the conditions for further achievements.
Iran’s participation in the victory of the western ghouta of Damascus did not have a serious and high level of participation, and therefore Iran’s skirt did not survive the charge of a chemical attack. This led to the accusations against Russia and Syria, if Iran, as the most important resistance government in the region, would carry out an expeditious attack, it could be the focus of Western attention and as a result, there would be many problems for the axis of resistance.
Finally, a missile strike occurred in Syria, with France and Britain running under the US-led coalition. However, as evidenced by the evidence, the level of this presence was negligible, and the main load Was in the hands of the US forces. During the operation, according to the Russian Ministry of Defense, 103 missiles were fired for targets in Syria, 71 of which were destroyed by the Syrian air defence before the target, a significant figure.
Theresa May, after the operation, announced that the military strike against Syria was limited and targeted to reduce the Syrian regime’s ability to develop and use chemical weapons. Although it has been mandated, experts from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) will begin their research work on alleged chemical attacks in Syria today.
Recent developments over the past few days showed unbalanced positions on the side of the coalition, especially within the United States, and a news disagreement between the Secretary of Defense (James Mattis) and National Security Adviser (John Bolton) on the response to Syria has been published, indicating that There is no clear and specific strategy following this operation.
The US-backed coalition missile strike was likely to be supported by verbal and practical support from some Western parties that would open their hands for bargaining against Trump. In fact, the West, with the accompaniment of Trump on this issue, is looking for his flexibility and with the West in relation to Iran’s nuclear deal.
On the other hand, and in general, this not-so-effective attack can only be considered as a reaction to the failure of US-Western armed groups in the Eastern Sub-Sahara, which lost one of the most important anti-government bases in Syria and, naturally, in the coming negotiations The Syrian government’s hand will be taller with its allies.