“… it represented the victory of the Resistance Axis in the US-sponsored Syrian dirty war,” said David N. Yaghoubian, a professor of history at California State University, San Bernardino.
Yaghoubian said that Washington continues to oppose any normalization of the situation in Syria because it wants to remain in the country under the illegal pretext of fighting terrorism to actually plunder Syria’s resources.
Following is the text of Yaghoubian’s interview with IRNA’s correspondent in New York:
How do you evaluate the visit of the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran to Syria after 13 years since the beginning of the crisis in that country (Syria)?
Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi’s visit to Syria, culminating in the signing of a comprehensive strategic cooperation agreement with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, was significant for what it represented as well as for what it accomplished. While it represented the victory of the Resistance Axis in the US-sponsored Syrian dirty war, which failed to achieve desired “regime change” and subsequent dismemberment of Syria, it further extended the scope and parameters of a historic alliance which has served beneficial—arguably essential—to both countries in times of extreme crisis and threats to national sovereignty. Crucially, President Raisi’s visit advanced the agenda to create viable opportunities for Syrian and Iranian businesses and entrepreneurs, and to progress on wide industrial, technological, and economic fronts despite sanctions.
Why do you think the US does not support the normalization of Syria's relations with other countries and why is the Israeli regime, in addition to the US administration, upset with the Iranian president's visit to Syria and the deepening of relationships between Tehran - Damascus while the US continues to maintain an illegal presence in Syria under the pretext of fighting terrorist groups and, according to the Syrian authorities, plundering Syria's oil and energy resources?
The United States does not support the normalization of Syria’s relations with other countries because such normalization represents the ultimate failure of the US dirty war in Syria, in which it spent billions of dollars in support of takfiri terrorist groups to overthrow the Syrian government, divide the country’s territory, and seat a puppet regime in Damascus friendly to Israeli apartheid and Golan Heights annexation. The continued illegal military occupation of Syrian territory and theft of its natural resources under the risible pretext of fighting terrorist groups, along with the maintenance of an array of illegal secondary sanctions are simply the only means through which the US empire can attempt to remain a relevant, albeit toxic player in Syria, and represent yet another example of American imperial desperation.
An important diplomatic development in the region is the agreement between Iran and Saudi Arabia. What factors do you think led to the conclusion of this agreement?
The primary factors that led to the conclusion of the agreement can be summarized as Iranian resolve, Saudi pragmatism, and Chinese vision. Iran’s continual diplomatic, technological, scientific, and industrial advancement in the face of so-called “maximum pressure” sanctions ultimately prompted Saudi leadership to juxtapose two mutually exclusive options: bearing the certain manifold costs of ongoing conflict and the destruction that a potential wider regional war would incur vs. reaping the certain benefits of following through with the Vision 2030 development plan in an intact country and economically flourishing region. China’s vision of a stable, integrated Eurasian economic landscape operating within a multipolar international relations framework, in conjunction with its positive diplomatic and economic ties with both Iran and Saudi Arabia, and global prominence and reputation made it the natural mediator.
What are the reasons that Saudi Arabia re-established diplomatic relations with Iran and other countries in the region, such as Syria, after many years of cold relations?
The victory of the Resistance Axis in Syria, the failure of Saudi Arabia and its allies to defeat Ansarullah in Yemen, the aforementioned multidimensional advancement of Iran despite sanctions, and the progressive decline of US hard and soft power motivated the KSA to finally embrace a pragmatic approach to regional security and state relations. China’s responsible mediation accelerated dialog and thus enabled the surprise agreement, but I believe Iran-Saudi rapprochement and the movement towards a viable economic and security framework in the Persian Gulf such as the Hormuz Peace Endeavor was inevitable due to these developments, as well as the progressive global shift towards multipolarity. Ultimately, Chinese vision and its historical track record of consistency and reliability were instrumental in hastening this positive outcome, to the benefit of all three nations and the broader Persian Gulf region.
Why has China played a mediating role in reaching an agreement between Iran and Saudi Arabia and is seeking a similar role on other issues? What do you think are China's goals?
China is seeking to promote global economic exchange and interaction based on a win-win formula that is simultaneously practical, altruistic and in line with international law. Thus, wars, sanctions, invasions, occupations, and color revolutions/coups are antithetical to China’s approach and interests, which are logically geared towards promoting dialogue and stability to propel economic exchange. The United States remains wedded to the divide-and-rule approach in foreign policy, pursued via chaos strategy, and “constructive instability” as it continues to illogically double down on a Sisyphean struggle to reverse fading unilateral hegemony. As the US bombing of the NordStream2 pipeline illustrates, even so-called American “allies” like Germany can be subjected to covert attack by the empire as it flails about to survive geostrategic quicksand of its own making. China’s foreign policy goals are met by creating physical and diplomatic infrastructure to facilitate exchange and development. To the extent that it can play a similar mediating role in other outstanding issues, China can help further advance Eurasian economic integration and multipolarity, which is good for China and good the countries that it diplomatically and economically engages with.
What measures do you think the Islamic Republic of Iran should take to benefit economically from these important and positive political and diplomatic developments in the region?
Regionally, the implementation of the Hormuz Peace Endeavor or similar framework can be the forum for wide discussion and cooperation on a multitude of mutually beneficial fronts. Membership in BRICS with neighboring nations such as KSA and UAE, and development of transportation infrastructure such as the INSTC will provide significant economic benefits to Iran. Concurrently, of arguably equal importance is the necessity to continue the process of regional de-dollarization and the creation of mechanisms for banking and financial exchange that bypass US-controlled mechanisms such as SWIFT.
Do not this agreement and other regional developments point to the decline of American influence in the region and in the world? Is not it time for the American government to reconsider its policy, which is mainly based on pressure, coercion and war?
While this agreement and other regional and international developments point to a steep and rapid decline of American influence, and despite the abject failure and counterproductive application of pressure, coercion, and war, American political elites of the Republican-Democrat kleptocratic duopoly will neither reconsider their policies nor attempt to chart a different course. They will instead seek to generate as much confusion, disunity, chaos, and fear as they can domestically and abroad, gorging on the trough of the military industrial and prison industrial complexes to try to secure their oligarchic wealth for generations while employing their lapdog mainstream media to manipulate Americans into blaming each other or foreign governments for obvious political failings. American citizens will be too busy focusing on artificially curated, media-driven culture wars and “Two Minutes Hate” for sovereign, independent foreign governments, or toiling rhetorically in inert, partisan social media busy boxes to have any impact whatsoever on this outcome. The decline of American influence in the region and the world is thus guaranteed, as are at least several more years of irrational and obscene levels of “defense” spending, buffoonish political circus, and belligerent global posturing.
Despite US officials' claims that they knew about the negotiations between Iran and Saudi Arabia, they seem surprised and shocked by the China-brokered deal as well as other developments, including the normalization of Syria's relations with Arab countries, which has prompted US officials to travel to various countries in the region. In particular, William Burns, the head of the CIA, traveled to Saudi Arabia and expressed his concern and dissatisfaction with Saudi Arabia's policies in establishing relations with Iran and Syria. What is your assessment in this regard?
Peace, stability, intra-regional trade, and Eurasian economic integration, which will be advanced and protected via continued de-dollarization, pose direct, manifold threats to the American military-industrial complex and efforts by the United States to establish and maintain global hegemony and defend Zionist apartheid. Peace and stability do not promote hundreds of billions of dollars in arms contracts for US armaments manufacturers (one important element of petrodollar recycling), necessitate US basing rights, or legitimate “full spectrum dominance” via a global military command structure. Intra-regional trade and Eurasian economic and transportation integration does not necessitate “protection” in the form of US military bases or “assistance” from US banks and financial services. Halford John MacKinder’s 1904 Heartland Theory and Zbigniew Brzezinski’s 1997 tour of the “Grand Chessboard” bracketed a 20th century with analyses that suggested the key to US imperialism in the 21st would be the prohibition of Eurasian integration and control over the Eastern European “Pivot Area” and thus “World Island” (Afro-Eurasian) resources. The realization that the anticipated “American Century” is already drawing to an early close and that the effort to assure global dominance has instead assured eventual normalcy and irrelevance will be understandably concerning to imperialist functionaries like Burns and heartening to the vast majority of humanity.
**9417