Aug 23, 2019, 9:50 PM
Journalist ID: 2382
News Code: 83447348
0 Persons
Washington and failure of Eastern model for Tehran

Tehran, Aug 23, IRNA - White House officials have repeatedly spoken of intensifying pressure on Tehran to restore regional security and tackle instability, but in practice have other plans.

In mid-August, the White House officials tried to launch a new anti-Iran wave in their stances and push their political and propaganda pressures against Tehran one step forward.

Concurrent with Washington’s negotiations with some countries such as Australia and a group of Arab governments such as Bahrain to draw on practical cooperation in the anti-Iran project of establishing a maritime coalition as well as exerting pressure to re-seize the oil tanker carrying Iranian oil "Adrian Darya" (former Grace 1), the US President Donald Trump, has once again claimed that Tehran is willing to negotiate with Washington under pressure from economic sanctions but does not know the way to step forward.

The US president reiterated that economic pressures, especially oil sanctions, were even more effective than the White House had expected, leading the Iranian economy to collapse.

After Trump, it was Iran’s Desk Head of the US State Department Brian Hook's turn to reiterate Tehran's role in destabilizing the region, and call for international communities, especially the UN Security Council, trying to make sure of arms sanctions and travel bans for Iran’s military officials, including the commander of the Quds Force.

Hook's stance and demands were echoed as soon as possible by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, where Pompeo called on the Security Council to play an important role in extending Iran's arms embargo that expires under UNSC Resolution 2231.

Speaking to MSNBC, the US secretary of state also said his country has succeeded in blocking Iran's 2.7 million barrels of oil exports and blocking Iran's revenue artery.

The common point between the statements of three officials in recent days has been the repeated reiteration that the Islamic Republic of Iran has spent a significant portion of its oil revenues in recent years, especially after the nuclear deal, in order to create disorder in the Middle East and to support groups that in the Washington's view are considered as terrorist.

From this point of view, cutting these incomes represents a reduction in Tehran's ability to provide financial backing to create disorder and insecurity in the Middle East. However, Trump administration’s officials continue to publicly and repeatedly unveil their main purpose of economic pressure on the Islamic Republic of Iran, namely the presence at the negotiating table.

Earlier, just days after the United States announced its withdrawal from the JCPOA, Mike Pompeo announced twelve conditions for the start of negotiations with Iran, the main part of which was Tehran's refusal to pursue legitimate defense and missile programs and stopping regional policies. Of course, Americans have repeatedly stated in clear contradictions that they welcome unconditional dialogue.

This has led some analysts to view the twelve-term proposal as a message to the Arab states to showcase Washington's Middle East policy, not the actual preconditions for a dialogue with Tehran.

A very important point that has attracted the attention of most observers and analysts is the inconsistency, or more precisely, the ambiguity of US policy’s priority toward Iran. What is clear is that Trump is so in need of sitting at the negotiating table with Iran in foreign policy, but in practice does not make it a priority even for his Western and Arab allies, whose outcome of policy of "maximum pressure" is the an alternative agreement for the JCPOA or a radical change in Tehran's policies in the Middle East.

Although some may argue that the two goals are in the same line, the important question remains unanswered whether a new, alternative agreement for the JCPOA would favor Trump's electoral campaign and at the expense of continuing regional influence of Iran or the economic crushing pressures that actually do not benefit the White House, will meet much of the views and interests of Iran's Middle East rivals.

A look at Washington's ups and downs with Pyongyang over the past two years has partly revealed White House preferences in the Middle East.

The Trump administration's stance and policies on the Korean Peninsula have been designed to both keep Pyongyang's commitment to the negotiating table and highlight North Korea's military threat to Japan and South Korea in support of the US President's security blackmail.

By setting a red line for American security, Trump has so far prevented Kim Jong Un from conducting nuclear tests and long-range ballistic missiles capable of threatening US territory. But it has been quietly and deliberately silent on missile tests threatening the security of its allies in East Asia.

North Korea, on the other hand, with realizing this red line has both prevented the intensification of US sanctions and held threatening and alarming elements for South Korea and Japan in his hand, and repeatedly tested its missiles after Kim-Trump direct talks.

Under these circumstances, Trump is pleased to remove the North Korea's threats and to keep Kim at the negotiating table repeatedly, in talks with the media and in his tweets, has claimed that through a shift in Barack Obama's failed policies toward Pyongyang has saved his country from a nuclear war.

Another aspect of Trump's East Asian game is demanding security costs in the region, in other words extortion from Seoul and Tokyo that do not see themselves safe from Pyongyang missiles.

Likewise, the US president seems to be pursuing a similar model in the Middle East. Undoubtedly the most favorable event for Trump is Iran to come to the negotiation table; a negotiation that, like the North Korean model, would not yield concessions such as lifting sanctions but would mean ending the Islamic Republic of Iran's regional influence. Attracting the Zionists lobbies’ support and the continuation of multibillion-dollar purchases by Arab governments will not be possible under Iran's acceptance of the Pompeo 12 terms.

Trump administration officials have repeatedly stated that they want to make Iran a homogenous actor in the Middle East and internationally. This announcement, meanwhile, will undermine virtually all equilibrium and arms deals, the position of Trump's extremist allies in the occupied territories and some of the leaders of the Arab countries.

On the other hand, contrary to Trump's notion, the Islamic Republic of Iran has taken the path of resistance and ignoring reconciliation with the White House government, which has seriously endangered the foreign policy record of the US president as far as it can play an important role in next year's elections.

Given the situation, the US government's approach based the policy of intensification of maximum pressure on security in the region is more than ever faced with substantial contradictions and uncertainties, which has made some of Trump's allies partly uncertain to follow his policies and it has created a sign of change in the anti-Iran approaches of some countries in the region.


Follow us on Twitter @IrnaEnglish

Your Comment

You are replying to: .
7 + 4 =