Sep 23, 2019, 6:11 PM
Journalist ID: 2382
News Code: 83487829
0 Persons
Trump not capable of building consensus against Iran

Tehran, Sept 23, IRNA - A senior foreign policy analyst emphasized that US President Donald Trump is not capable of building consensus against Iran because he does not believe in consensus and building a coalition. This lack of belief in making coalition and consensus is not unique to Iran either, and Trump has almost no faith in making nations accompany.

Speaking to IRNA, Amir Ali Abulfath, in response to a question about Ansarullah's attack on Saudi oil facilities and escalating US rhetoric against Iran, said recent events in the Persian Gulf region, as well as relations between Tehran and Washington, could provide a minimal output and a maximum output; the maximum output is Trump to be convinced that an attack on Saudi oil facilities will require a US military response and orders a military response against Iran.

"What the consequences of this order are," he continued, "is another matter, but it is undoubtedly the issue of a military order against Iran that will lead to a massive deployment of US troops and weapons to the region.

The expert said that minimal output of this action is the rise of America's military forces in the region, noting that the US Secretary of Defense recently announced that the number of US troops in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates would increase, most of them related to the air defense system. And this came after criticism of Saudi Arabia's huge and expensive purchases from the United States failed to prevent the attack on Aramco.

Trump has adopted a minimal military approach and a policy of intensifying pressure on Iran

Abulfath stated that Trump has adopted a minimal military approach and a policy of maximum pressure in the economic war with Iran and noted that based on this approach, the central bank and the National Development Fund of Iran as the two important monetary and banking centers of Iran were sanctioned as sponsors of terrorism.

Answering a question that some believe that the current approach of US officials is similar to theirs in amid Iraq war, he said, "I do not think so; the first Persian Gulf War 1991 started against Saddam's big mistake in occupying Kuwait as a The UN member state and the second Persian Gulf War in 2003, followed by that war. In fact, Americans completed their unfinished business in the Year 2003.

The senior foreign policy analyst said that comparing Iran with Iraq under Saddam was not right, making the remark that Iraq was a collapsed country at the time, which was greatly weakened by sanctions and food for oil policy, and Saddam had no popular backing. Iran is a country that has both popular support, strong defense and military capabilities, and missile power that can successfully target one of America's most advanced drones.

The current US president is one of the main critics of the Iraq war and has repeatedly spoken of the futility of the Iraq-Syria war, and the new war can somehow undermine his claims and sayings. However, with the exception of a small portion of the American elite, all politicians in the country believe that if the new Persian Gulf conflict is to occur, the United States should play a better role in weapons, intelligence, and logistics.

He added that after the bitter experience of the Iraq war as hot war, the Americans have abandoned their war policy and are making efforts to pursue their goals by more destructive weapons such as sanctions and proxy wars without engaging in conflict.

Speaking about the impact of rising tensions and attacking Aramco on persuading the two sides to negotiate and resolve the issue through diplomatic means and the end of the Yemeni war, the analyst underlined that Yemeni war depends on relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia and the crisis in Tehran-Riyadh relations will not be solved without normalization and ease of tensions in US-Iran relations. Therefore, as long as Iran-US relations remain abnormal, relations between Tehran and Riyadh will remain hostile and the Yemen war will continue.

Emphasizing that the two sides’ prestige are important for them and that any withdrawal would bring them both political and security costs both domestically and in the geopolitical arena, he noted that under current conditions, the United States will continue to increase sanctions and continue pressure and Iran will continue to resist the US policies and pressures unless a "balance of terror" is restored, as was the case in the early 2010's, when Iran and the United States came to the negotiating table.

There is no balance of terror between Tehran and Washington right now, said the senior foreign policy analyst. Iran and the United States are now in a "war of wills", with each side is waiting for the other side to draw the horn. Perhaps by reducing Iran's JCPOA commitments by another year, the balance of terror will be restored so that the US side will feel that if it does not negotiate or reach a deal with Tehran, Iran will obtain a nuclear bomb, or pressure of sanctions will make Iran ready to negotiate.

On the recent sanction of the Central Bank and the National Development Fund by the US Treasury, Abulfath said that the form of the sanction has not differed from the previous one, but the pretext for the sanction was different; the central bank had previously been sanctioned for helping Iran's nuclear program. But now the central bank has been sanctioned for allegedly supporting terrorism and assisting terrorist groups.


Follow us on Twitter @IrnaEnglish

Your Comment

You are replying to: .
6 + 11 =