Putin reaps what Khamenei has sown
Between the breakout of current, long-spiraling tensions between Iran and the USA and the death of Qasem Soleimani, a set of debates have taken place across Iranian strategy think tanks; what do we gain from antagonizing America and its allies? For whom are we antagonizing the US? If we had never fought the US, what would Iran’s current situation be?
It is clear that the Iranian regime is founded on Islamic ideological principles, and that they believe in the "export of revolution" to the entire world. While giving a sermon last week, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei appeared holding a sniper rifle in his hands. He once again reiterated the regime’s steadfastness in exporting and defending its revolution, while describing the Western "gentlemen" waiting for Iran at the negotiating table as the same "terrorists" who killed Soleimani.
At different times and during the hardship, we have seen how Tehran had been fine with shaking hands with the same "gentlemen" Khamenei referred to as “terrorists” - especially in recent days, when Iranian strategists have claimed "we fight America and other countries reap the fruits".
We know that Russia, on one hand, and Iran and its proxies on the other – paid for from the Iranian nation’s purse – protected Bashar al-Assad and his government. Iranians have always been angry at Russia for controlling Syria’s air and land while playing the role of a big brother to the war-torn country.
This is the same Russia that had, and still has, coordination with Israel. As a result of their coordination, an important leader like Imad Mughniyeh of Lebanese Hezbollah was killed in Damascus in February 2008. The slain leader acted as Soleimani's right hand in Lebanon and Syria. The Iranians have accused Russia of strengthening their foothold in the region by capitalizing on Iran’s preoccupation with fighting ISIS , the conflict in Syria, and, most recently, tensions with the USA.
According to the Iranians, the Russians work to contain Iran, rather than act as their friend. They believe Russia will likely pose a much greater danger to Iran than the US does, as Russia is geographically very close to Iran, and that a ground battle will not favor Tehran at all.
Moreover, Russia has gradually been able to develop its relations with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates as American’s wrong policy moves have caused a loss of trust in the region and hostilities among Iran and Gulf nations have grown.
Such developments have led Iranian strategists to agree that the main beneficiary of Iran-US and Iran-Gulf tensions is Russia. Therefore, they have called on Tehran to balance its politics in their relations with Moscow and Washington.
Perhaps it was this same understanding that compelled Adil Abdul-Mahdi, an economist and one-time follower of communist ideology, to switch focus from Russia to China, who can include Iraq in the long-term roadmap it has for the world’s economy.
In comparison with Russia, China has not historically been a political and military monopoly seeking extensionism. For the US, Beijing is a more formidable opponent than Moscow.
Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi spoke about a mediation project between Saudi Arabia and Iran saying he would have discussed this plan with Soleimani had he not been killed.
Tehran also hinted at a desire to engage in talks with Saudi Arabia in Khamenei's sermon last week, when he said during the Arabic language part of his speech that "a new page should be turned on among Muslims".
The US charging Saudi Arabia half a billion dollars in exchange for the redeployment of 3,000 US troops to the country may make the Saudis think twice, and ask themselves the same questions Iranians do – is Trump taking advantage of us?
Given all the scenarios, change of the region’s political map in the future is inevitable. With Iran still reeling from the shock of Soleimani’s death, the country's military hegemony might suffer; the export of its revolution could come to a (likely temporary) halt, leading to the change of Tehran’s course of actions from warfare to diplomacy.
The Kurdistan Regional Government’s decision to remain neutral amid the hysteria of tensions between Tehran and Washington is, therefore, the right, long-sighted move.
Erbil was being frank when it said it would not support the expulsion of American and coalition troops from Iraq, a stance which spread anger from Baghdad to Tehran. Erbil's stance made one thing clear to them both; unless the protection of the Kurdistan Region is guaranteed, it cannot trust those who call for the regional removal of US boots on the ground.
It is clear that the Iranian regime is founded on Islamic ideological principles, and that they believe in the "export of revolution" to the entire world. While giving a sermon last week, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei appeared holding a sniper rifle in his hands. He once again reiterated the regime’s steadfastness in exporting and defending its revolution, while describing the Western "gentlemen" waiting for Iran at the negotiating table as the same "terrorists" who killed Soleimani.
At different times and during the hardship, we have seen how Tehran had been fine with shaking hands with the same "gentlemen" Khamenei referred to as “terrorists” - especially in recent days, when Iranian strategists have claimed "we fight America and other countries reap the fruits".
We know that Russia, on one hand, and Iran and its proxies on the other – paid for from the Iranian nation’s purse – protected Bashar al-Assad and his government. Iranians have always been angry at Russia for controlling Syria’s air and land while playing the role of a big brother to the war-torn country.
This is the same Russia that had, and still has, coordination with Israel. As a result of their coordination, an important leader like Imad Mughniyeh of Lebanese Hezbollah was killed in Damascus in February 2008. The slain leader acted as Soleimani's right hand in Lebanon and Syria. The Iranians have accused Russia of strengthening their foothold in the region by capitalizing on Iran’s preoccupation with fighting ISIS , the conflict in Syria, and, most recently, tensions with the USA.
According to the Iranians, the Russians work to contain Iran, rather than act as their friend. They believe Russia will likely pose a much greater danger to Iran than the US does, as Russia is geographically very close to Iran, and that a ground battle will not favor Tehran at all.
Moreover, Russia has gradually been able to develop its relations with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates as American’s wrong policy moves have caused a loss of trust in the region and hostilities among Iran and Gulf nations have grown.
Such developments have led Iranian strategists to agree that the main beneficiary of Iran-US and Iran-Gulf tensions is Russia. Therefore, they have called on Tehran to balance its politics in their relations with Moscow and Washington.
Perhaps it was this same understanding that compelled Adil Abdul-Mahdi, an economist and one-time follower of communist ideology, to switch focus from Russia to China, who can include Iraq in the long-term roadmap it has for the world’s economy.
In comparison with Russia, China has not historically been a political and military monopoly seeking extensionism. For the US, Beijing is a more formidable opponent than Moscow.
Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi spoke about a mediation project between Saudi Arabia and Iran saying he would have discussed this plan with Soleimani had he not been killed.
Tehran also hinted at a desire to engage in talks with Saudi Arabia in Khamenei's sermon last week, when he said during the Arabic language part of his speech that "a new page should be turned on among Muslims".
The US charging Saudi Arabia half a billion dollars in exchange for the redeployment of 3,000 US troops to the country may make the Saudis think twice, and ask themselves the same questions Iranians do – is Trump taking advantage of us?
Given all the scenarios, change of the region’s political map in the future is inevitable. With Iran still reeling from the shock of Soleimani’s death, the country's military hegemony might suffer; the export of its revolution could come to a (likely temporary) halt, leading to the change of Tehran’s course of actions from warfare to diplomacy.
The Kurdistan Regional Government’s decision to remain neutral amid the hysteria of tensions between Tehran and Washington is, therefore, the right, long-sighted move.
Erbil was being frank when it said it would not support the expulsion of American and coalition troops from Iraq, a stance which spread anger from Baghdad to Tehran. Erbil's stance made one thing clear to them both; unless the protection of the Kurdistan Region is guaranteed, it cannot trust those who call for the regional removal of US boots on the ground.