The US-Drawn Iranian Threat

Much has been written and said about post-Shah Iran and the first victory of an Islamic revolution in modern times. Some have said that what happened was due to internal factors, which had a greater impact on these changes than external factors. Iran has realized the difficult task of political transformation after attempting to build a system that mixes religious values and democracy; a system under which one can reach both the executive and representative powers through the ballot box. It is a system where the principles of the alternation of power and the freedom of the press and plurality are imposed, where platforms and political parties form and express varied political and ideological programs and orientations. The visible divide in Iran is between the reformist and conservative currents, and each of these currents has a wide range of trends, groups, and characters.

Despite all this, according to some, the system does not present a model of freedom, citizenship, and the guarantee of human rights inside this multi-ethnic country. Kurdish and Azeri nationalists and ideological and religious sects face clear persecution from the ruling majority. Instead of working to address these problems, the system still focuses on building force and developing weapons. This gives the impression to other countries that the happenings in Iran did not change anything essential in the policy of the Shah’s regime with respect to the new government’s orientation regarding the outside, specifically regarding attitudes and regional ambitions. The one thing that has changed in this regard is that the Shah’s Iran tried to achieve its regional ambitions in cooperation with the United States of America. His enemies called him the guardian of U.S. interests in the region. However, the new system is searching for a way to impose its hegemony or share it with different forces. The bottom line is that Iran’s regional policies are based on its interests and needs, and its search is for regional hegemony instead of building cooperation. In some cases, it pursues a pragmatic policy unprejudiced by conflict with beliefs and the stated ideological and political slogans....

With regards to Iraq, it was clear since the beginning of the U.S. occupation that Iran almost welcomed the event despite its declared enmity to the U.S. – which gained the title “Great Satan” since the fall of the Shah – because a weakened Iraq was necessary to maintain the balance of power in the region. It had to be weakened but not divided, due to the demographics of the Iranians who threaten the establishment of a Kurdish state in Iraqi Kurdistan. But the claim that the U.S.’s exit from Iraq led to the transformation of this country into an occupation by the Iranians is an exaggeration.

In Iraq, it is true that Iranian goods are everywhere, and you can see Iranian pilgrims and tourists everywhere. You can see the Iranian flag fluttering over an Iranian consulate building in every corner in Basra, in southern Iraq, and in Irbil, the capital of the Kurdish region. However, it is also true that the Arabs of Iraq, despite a majority being Shi’ite, still have one remaining factor that can stop Iranian expansion in Iraq. It is not the U.S. forces but Iraqi nationalism on one hand, and, on the other, arrogance and a tendency to hate Iranian Arabs. Many of the current politicians who have spent some time in exile in Iran feel foolishly ideological, and their national arrogance comes from their sponsors in Iran. So, it is firm that the majority of Iraqis are well aware that changing from the Americans to the Iranians is not the best solution. In addition to this, Iraq’s politicians and influential people realize that the intimidation of Iraqi patriotism through Iranian occupation and control is manufactured by the U.S., essentially as a way to keep Iraq (and through it the region) anxious and unstable under the control of the U.S.’s ambitions.
There are presently security agreements with Washington, and their abilities are appropriate to the present needs. However, after the withdrawal from Iraq took place as planned, the U.S. move to stir up the Gulf states and scare them with the Iranian threat has raised tensions and intimidated the area. Particularly, it is clear that the withdrawal without any gains left behind means the collapse of U.S. strategy in the region.

We said in another article, “The Danger between America and Iran,” that the risk is in stoking the collapse of the positions of trust and in not searching for common interests between Iran and the countries and peoples of the region. This was not chosen by the will of the people but planned outside their will. When you come to a comparison between the seriousness of the major world powers and the power of Iran, that comparison is first and foremost under the guidance and consistent with the interests of decision-makers in some countries in the region. One directs a question to the reader: Are you with the American project, which wants to re-draw the map of the region from abroad, or the Iranian project, which aims to undermine the regional countries from the inside? Logic dictates that in the face of the Iranian project, there is more than one choice with the least to lose once you take into consideration the history and realities of geography and the interests of the peoples in the region in freedom, independence, and building. However, Westerners believe that to keep pace with the American project is the lesser of two evils! By playing on emotional strings and raising enthusiasm towards issues that are known to be sensitive to the dominant forces, it influences the dominant forces to take action. The results show that these positions give counterproductive results and help the trend of intolerance in Iran. This opens the way for the reconciliation of opposites at the cost of the people aspiring for freedom of choice, among them the Iranian people.

The common interests between us and Iran in the present and the future are many. By focusing on the commonalities between us and supporting each other, we are a sizable power against greedy outsiders in the true exploitation of our people. But we see that the outsiders, led by the U.S., encourage talking about things that are sources of tension. Within this program, the U.S. focuses on Iran as a threat to the region generally, and Iraq specifically. Even if we assume that there is an Iranian threat in the actions of the current regime, the opportunities to address and face this threat through the goodwill of the people of the region are much easier and have minimal losses. It is possible to be a means to real stability in the region without the intervention of a third party.