Behind the Curtain of the US Troop Increase in Kuwait
Pirouz Mojtahedzadeh says: America follows the same views and precipitates the same behavior as the House of Saud.
The latest reports released from the U.S. Congress reveal that Washington intends to increase its number of military forces in Kuwait. Greater supervision over the free flow of oil and dealing with the consequences of regional crises, whether in Syria or Iraq, have been declared the main reasons justifying this decision. In the interview you will read below, Khabar Online examines the reasons and the outcomes of America’s increased military presence in the region with Pirouz Mojtahedzadeh, a university professor and political affairs expert.
Al-Jazeera has announced that the goal of increasing the number of U.S. military forces is the U.S.’s way of dealing with the likely consequences of crises in the region, and the free flow of oil. In your opinion, from what angle should this be evaluated?
This issue has proven to us once again that the United States of America has a primarily militaristic view of the Middle East and its problems, and that the only solution it has in mind for solving these crises is suppression and use of military forces. However, if you look at Al-Jazeera and sites that are connected to the two political entities in the region (meaning Qatar and Saudi Arabia), which are largely subject to the desires and perspectives of the United States of America, they talk about the possibility that this increase in forces is for dealing with the expansion of crises in Syria and Iraq and so on… this view has been suggested, but it is not the truth.
In order to deal with the Syria and Iraq crises, the United States of America has had and continues to maintain a military perspective of total readiness. It has been increasing its military presence in the rest of the Persian Gulf countries through the sale of advanced weapons — unusable to the recipients — over the past 20 years.
My inference is that America wants to make the necessary preparations for the onset of broader crises in the region of the Arabian Peninsula — especially those related to Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Qatar — by increasing its forces in Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and other countries. On the other hand, in the precipitate conflicts which indicate the anxieties of the House of Saud, we see that they are nervously following developments in the Middle East. The House of Saud has stooped so low that the Saudi government is ordering its Egyptian embassy in writing to prevent the selection of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Egyptian presidential elections. This is a very significant issue. How can an embassy accomplish such a task? Surely no embassy in any country is allowed such interference, but when the Saudi government allows such a scandalous letter to go public and be revealed, it shows the extent of its nervousness. The historical record shows that such behavior as monitoring ongoing events indicates uncertainty in the survival of its own system of government.
The Americans also demonstrate to us the same view about the House of Saud that they have of themselves and the region, which is that Middle East developments (and their domino effect) have made them scared and worried about such changes happening in their own country, especially since there are signs indicating change is being brought to Saudi soil as well as the rest of the Persian Gulf. It is for this reason that the House of Saud has reacted in such a way, to the point of confronting the possible danger of collapse in Bahrain, which even the Americans objected to. In other words, the House of Saud is becoming so panic-stricken that even its allies will find fault with it.
This decision is not for monitoring developments in Syria and Iraq?
America has a large number of bases in the area. For dealing with the crises in Iraq and Syria, America can reinforce its bases in Iraq. However, it is reinforcing its bases in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. All of these things indicate that the United States of America is sensing danger for the rest of its allied regimes on the Arabian Peninsula, and that it wants to bolster its forces on the Peninsula in case it should need them later.
If one percent of the reason for increasing forces is in preparation for a military attack against Syria, is America or the West really prepared to attack Syria at the present time?
This strategic presumption is entirely off base. If America wanted to attack Syria, reason dictates that this action be done from bases in Iraq or Turkey — which are closer to Syria. The second issue is that America can’t attack Syria; it has experienced enough in Iraq and Afghanistan. America cannot arbitrarily be engaged in military operations against systems of government that it condemns. These are governments that perhaps its people, as well as the rest of the world, do not condemn.
America and its allies tried this before in Libya, and saw its damning results. Today, a situation has arisen where Libyan revolutionaries cannot lift their heads due to the shame of the situation, and they consider themselves to be among the democratic revolutionaries. With such experiences as this in hand how can America feel that it can attack Syria? In the beginning of the Syrian crisis everyone joined together in condemning the government of Syria; however, since the time that the U.N. mission of Kofi Annan began, little by little it was proven to everyone that the situation was not the way that the enemies of Syria in Israel, America, Jordan and so on made it seem to be. Rather, these countries are meddling in the internal affairs of Syria, and this involvement is condemned by everyone.
What do you assess will be the results of America’s strengthening of its military presence in the region?
In my opinion, increasing American troops in the region will not have any strategic outcome that will lead to political consequences. Secondly, U.S. forces have been stationed in the region for nearly three decades. If we remember, during the height of the Iraqi Baathists’ imposed war against Iran [Translator’s comment: commonly known as the Iran-Iraq War], American forces entered the region at the request of the Kuwaiti government. After the imposed war and Iraq’s incursion into Kuwait, this presence officially and subsequently was greatly expanded, and it has been continually increasing over the past twenty or thirty years.
The problem is that it is not clear for what particular purpose the United States will make use of this military presence. Allow me to give an example. When Iranians mentioned the possibility of a threat close to the Strait of Hormuz, America announced that it would send cruisers, nuclear submarines, destroyers, aircraft carriers and all of its advanced technology to the region. However, the question was what was the meaning of all this equipment and presence in the region? If the purpose was that they wanted to come in order to prevent the closing of the Strait of Hormuz, this is not possible unless it should come at the price of engaging in war. However, this is not America’s intention.
Thirdly, the United States of America — observing its thirty years of strategic and geostrategic experience — must arrive at the conclusion that no one is afraid of these threats in the region any longer. Rather, the discussion is that these threats will be eliminated over time. I see that the leadership and direction of America in terms of classic geostrategic policies, which have been established in various phases since World War II, will not only fail to have a positive effect, but instead will leave behind a negative impact. From the experience of Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and so on, I see that all of the geostrategic postures mentioned led to failure in the end.
The latest reports released from the U.S. Congress reveal that Washington intends to increase its number of military forces in Kuwait. Greater supervision over the free flow of oil and dealing with the consequences of regional crises, whether in Syria or Iraq, have been declared the main reasons justifying this decision. In the interview you will read below, Khabar Online examines the reasons and the outcomes of America’s increased military presence in the region with Pirouz Mojtahedzadeh, a university professor and political affairs expert.
Al-Jazeera has announced that the goal of increasing the number of U.S. military forces is the U.S.’s way of dealing with the likely consequences of crises in the region, and the free flow of oil. In your opinion, from what angle should this be evaluated?
This issue has proven to us once again that the United States of America has a primarily militaristic view of the Middle East and its problems, and that the only solution it has in mind for solving these crises is suppression and use of military forces. However, if you look at Al-Jazeera and sites that are connected to the two political entities in the region (meaning Qatar and Saudi Arabia), which are largely subject to the desires and perspectives of the United States of America, they talk about the possibility that this increase in forces is for dealing with the expansion of crises in Syria and Iraq and so on… this view has been suggested, but it is not the truth.
In order to deal with the Syria and Iraq crises, the United States of America has had and continues to maintain a military perspective of total readiness. It has been increasing its military presence in the rest of the Persian Gulf countries through the sale of advanced weapons — unusable to the recipients — over the past 20 years.
My inference is that America wants to make the necessary preparations for the onset of broader crises in the region of the Arabian Peninsula — especially those related to Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Qatar — by increasing its forces in Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and other countries. On the other hand, in the precipitate conflicts which indicate the anxieties of the House of Saud, we see that they are nervously following developments in the Middle East. The House of Saud has stooped so low that the Saudi government is ordering its Egyptian embassy in writing to prevent the selection of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Egyptian presidential elections. This is a very significant issue. How can an embassy accomplish such a task? Surely no embassy in any country is allowed such interference, but when the Saudi government allows such a scandalous letter to go public and be revealed, it shows the extent of its nervousness. The historical record shows that such behavior as monitoring ongoing events indicates uncertainty in the survival of its own system of government.
The Americans also demonstrate to us the same view about the House of Saud that they have of themselves and the region, which is that Middle East developments (and their domino effect) have made them scared and worried about such changes happening in their own country, especially since there are signs indicating change is being brought to Saudi soil as well as the rest of the Persian Gulf. It is for this reason that the House of Saud has reacted in such a way, to the point of confronting the possible danger of collapse in Bahrain, which even the Americans objected to. In other words, the House of Saud is becoming so panic-stricken that even its allies will find fault with it.
This decision is not for monitoring developments in Syria and Iraq?
America has a large number of bases in the area. For dealing with the crises in Iraq and Syria, America can reinforce its bases in Iraq. However, it is reinforcing its bases in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. All of these things indicate that the United States of America is sensing danger for the rest of its allied regimes on the Arabian Peninsula, and that it wants to bolster its forces on the Peninsula in case it should need them later.
If one percent of the reason for increasing forces is in preparation for a military attack against Syria, is America or the West really prepared to attack Syria at the present time?
This strategic presumption is entirely off base. If America wanted to attack Syria, reason dictates that this action be done from bases in Iraq or Turkey — which are closer to Syria. The second issue is that America can’t attack Syria; it has experienced enough in Iraq and Afghanistan. America cannot arbitrarily be engaged in military operations against systems of government that it condemns. These are governments that perhaps its people, as well as the rest of the world, do not condemn.
America and its allies tried this before in Libya, and saw its damning results. Today, a situation has arisen where Libyan revolutionaries cannot lift their heads due to the shame of the situation, and they consider themselves to be among the democratic revolutionaries. With such experiences as this in hand how can America feel that it can attack Syria? In the beginning of the Syrian crisis everyone joined together in condemning the government of Syria; however, since the time that the U.N. mission of Kofi Annan began, little by little it was proven to everyone that the situation was not the way that the enemies of Syria in Israel, America, Jordan and so on made it seem to be. Rather, these countries are meddling in the internal affairs of Syria, and this involvement is condemned by everyone.
What do you assess will be the results of America’s strengthening of its military presence in the region?
In my opinion, increasing American troops in the region will not have any strategic outcome that will lead to political consequences. Secondly, U.S. forces have been stationed in the region for nearly three decades. If we remember, during the height of the Iraqi Baathists’ imposed war against Iran [Translator’s comment: commonly known as the Iran-Iraq War], American forces entered the region at the request of the Kuwaiti government. After the imposed war and Iraq’s incursion into Kuwait, this presence officially and subsequently was greatly expanded, and it has been continually increasing over the past twenty or thirty years.
The problem is that it is not clear for what particular purpose the United States will make use of this military presence. Allow me to give an example. When Iranians mentioned the possibility of a threat close to the Strait of Hormuz, America announced that it would send cruisers, nuclear submarines, destroyers, aircraft carriers and all of its advanced technology to the region. However, the question was what was the meaning of all this equipment and presence in the region? If the purpose was that they wanted to come in order to prevent the closing of the Strait of Hormuz, this is not possible unless it should come at the price of engaging in war. However, this is not America’s intention.
Thirdly, the United States of America — observing its thirty years of strategic and geostrategic experience — must arrive at the conclusion that no one is afraid of these threats in the region any longer. Rather, the discussion is that these threats will be eliminated over time. I see that the leadership and direction of America in terms of classic geostrategic policies, which have been established in various phases since World War II, will not only fail to have a positive effect, but instead will leave behind a negative impact. From the experience of Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and so on, I see that all of the geostrategic postures mentioned led to failure in the end.