Iran is strategically superior while Washington is getting confused

Written by Nasser Kandil,

According to what was announced by the US President Donald Trump, the Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and the National Security Adviser John Bolton, it is supposed that now we are on the fifth day of a full war between America and Iran. As a result of what the Gulf witnesses as security events as targeting Saudi – Emirati vital oil interests that described by them as attacks that target the international security and peace and that expose the global oil trade to risk, along with the attacks that targeted Aramco oil pipeline which forms the reserve line for transferring the Saudi oil to avoid passing across Hormuz Strait towards the Red Sea, and the responsibility of Ansar Allah, in addition to what was announced by Trump, Pompeo, and Bolton, every targeting of Washington’s allies interests by Iran’s proxies will expose Iran to sever consequences, but the targeting has been occurred and there is no war.

Tehran made two surprising moves in the language of chess; the first one is its announcement after the abolition of the exemptions that were applied on the imports of gas and oil from Iran of a 60- day period after which Iran will withdraw from the nuclear agreement and return to the high enrichment of uranium, which means its closeness to have a sufficient quantity and quality for manufacturing a nuclear bomb. The second move is the attempt of its allies who have lines of engagement with Washington and its allies to raise the escalation as the confrontation between Ansar Allah and Saudi Arabia and UAE on one hand, and the confrontation being waged by the Iraqi resistance forces to impose the withdrawal of the American troops in order to involve in the engagement which Washington threated of on the other hand.

It was enough to conclude that Washington is confused, this was clear when Mike Pompeo on the second day of the Gulf attacks in a joint press conference with the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Sochi was ignoring that a major event is taking place in the area to which Washington sent its aircraft carriers and its destroyers as an interpretation of its threats of war “ if” An attack on American interests from an Iranian-led force, whether it’s an Iranian proper or it’s an entity that is controlled by the Iranians, we will hold the responsible party accountable”. Washington’s confusion was clear too when Pompeo was asked during the conference about what is going on in the Gulf, he replied:  he had no details and that his administration is waiting for the results of investigations. Therefore, it is normal to ask for how long does the country which wants to go to war wait for the results of investigation, usually it presents the pretext to accuse and to fire the first shot. Did Washington wait for the investigation about the usage of the chemical weapons in Syria before the mobilization of its destroyers and launching missiles?

It is clear that Tehran is aware of the balances of forces which rule the region’s equations, and aware that Washington in its escalating steps granted it the opportunity to use the surplus power possesses by the resistance axis in order to entangle its issues together, and in order to link any attempt of negotiation with these entangled issues. In other words, the cessation of Ansar Allah’s attacks is linked with the cessation of the Saudi-Emirati aggression, and the stopping of the escalating messages in Iraq is linked with the American withdrawal from it, in addition to any solution that secures Iran’s oil exports and the flow of funds and ensures the de-escalation of the issue of the nuclear program. Despite of that, this did not prevent Israel from committing military riots in Syria and from sending accusations to the Syrian government by the armed groups of using chemical weapons.

The region will witness sixty coming days on a hot tin that will be interrupted by the G20 summit after nearly a month between the US and the Russian Presidents. This will be an appropriate time to draw settlements by either a mutual consent, or by condoning, or by linking the conflict as conditions for de-escalation.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,