Date :Thursday, September 21st, 2017 | Time : 21:21 |ID: 53240 | Print

When the sun set on neo-imperial America and Iran rose a geopolitical giant

SHAFAQNA – If the floor of the UNGA this September 2017 will long echo US President Donald Trump’s military grandstanding versus not one, but two military giants: Iran and North Korea, it is likely his tirade will be remembered as America’s empire’s last sunset.

While I’m sure President Trump intended his address to project America’s hegemonic power to the extent that all nations would come to understand the pointlessness of their resistance, I fear such bombastic bravado betrays Washington’s deep seated insecurity. Whether the United States cares to admit it or not its power is waning.

Might it be Washington’s propensity to understand foreign policy making from a military perspective or its inability to assert control on the many fronts it opened up overseas, America is paying the price of its relentless ambitions. Never mind the fact that a formerly gullible public has now caught on with the many grave lies neocons posited so that wars could be waged.

Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen … how many wars can one country run before War becomes its sole raison d’etre – the very matrix upon which its existence is anchored, weaved, and more importantly architected? There lie I would say America’s demise.

America’s love affair with its military complex will prove to be its Achilles’ heel. Empires I’m afraid are bound to be disappeared, and territorial ambitions broken before that of others. The US, one may argue, is living on borrowed time now that other powers have emerged – pertinent to this article, the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Allow me to offer a theory to America’s antagonism towards Iran. Context here is essential … let us just assume, if only for a second that there is more to Washington’s ire than a democratic hungering, especially if we consider that Iran sits a well adjusted democracy. If we are to be rational in our analysis we must recognise that America’s fall out with Iran has very little to do with the fashion of its governance and everything to do with the fact that Iran proclaimed itself sovereign and independent in its territory.

Such independence of course translated into the nationalisation of Iran’s natural resources and a revamp of its position towards western capitals. While such decision certainly left a sizeable gap in Her Majesty’s coffer (aka Great Britain) one ought to be careful when denying a country the right to self-governance  – especially since western democracies thrived on the very principle of sovereign political self-determination.

Washington-Iran binary exists out of a need to control natural resources and military waterways. I would ask here some licence from readers as I am forced to simplify what otherwise would require several books..

To better appreciate America’s profound antipathy for Iran one must cast one’s eyes to pre-1979 Iran, when the Shah still entertained his western guests to the tune of lavish parties and obscene displays of wealth.

A giant sitting at the heart of the Islamic world, Iran’s wealth guarantees that its leadership will enjoy tremendous political traction both regionally and on the global scene … it is how such traction would manifest which irks the United States.

Earlier this August Henry Kissinger argued that Iran would soon rise an empire should ISIS be destroyed, betraying Washington’s most inner fear … and one may even find America’s direct ties to Terror. It is rather clear from Kissinger’s comments that ISIS has acted somewhat of a buffer to Iran’s geopolitical reach in the Greater Middle East region.

He wrote: “The outside world’s war with Isis can serve as an illustration. Most non-Isis powers — including Shia Iran and the leading Sunni states — agree on the need to destroy it. But which entity is supposed to inherit its territory? A coalition of Sunnis? Or a sphere of influence dominated by Iran?

I read two things in those comments:

One, Kissinger still holds to the binary architecture he believes will best guarantee regional insolvency, and thus secure America’s dominance – that notion that Sunni and Shia Islam must absolutely exist in antagonism when really so very few differences set them apart. Sectarianism continues to serve as an asymmetrical weapon of war, it is not contextual to the Islamic world, and it certainly has nothing to do with how nations have defined their sovereign identity.

Two, Kissinger exposed America’s inherent fear that an independent Iran will serve as both a model and an inspiration for other nations in the immediate region to stand free within their borders. ISIS we might as well come to terms with is nothing but a valuable asset wielded by imperial powers to together justify military interventionism, and sow discord at the heart of a region with immense geopolitical power.

In short, America’s future relevance is reliant upon Washington’s ability to distort ideologies, explode territorialities and promote sectarian-based terrorism in the Mid-East. Iran’s re-emergence onto the regional and international scene is here but a by-product of America’s imperial folly.

Contrary to common belief Iran does not harbour colonial ambitions. Iran in fact has been a fervent advocate for political independence on the basis it has claimed its own away from tyranny. In a speech at a conference on Palestine in late February both Ayatollah Khamenei and Ali Larijani insisted upon the need to promote independence and political self-determination as the bedrock of peace and stability.

Such position was echoed by Seyed Ibrahim Raisi, custodian and chairman of Astan Quds Razavi when he insisted to me that “Iran does not seek to export its system of governance only our principles of justice and fair representation.”

He added: “Iran will always come to the help of those who call upon it.”

And NO Mr Kissinger, Iran is by no mean radical in its make-up. It may still be a working democratic progress … which nation can claim to democratic absolutism? But Iran is nevertheless a far more progressive state than many of the US so-called ‘friends’ – mainly the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

By Catherine Shakdam – Director Shafaqna Institute of Middle Eastern Studies

This articles was published first on RT International

0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *