Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Geostrategy between Iran and the USA academia

2020

Events interact constantly between the United States of America and Iran, and the two parties constantly rub their presence in the Middle East, especially in Iraq and Syria. Where the two parties meet on common interests and separate on conflicting interests. Last week, the United States killed Qassem Suleimani, commander of the Qods Force in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, the second figure in Iran, which was a blow and shock to the Iranians. The question remains about the possibility of engagement between the two sides and confrontation in an all-out war. This paper attempts to provide an illustration of the relationship between them and the potential for expected developments.

The Geostrategy between Iran and the USA Dr. Wael Shadid Strategist & Author 11/1/2020 Abstract Events interact constantly between the United States of America and Iran, and the two parties constantly rub their presence in the Middle East, especially in Iraq and Syria. Where the two parties meet on common interests and separate on conflicting interests. Last week, the United States killed Qassem Suleimani, commander of the Qods Force in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, the second figure in Iran, which was a blow and shock to the Iranians. The question remains about the possibility of engagement between the two sides and confrontation in an allout war. This paper attempts to provide an illustration of the relationship between them and the potential for expected developments. To define what is going on between the two countries, we need to analyze what was happening, what happened, and what is expected to happen. Initially, the killing of Suleimani was not a tactical operation of a tactical intent, but rather a strategic operation with far-reaching meaning and a message addressed to the Iranian leadership. Suleimani was not killed on Iranian or American soil, but on Iraqi soil, and therefore it is a process with a geostrategic dimension between the two parties. There is a cross between the geostrategic interests and other contradictions between them as well. Iranian and American interests in the Arab region intersect positively in the fight against ISIS, and in the goal of weakening the Arab nation. The American knows that the Arab nation is able to rise and possess the foundations and potential for establishing a renaissance again, and they know that Arabs’ fragmentation, weakness and staying sporadic guarantees the sustainability of America’s interests in the region, and guarantees the liquidity of their wealth to their banks. Likewise, Iran knows that extending its arms and influence and filling the strategic void in the Arab region will be at the expense of the cohesion of Arabs countries, and by keeping the Arab nation disjointed. On the other hand, both sides contradict many other geostrategic interests, including:  Expanding Iran’s influence in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen posing a threat to American influence in the region, while the Iranian expansion must be within what Washington allows    The permanent threat to Israel, support for the Palestinian resistance, and actual engagement with Israel in the 2006 war (through Hezbollah) all constitute a contradiction with the US strategy in the region of which Israel is part of USA and not an ally. Threatening oil interests in the Gulf region considered as violating one of the Grand American Strategy goals, which is securing permanent and safe access to the sources of oil. The development of the Iranian nuclear program is considered a red line by the American administration. Accordingly, Iran and the United States were managing their relationship through these negative and positive intersections with pinpoint accuracy and within these limits. The USA sees Iran as a bogeyman to intimidate the Arab countries of the region to milk them financially and to pass the sale of weapons to them. However, this bogyman must remain within the permissible size without inflation to remain beneficial to American interests. On the other hand, Iran believes that America provides it with facilities in exchange for a service to fight ISIS, such as allowing it to deepen its influence in Iraq and Syria, including cooperation in destroying major Arab Sunni cities in Iraq and Syria, and displacing millions of people under the pretext of getting rid of ISIS. Moreover, providing facilities for penetration, as in Yemen, where Iran extends its influence and achieve Washington Huge arms sales to the Arab alliance. Yet, Iran wanted to achieve other spheres of influence and enlarge its size. It incited its militias to shoot at some American bases in Iraq; started inciting its supporters to put forward the idea of removing foreign forces from Iraq; shoot down the USA unmanned plane; mobilized in areas close to the Golan heights; continued to supply Hezbollah with weapons; and Iran was accused of attacking oil installations in Saudi Arabia. All this generated a remarkable shift in the relationship with the United States, which dealt a severe and heavy blow to the Iranian leadership to correct the Iranian strategic path and restore Iranian influence to the permissible situation. Thus, what happened was a conflict over the size of influence in the region. This strike made Iran in real confusion as it is on the one hand in front of many American targets scattered around it, but on the other hand, it can deal with it only within hard determinant. Iran needs to search for targets that are possible to strike without making a fuss and a great reaction pushing the Americans to execute another severe blow. Therefore, it is expected that the retaliation will be accepted by the Americans to swallow easily. At the same time, Iran and its followers portray it as a great victory and achievement; and the crisis will end. But if Iran’s retaliations were painful for Washington, it would put itself and the region in a stage of extremely complex turmoil that would have unexpected results for everyone. Anyway, this is not possible as the Iranians are fluent in the art of pragmatism and the absorption of strikes to preserve the interests, influence and penetration they achieved in the Arab region over the past years. Yet, another influencer may enter, even after a while; it is the hard-liner conservatives (Christian Zionism) to find in this event an opportunity to develop matters towards a confrontation with Iran.