By Payman Yazdani

People support, strategic external partnership to push back U.S. threat against Iran: Kovacevic

January 14, 2018 - 10:10

TEHRAN - Filip Kovacevic, professor of geopolitics, University of San Francisco believes the only way to thwart the U.S. threats against Iran’s Establishment is to meet the needs of people inside and having strategic external partnerships. 

Following is the full text of the interview with him:

Q: What is the relation between the failure of the U.S. regional policy in the Middle East due to Iran's resistance and influence and the recent unrest in some of Iran's cities?

A: The policy is simple and has been in place for decades. It is a well-thumbed playbook that we have seen throughout Eastern Europe, North Africa, Central Asia, and Latin America. If you want to step out of the geopolitical framework imposed on you by the U.S. Empire, you pay for it dearly. Your country is destabilized, and your people are pushed into uncertainty, poverty, and, ultimately, into a civil war.

No one country can resist this devious strategy by itself. The only genuine, systemic threat to neoliberal globalism was the Soviet Union, but, in the period of several decades, it, too, was weakened internally through various corrupt officials and agents of influence until it ultimately broke up. This is the painful lesson for all political elites who oppose or want to oppose the Anglo-American 

Establishment. Not only do they have to be very careful and cautiously make their moves, but they also need both the support of their own people and the support of external allies. If ordinary people in a country are happy with their living standards, it is very difficult to sway them by internal subversive political actors sponsored by the outside powers, such as the U.S. In addition, it is only in a firm strategic partnership with Russia and China that Iran will be able to push back the threat to its political and economic stability in the long run. 

Q: What is the real goal behind Trump and the U.S. congress support to protesters in Iran?

A: The goal of any U.S. administration, be it Republic and Democrat, since the 1980s, has been the regime change in Iran. Everything else, soft or hard, overt or covert, under the cover or above the belt, are the manifold variations leading to that ultimate policy goal. There is no middle way nor peaceful coexistence over the extended period of time. Given the present geopolitical realities, peace, unfortunately, serves only as a preparation for war. 

The U.S. military and intelligence community are experiencing their renaissance under Donald Trump. The CIA director Mike Pompeo, very likely on the way to replacing Rex Tillerson and becoming the next U.S. Secretary of State, wanted a “more vicious CIA” (his words) and he is getting it. The war hawks in the Pentagon want more advanced conventional and nuclear weapons and they are getting them. As somebody wisely said – “if you hold a hammer in your hand, everything looks like a nail.”

 The day will come soon when all these new shining military tools will be used openly against all perceived opponents of the U.S. across the globe. Perhaps that day is already here. The protests in Iran may be just the beginning. The whole of Central Asia is likely to be enveloped in chaos and flames in the coming months and years. After the demise of ISIS in Syria, the terrorist fighters are on the move. Iran, Russia, China are all on their new target list. 

Q: The U.S. took the issue to the UN Security Council. To what extent is this in line with the UNSC responsibility asserted in the Charter of the UN? What was the results of the move for the U.S.?

A: This was an unsurprising diplomatic manoeuvre to attract the attention of the international community for the U.S. geopolitical agenda. However, it was clear from the beginning that no U.S. proposal would pass because of Russia’s veto in the U.N. Security Council. And the Chinese were not too happy about it either. All such U.S. initiatives will meet the same fate. 

And, if we look at the General Assembly of the U.N., the prospects for the U.S. success are also fairly low. The earlier Jerusalem decision was not supported even by some of the closest U.S. NATO allies. The European Union is weakly trying to develop some semblance of foreign policy independence, but I think it is probably too late to save it from fragmentation into the German- and the U.S.-dominated blocks. In any case, everybody knows that the U.N. is not the place where the key decisions will be made. If the U.S. wants to do something, it will do it on its own or with the “coalition of the willing.” The U.N. formalities will not stop it. We will see even more of that with the Trump administration than in the past. The U.S. is buying time until it is ready to strike. Vigilance based on the careful analysis of trends is therefore of utmost importance.