TEHRAN - Bilveer Singh, a Singaporean professor, believes that following the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran has been acting as an anti-status quo regional power.

“Following the February 1979 Islamic Revolution that toppled the unpopular and pro-Western monarchy under the Shah, Iran has been seen as an anti-status quo regional power, namely, against the status quo of a largely Western-domination, almost akin to post-colonial control of the region especially of its oil and gas wealth as well as Western control of the strategic Persian Gulf region,” Singh, who specializes in international relations, tells the Tehran Times.

“The big difference is the paradigmatic shift and change; prior to the 1979 Revolution, especially under the Shah, Iran was seen as a status quo-oriented regional player supporting Western domination of the region, especially as an Anglo-American proxy,” he adds.
Following is the text of the interview:

Q:  How do you see the position of Iran as a regional player after the 1979 revolution?

Dependency on the West has led certain Arab states to be concessionary towards Israel and the West. A: The big difference is the paradigmatic shift and change; prior to the 1979 Revolution, especially under the Shah, Iran was seen as a status quo-oriented regional player supporting Western domination of the region, especially as an Anglo-American proxy, all the more it was the U.S. that emplaced the Shah into power following the CIA engineered a coup against then highly pro-Iranian nationalist Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh. Following the February 1979 Islamic Revolution that toppled the unpopular and pro-Western monarchy under the Shah, Iran has been seen as an anti-status quo regional power, namely, against the status quo of a largely Western-domination, almost akin to post-colonial control of the region especially of its oil and gas wealth as well as Western control of the strategic Persian Gulf region.

Q:  How do you evaluate the fallout of U.S. sanctions and pressures on Iran over the past four decades? Could Americans change Iran's policies?

A: The story of sanctions is a simple one: they don’t work and they hurt the wrong people; if the U.S. sanctions were aimed at hurting the Iranian government, then it failed as the only real victims were the people of Iran. However, for political optics and perception, and to demonstrate its power and sense of revenge, just as the West is doing now towards the Taliban in Afghanistan, the West has blindly continued with its sanctions against anyone it does not like; sanctions don’t’ work but because the West does not have any other weapon, short of a military one, it continues to roll out sanctions to have a ‘feel-good’ feeling that it is hurting ‘Islamic Iran’, all the more being cheered by the Israelis.

Q:   Given the recent escalations between U.S. and Russia over Ukraine coupled with Washington's policies to confront China, can you imagine that China and Russia as superpowers form an alliance with Iran as a regional power to contain the U.S.?

A: The only language the U.S. and the West understand is power and force. That is the only thing in their culture that led them to dominate the world since the 16th century; it is not morality that China and India have, but simple, brutal raw power. Hence, if anyone wants to confront the West especially the U.S., then you either built up all-around military power and if that is not sufficient, a loose or tight coalition is the only logical response. Yes, the only way to curtail, contain and rollback American power that has overstayed its welcome is for some kind of coalition involving Russia, China, Iran and other like-minded states; the message should be a simple one: if you play with military toys and coalitions such as NATO, so can we!

Q:  One of the goals of the Islamic Revolution in Iran was encouraging Islamic states to confront Israel and America. Why did political leaders in Arab countries prefer to make more concessions to Israel and the U.S. rather than resist?

A: The main reason is that the leaders from these Arab states are weak and highly dependent politically, economically and militarily on the West. Also, they lack legitimacy at home especially the feudalistic monarchies and the only way to survive is to depend on these Western powers that have been in the region for more than 100 years controlling their natural resources. These Arab states are dependencies and dependency on the West has led them to be concessionary towards Israel and the West.