Failure of US Global Security Strategy

2021/09/13 | interview, political, top news

Strategic Council Online - Interview: A professor of the University of Tehran commenting about challenges of the US political-military strategy in the world said: After the Vietnam War, the US put a strategy on the agenda based on which it decided to arm its allies to ensure its security; but Washington’s decision to withdraw its troops from Iraq and Afghanistan seems to be a sign of the failure of that strategy.

Dr. Fouad Izadi, speaking in an interview with the website of the Strategic Council on Foreign Relations, stated: The United States has been pursuing such strategy in its foreign policy since World War II, or perhaps even before that. Since then, the United States has been in contact with military institutions of the countries with the reason that they wanted to help them, and would manage and direct the middle and upper-class military personnel. For this reason, the White House would monitor the military institutions of the countries as much as it could.

Noting that the US policy is still going on, Izadi added: Washington continues to have this policy on its agenda to infiltrate the military institutions of the countries under the pretext of military aid.

The Tehran University professor explained: The policy of US military influence is aimed at staging a military coup and taking over the power if its civilian government ever goes in the wrong direction.

He continued: An example of this US policy can be seen in Chile, where Mr. Pinochet, the Minister of Defense of the Allende administration, staged a coup against him, or in Egypt, where al-Sisi, who was the Minister of Defense of Mohamed Morsi, staged a coup.

The expert on US affairs, explaining that another policy called “state-building” is also being pursued by that country, said: This policy is now being challenged given the experience of Afghanistan and Iraq. The policy of state-building means that when a powerful country is dissatisfied with the government of another country and does not see it compatible with its interests, tries to change that government and build a government that can be both controlled and monitor other institutions.

Emphasizing that the United States implemented this policy in Afghanistan but it failed, Izadi continued: After such a scandalous defeat, Joe Biden declared several times last month that this policy of state-building was a policy that had not given an answer. Therefore, the experience of the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan has changed the eyes of the US statesmen on this policy of state-building, but it still has the policy of infiltrating and arming its allies on the agenda.

Asked whether Washington’s policies would change with the change of parties, the university professor said: There has been no change in the policy of communication and influence in the military institutions of the countries, neither among Democrats nor Republicans over the past few decades. In terms of state-building policy, it is unlikely that with the change of administration and establishment of a Republican government, they will want to re-experience state-building policy.

He continued: The US plan to leave Afghanistan was designed during the Republican era, and the Republican Party had decided that they should leave Afghanistan.

Noting that Donald Trump was not interested in spending for other countries, Izadi said: But that was Trump’s characteristic and not the main body of the Republicans. As far as the Democrats are concerned, we are witnessing that they have no problem with such spending.

In response to the question that failure of the US policies in Iraq and Afghanistan has brought the power of that country under question, the professor of the University of Tehran said: Washington suffered a heavy defeat with its withdrawal from Afghanistan. Because they could not even take out those to whom they had promised support and whom worked for them. The US State Department said those who had visa and worked for Washington in Afghanistan were mostly relocated to other countries, such as Mexico and Uganda, and were not expected to be taken to the United States.

In conclusion, Izadi stressed that the US withdrawal from Afghanistan without any achievement at a cost of 2 trillion dollars and killing of several thousand Americans after 20 years, is a catastrophe for that country’s foreign policy.

0 Comments

Submit a Comment

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

LATEST CONTENT

Reasons Why the Netanyahu Govt Is Preventing a Ceasefire Agreement

Strategic Council Online – Opinion: The last round of indirect negotiations between Hamas officials and the Zionist regime, which was conducted in Cairo with the mediation of Qatar, Egypt, and the United States, was unsuccessful due to the Zionists’ “Obstruction.”
Hamid Khoshayand, an expert on regional issues

Claims of a US Arms Embargo against Zionist Regime Reveal America’s Deception

Strategic Council Online – Interview: An expert on international issues said that the US claims to have suspended sending weapons to the Zionist regime is a political deception to silence public opinion because this would make no difference in the nature of Washington’s support for the Zionist army and the existence of this regime.

Goals of Blinken’s Recent Trip to Saudi Arabia

Strategic Council Online—Interview: A researcher of Saudi affairs said that US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken arrived in Riyadh recently during a regional trip and had consultations with the Riyadh officials. It seems that one of the items on the agenda between Saudi Arabia and America, in addition to the Gaza war, is the process of normalizing relations between the Israeli regime and the Arab kingdom.

Dr. Kharrazi's response to the new US position on Iran's nuclear program:
It Was America That Abandoned Nuclear Diplomacy/ Iran Also Considers Diplomacy the Best Approach

Strategic Council Online: The President of the Strategic Council on Foreign Relations stated: “The US State Department spokesperson, after my interview with Al Jazeera, reiterated their past remarks, stating that they won’t allow Iran to build nuclear weapons, but ultimately said diplomacy is the best approach. Yes, we too prefer diplomacy since based on the Fatwa of our Supreme Leader are not for nuclear weapons; rather, we are advocates of diplomacy to make the Middle East a nuclear-free region. But, in case the Israeli regime threatens us with nuclear weapons, we surely cannot sit idle and wait for permission from others.”

Europe’s Confusion in Securing Bab al-Mandab Strait and the Red Sea

Strategic Council Online – Opinion: The strategic Strait of Bab al-Mandab and the Red Sea have recently faced serious problems and crises due to the Gaza war. This is because of the protectionist approach of the Yemeni army forces toward Palestine, which, since the beginning of the Israeli regime’s attacks on the Gaza Strip, has included attacks on ships bound for or from the origin of the regime in the Red Sea.
They said they will continue their attacks until the Israeli regime’s military aggression in the Gaza Strip ends. The United States, as the most important supporter of the Israeli regime, was the first country to respond to this policy of Yemeni army forces and tried to form a global coalition to counter these attacks under the cover of supporting freedom of navigation, which, of course, failed because of conflicts of interests of Western countries and ended in the actions of the US and British attacks on positions in Yemen. Of course, although European countries were not seriously involved in the American coalition, they have numerous and complex interests in this inflammatory, and as a result, have adopted a particular and independent approach.
Dr. Mohammad Mehdi Mazaheri – University Professor

The prospect of Possible Departure of Hamas Political Office from Qatar

Strategic Council Online – Interview: An expert on regional issues said Qatari authorities will definitely resist Western pressure to expel Hamas leaders from their territory, and probably the United States will not move towards a zero-hundred equation in this regard because if the Hamas leaders remain in Qatar, which is an ally of the United States, is better than moving to a country outside the power of the United States to exert pressure.

Loading

Últimas publicaciones

Reasons Why the Netanyahu Govt Is Preventing a Ceasefire Agreement

Strategic Council Online – Opinion: The last round of indirect negotiations between Hamas officials and the Zionist regime, which was conducted in Cairo with the mediation of Qatar, Egypt, and the United States, was unsuccessful due to the Zionists’ “Obstruction.”
Hamid Khoshayand, an expert on regional issues

Claims of a US Arms Embargo against Zionist Regime Reveal America’s Deception

Strategic Council Online – Interview: An expert on international issues said that the US claims to have suspended sending weapons to the Zionist regime is a political deception to silence public opinion because this would make no difference in the nature of Washington’s support for the Zionist army and the existence of this regime.

Goals of Blinken’s Recent Trip to Saudi Arabia

Strategic Council Online—Interview: A researcher of Saudi affairs said that US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken arrived in Riyadh recently during a regional trip and had consultations with the Riyadh officials. It seems that one of the items on the agenda between Saudi Arabia and America, in addition to the Gaza war, is the process of normalizing relations between the Israeli regime and the Arab kingdom.

Dr. Kharrazi's response to the new US position on Iran's nuclear program:
It Was America That Abandoned Nuclear Diplomacy/ Iran Also Considers Diplomacy the Best Approach

Strategic Council Online: The President of the Strategic Council on Foreign Relations stated: “The US State Department spokesperson, after my interview with Al Jazeera, reiterated their past remarks, stating that they won’t allow Iran to build nuclear weapons, but ultimately said diplomacy is the best approach. Yes, we too prefer diplomacy since based on the Fatwa of our Supreme Leader are not for nuclear weapons; rather, we are advocates of diplomacy to make the Middle East a nuclear-free region. But, in case the Israeli regime threatens us with nuclear weapons, we surely cannot sit idle and wait for permission from others.”

Europe’s Confusion in Securing Bab al-Mandab Strait and the Red Sea

Strategic Council Online – Opinion: The strategic Strait of Bab al-Mandab and the Red Sea have recently faced serious problems and crises due to the Gaza war. This is because of the protectionist approach of the Yemeni army forces toward Palestine, which, since the beginning of the Israeli regime’s attacks on the Gaza Strip, has included attacks on ships bound for or from the origin of the regime in the Red Sea.
They said they will continue their attacks until the Israeli regime’s military aggression in the Gaza Strip ends. The United States, as the most important supporter of the Israeli regime, was the first country to respond to this policy of Yemeni army forces and tried to form a global coalition to counter these attacks under the cover of supporting freedom of navigation, which, of course, failed because of conflicts of interests of Western countries and ended in the actions of the US and British attacks on positions in Yemen. Of course, although European countries were not seriously involved in the American coalition, they have numerous and complex interests in this inflammatory, and as a result, have adopted a particular and independent approach.
Dr. Mohammad Mehdi Mazaheri – University Professor

The prospect of Possible Departure of Hamas Political Office from Qatar

Strategic Council Online – Interview: An expert on regional issues said Qatari authorities will definitely resist Western pressure to expel Hamas leaders from their territory, and probably the United States will not move towards a zero-hundred equation in this regard because if the Hamas leaders remain in Qatar, which is an ally of the United States, is better than moving to a country outside the power of the United States to exert pressure.

Loading