Farzad Poursaeid, speaking in an interview with the website of the Strategic Council on Foreign Relations, referred to the official announcement of the end of the US-led International Coalition military mission in Iraq and noted: For years, the United States has believed that the Persian Gulf and North Africa have no former value in securing its vital interests, and should reduce its direct military presence in the region so that it can move to East Asia to control the Chinese threat and strengthen its allies in that region.

He added: As Brzezinski has also said, the United States is not a buoyant force that can have the logistics and the cost of intervention and presence and military operations simultaneously in several strategic regions of the world. With the intensification of competition in the Middle East, this region is experiencing a transitional order, and under the current situation, the old order has lost its validity, there is no dominant order, and the variables that perpetuate the new regional order have not been formed yet.

Referring to the reduction of US dependence on the Persian Gulf oil, the importance of maintaining the existence and security of the Zionist regime and the impact of the region in exporting terrorism to the West as important security and strategic components for the US, the expert on the Middle East affairs said: US technological advances in satellites and drones have reduced the value of a direct physical presence to access security data and information.

Poursaeid referred to Iraq’s security values ​​in the regional equation, as well as its long borders with Iran and the possibility of controlling Iran geopolitically and reminded: Iraq is the strategic depth of Syria and Lebanon and the Axis of Resistance, and given such factors, the US embassy in Iraq With 16,000 employees and a large area, is the largest embassy in the world and the largest surveillance and espionage center in the region. This embassy remains the same because of the value and importance of Iraq.

He continued: According to what the United States has announced, 2,500 US troops will remain in Iraq, but they will change their functions into identifying, logistics, training and advising affairs. Maintaining such forces means that they can change functions again at a specific time and at a historic moment, and it cannot be said that the United States has no military presence in Iraq.

New US strategy in Iraq

Explaining the new US strategy in Iraq, after the apparent withdrawal of its troops from the country, the analyst of West Asia affairs added: If the nationalist forces and those who believe in Arab Iraq take over the government, the responsibility and function of the Resistance Axis will be somehow the responsibility of the Iraqi government.

Poursaeid said: Withdrawal of US troops from Iraq is a continuation of the US military withdrawal from the region, such as the withdrawal from Afghanistan, transfer of one of the most important US bases from Qatar to Jordan and the withdrawal of eight Patriot anti-missile systems from Iraq, Kuwait, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Simultaneously, the United States transferred the Zionist regime from Eurocom in Europe to Centcom in the Middle East. The Abraham Accords coincided with military presence of the Zionist regime in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf, and since the beginning of this year, we have witnessed the regime’s planes bombing the Hashad al-Shaabi forces several times.

He added: Transfer of the US base to Jordan means better protection of the security of the Zionist regime and allows the Iraqi airspace under the cover of NATO and Centcom to be placed at the disposal of the planes of that regime.

Consequences of US intervention in Iraq

Poursaeid pointed to the consequences of the US intervention in Iraq in the domestic and regional areas and continued: Given that the security order in the Middle East is in transition, with such interventions, realization of the desired order for the Axis of Resistance will be somewhat unexpected and will proceed towards the ideal model of the Zionist regime and its interests. Meanwhile, the desired order of Saudi Arabia is the balance of all-out forces against Iran. Even Saudi Arabia’s willingness to negotiate with Iran is not necessarily to reach an understanding, but seems to be aimed primarily at reducing Iran’s concerns and the cost of a security pact that Saudi Arabia is likely to have with the Zionist regime in the future.

Saying that Washington is seeking the supremacy of the Zionist regime in the region in the absence of its military presence, he said: To achieve such goals, they are working to push Iraq towards the Abraham Accords, and are seeking to change its military, security, and political arrangements and build capacity for it. Such a goal is possible with the hegemony of the Arab national political tendency in Iraq; an Iraqi which first has an Arab background and then a Shiite-Sunni.

The expert on West Asia affairs, commenting that the US intervention and the fact that it considers a political group to be superior in Iraq could create a security challenge for the country in the long run, noted: However, in terms of economic problems, we have been witnessing protests and rallies for the past two years, which led to the current situation. The winning political group in the Iraqi elections must bring its governing experience to the forefront and let the society test them. If the experiment is unsuccessful, \ most likely the luck may turn. Until then, we will not see widespread national protests in Iraq.