Alwaght- The US is seeking to manage the tensions in the region, in a way that the West’s and its dependent regimes’ costs are reduced and, in contrast, expenses of the Axis of Resistance are increased. This approach is well proven by the behavior of the West and the Americans in dealing with the current tensions between Saudi Arabia and Iran as well as their handling of tensions sparking as a result of terrorist activities.
The tension management policy is known in the US’ political history, but until almost a decade ago it has not had an outstanding place in Washington’s foreign behavior, and only in very limited number of cases like Cuba Missile Crisis, taking place in 1340, it has been salient. However, in the present time and since the past decade, the policy of tension management has drawn a special focus of the US, and this is because of the emergence of setbacks in Washington’s other fields of policy.
In Afghanistan crisis and after the US’ aim of completely removing Taliban and imposing a full domination over Afghanistan has reached a dead end, Henry Kissinger, the former US Secretary of State, from 1973 to 1977, has published an article in the New York Times, saying that it was not the US duty to settle the crisis, rather, the US forces have the duty of focusing their efforts on managing the crises. The US next failure this time in Iraq has pushed George W. Bush, former President of the US, to officially announce that the policy of direct intervention in the countries could not yield results for Washington, and it would increase hatred of the US by public, specifically the Muslims, an issue which could bring about severe security consequences for the country. It was after this understanding that the US government signed a deal, dubbed US-Iraq Security Pact, to pull combat forces out of Iraq soil. Washington’s withdrawal of its forces from the Iraqi territory was completed by December 2011.
The tension control policy or in fact tension management has another side, too, which is creating tension in regions which are not favorable to the US. In Washington’s point of view an escalated tension could well shrink the rivals’ and opponents’ capabilities, sending them facing internal crises. Since 2008 when the policy of tension management was unveiled as the US’ new strategy in West Asia region, the interregional crisis not only has not subsided but also they saw a remarkable surge. The crises in Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Libya and some other Muslim countries in Africa have precisely taken place during this timeframe. In all of them a Western, and especially American, role is blatant as a force for causing and driving them.
In Yemen, the Americans not only have not assisted to de-escalation of crisis and the stopping of the Saudi attacks on the country but also they basically supported Saudi Arabia in this aggression. Aside from the fact that so far the US has not allowed the United Nations Security Council to adopt a resolution condemning Riyadh as the starter of the war, it has helped Saudi regime’s fighter jets at war with Yemen. The US fighters have repeatedly supplied the Saudi warplanes with fuel and bombs in the Yemeni skies. The American role in eruption and continuation of crisis is too obvious to need any elaboration. In the wake of Iraq’s security crisis in mid-June last year, Washington has called the ISIS terror group’s invasion of Iraq’s sovereignty and territory as a tribal matter, accusing the Iraqi government of fueling the sectarian conflict through its discrimination.
During the fight launched against ISIS by the Iraqi government and popular forces to recapture Salah al-Din and Diyala provinces, the Americans have not fired even a shot against ISIS, and at the exactly same time their weapons, ammunition, medical supplies and food crates several times have been aird r o pped in places where the terror fighters had been under the Iraqi forces’ siege. After ISIS was defeated, the Americans, who concluded that they were the losers of the Iraqi counterterrorism scene and observed the Iraqis united in their anti-ISIS battle, have started a new effort, declaring that they intended to support the Sunnis, a move to intensify the sectarian conflicts and separate the Sunni parts of Iraq.
They later participated in the anti-ISIS campaign in Ramadi, the center of the vast Al Anbar province. US fighters jets’ participation in Ramadi battle has led to complete devastation of the city, in fact , not only no human but also no creature has been left alive in the city. Actually, Ramadi was not liberated; it was wiped off the map.
The Americans are purporting that in the Saudi-Iranian spat they are busy working on easing the tensions; however, the truth is something else. The certain news reports suggest that during the nuclear talks of Iran with the P5+1, the US Secretary of State in his several trips to the Arab states and specifically Saudi Arabia has expressed the need for them to be united in the face of the Islamic Republic.
The Americans have openly told the Saudi officials that the post-nuclear-deal Iran would need more curbing, and this was a joint and simultaneous responsibility of the US and the Arab countries. The US Secretary of State and Defense Secretary in recent months have repeatedly announced officially that Iran posed a serious threat to the region’s Arab states and the US was working on strengthening them to guard against the Iranian threats.
In the recent tension between Saudi Arabia and Iran, John Kerry, while taking no influential step to contain Saudi regime’s extremism, an example of which is executing 47 opponent figures in a single day, has phoned Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, demanding that Tehran makes no anti-Saudi action. Therefore, the policy of curbing the tension actually means the policy of curbing Iran’s reaction.
The phone call made to Zarif by Federica Mogherini, the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, has come to do the same job. Philip Gordon, one of Kerry’s advisors in the Middle East affairs, has noted that the US could not restore Iran-Saudi Arabia’s relations to the pre-tension time. Gordon subtly added that they were not only in the current time observing a Shiite-Sunni schism but they were facing a division between Iran and Saudi Arabia.
The US policy in dealing with the recent Saudi-Iranian tension is based on three essential pillars. One is to fuel the tension by encouraging it through secret negotiations. The second pillar prescribes containing Iran’s behavior in the face of Saudi measures, tries to paint Tehran as being noticed as the weaker side. And the third aspect of Washington policy is directing the Iranian officials’ thoughts to drive them in to thinking that the US is adopting a neutral standing, or even it is weighing up to choose between Tehran and Riyadh, and it could prefer Tehran over Riyadh for its rational behavior.
But the Americans’ behavior, their strategic vision of the Saudi and Iranian distinctions and extreme proximity of Riyadh to Washington indicate that they are busy managing the conflict scene and widening the battlefield. The US behavior after Iran has fulfilled its nuclear deal commitments has made it crystal clear that the Americans are not seeking deescalated tension with Iran and they seek their and their allies’ interests through raising tensions with Iran.
The US intelligence services which dominate the Saudi intelligence had informed the American officials that the Sheikh Nimr Baqir al-Nimr would be e x e c u t ed soon. The Americans, who could admonish the Saudi regime for making such a move through just a phone call, have not done so, instead, after the execution, they have expressed their concerns over impacts that the Saudi action could leave on rise of tensions.
In fact, through such a stance Washington has sought to hold back Iran from a retaliatory act against Al Saud. Furthermore, the Americans are undoubtedly have hand in a number of Arab states’ severance of diplomatic ties with Iran. In Washington’s viewpoint, such measures could be used as part of an instrument to undermine Iran’s regional position. It should not be doubted that the US is developing other plans to intimidate Iran, one of such plans is to ramp up pressure against Shiite communities in different countries, such a move is, these days, noticeable in Nigeria, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Azerbaijan. The Americans are proceeding with both pressure and diplomacy simultaneously to obtain draw shifts in the behavior of their tough rival in the region.
Iran’s extremely diplomatic manner after the recent incidents and optimism reflected in the Iranian newspapers about Washington in the Iranian-Saudi dispute would mislead the American officials. They suppose that such a policy would yield results and Iran’s strength would be degraded in the face of such trivial regime as Saudi Arabia. The US fears Iran’s bold reaction to its proxies and assesses it as disrupting its position and policies.