Statements by the US President Barack Obama on 12 March 2016 AD had brought the attention of Iranian press and gained an expanded interest of the Iranian strategic studies centers to the extent that the analyses started to come just hours after the release of these statements. The statements reveal a major impact in the vision of political decision makers in Iran.
America will not be Batman again.
Obama’s vision which he recently announced about the future of the Middle East is about borrowing the story of Batman movie (dark night), where he compared the Middle East as Gotham City that submerged in corruption and dominated by gangs of killers where the Joker comes and burns the whole city. In this respect, he believes that ”ISIS” is the Joker of the Middle East, although the story of the film revolves around the appearance of Batman, which addresses the Joker. However, Obama states that America will not repeat playing the role of the Batman in the Middle East. He explains that America’s allies in Europe and the Middle East should learn to rely on themselves. Obama adds that a number of America’s allies in the Middle East and Europe also want to involve America in the sectarian conflicts that have nothing to do with American interests.
This is not the first time where Obama is talking about isolationism strategy in the America’s foreign policy. However, Obama was rarely clear about these issues to speak with such candor. He talked about the lack of military intervention in Syria, the lack of engagement with Moscow about Ukrainian Affairs, America’s mistake in supporting Libya attacks and not intervening in the Middle East affairs in general.
Headlines of Iranian newspapers concentrated on what relates to Saudi Arabia of these statements welcoming it warmly; where quoted Obama’s saying that Riyadh has to learn how to participate with Iran in the region.
The World of Iranian Industry newspaper has commented on Obama’s point of view that Iran and Saudi Arabia must give each other a share in the region, to get a kind of reconciliation; Moreover, concerning support Saudi Arabia against Iran he said “this does not mean that we will enter the field by military to achieve the desired objectives, and this is not from the interests of the United States nor Middle East”.
Although Obama’s vision toward the struggles of Middle East focuses on the Iranian and Saudi Arabia performance, which represents the spark of sectarian war in the region, he tacitly encourages the conflicting parties to complete their approach until the end. It is probably he wants to imply that there will be no international intervention. However, it seems that Obama forgot all forms of international intervention as conflict resolution policies, international mediation, or even resorting to the Security Council and the International Tribunal. It seems that his mind translated the international intervention into only one-strategy of “disarm”.
Obama who wants to appear himself reasonable and impartial by not intervening in the sectarian conflicts, he is in fact, fueling war engine by his alleged ignoring. There is no doubt that there is a historical and moral responsibility which lies on the weapons manufacturing major countries, and to look on what targets their weapons has achieved and to whom has been given. If the US wants to focus on its own affairs and not to intervene in losing conflicts, it should not involve itself in the Middle East to achieve its interests enjoying its resources, and not to quell the flames.
Iranian understanding of Obama’s announcements focused on the non-interference policy making Iranian hand accessible to Iraq. This appears clearly, where Obama sees Iraq as an Iranian bailiwick, then Syria partially. That is what Iranians understood from Obama’s conviction that Ukraine is a Russian bailiwick. In fact, there is not permission given to major and regional powers to intervene the other countries bailiwicks. It is possible view what goes on, in the world, as a new age of colonial policies which works on the principle of controlling the destinies of other countries by another one in the same region, while other powerful states should not be overlap with bailiwicks of other countries.
Perhaps the Russian announcement of withdrawing from Syria is an implementation of a prior agreement with the United States, reflected by Obama’s speech before implementing its provisions, and if so, what is the role that has been agreed upon so for Iran to play?. Moreover, where are its bailiwicks borders? Are Obama’s phrases about the need of Saudi-Iranian participation actually mean that there is an understanding of all parties about the nature of this participation? What Obama literally said is that: “Saudi Arabia must to learn how to Participate with Iran”, which suggests that there was an agreement that took place behind the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia which the Kingdom was absent to be in, and must to adapt with.
Iranians show in their speaking about Russian withdrawal from Syria that they came late and have left early, which tacitly implies that they are staying on the Syrian arena and will not follow their allies.
This matter needs further clarifying and understandings, perhaps the visit of US President Obama to Riyadh at the end of April will put many things in their positions since there is no demarcation of the Middle East without the consultation of Riyadh, whatever the extent of the Iranian-American understanding looks like.
Khabargazare Tasneem, Obama: Arestan Baid Yad Bagerd Chagona Ba Iran der Mantegha Saheem Shod, http://soo.gd/g3zd
Paiga Khabre Tahlele, Rouse Deer Amd Zoud Raft, http://soo.gd/RI61
