(AhlulBayt News Agency) - A senior political analyst based in Australia said that given the rash of recent threats by Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman against Iran, there is no doubt that the terrorist attacks in Tehran “were ordered directly” by the Wahhabi prince.
“There can be no doubt that Riyadh sent its proxy gangs into Tehran, just as the Wahhabi prince threatened,” Professor Tim Anderson, a lecturer of political economy at the University of Sydney said.
“There can be little doubt that the ISIS attacks on Tehran were ordered directly by the 31 year-old Saudi prince, described by British journalist Patrick Cockburn as having a reputation for impulsiveness, aggression and poor judgment,” he noted.
The following is the full text of the interview:
Q: As you know, on Wednesday, terrorists launched simultaneous attacks on Iran’s parliament building in downtown Tehran and on the mausoleum of Imam Khomeini, south of the city. The attacks that killed 17 Iranians and wounded dozens more were claimed by ISIS terrorist group. What do you think about these attacks and what is the reason behind such terror acts in Iran?
Anderson: The June 7 terrorist attacks on Iran's parliament and the Imam Khomeini mausoleum followed explicit threats by Saudi prince Mohammed bin Salman in early May, threats which were followed by the visit of US President Trump to Riyadh a few days later. Almost simultaneous with the terrorism came the Saudi attack on Qatar, supposedly for its new and modest opening of relations with Iran. There can be little doubt that the ISIS attacks on Tehran were ordered directly by the 31 year-old Saudi prince, described by British journalist Patrick Cockburn as having "a reputation for impulsiveness, aggression and poor judgment". DAESH-ISIS after all is little more than a trademark for just one of the sectarian mercenary groups run by Riyadh. The motivation for the aggression against Iran and the move on Qatar seems to be a display of imagined power, a rash attempt to discipline Saudi allies and a wish to prove to his US masters (after gaining implicit or explicit permission) that the Saud family and its gangs still have relevance in the region. Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, commenting on the terrorist's choice of Iran's parliament, said: "proxies attack what their masters despise most: the seat of democracy". Of course there is no parliament in Saudi Arabia.
Q: Saudi officials have repeatedly threatened Iran with military action. Recently, Saudi Deputy Crown Prince and Defense Minister Mohammed bin Salman said, "We will work to have the battle in Iran rather than in Saudi Arabia." Do you believe that Riyadh was behind the attacks?
Anderson: There can be no doubt that Riyadh sent its proxy gangs into Tehran, just as the Wahhabi prince threatened.
Q: It is no secret that the Daesh terrorist group, which claims to be Islamic but whose actions are anything but, has been created and massively supported by certain Western countries, particularly the US. How do you see Washington’s role in Tehran terror attacks?
Anderson: The Saudis cannot use a single bullet of the tens of billions of dollars of weapons they purchase from the US without explicit permission from Washington. The US boasts of law and agencies which regulate the use and 're-export' of all its weapons. Further, President Trump, in his crude manner, when pretending to express public sympathy with the Iranian people, effectively said "you deserved it". If there were a court of law for such crimes Donald Trump would be indicted as an accessory to the Wahhabi prince.
Q: Generally, what objectives is the US government trying to achieve in the Middle East region?
Anderson: That is not clear, as the US is losing its war on Syria, is running out of options in Iraq and the US-backed Saudi aggression against Yemen, while immensely destructive, is not gaining strategic ground. Trump seemed to understand much of this last year; but since he came to the presidency his practice seems to have been captured by old-school cold warriors. Trump himself seems to have become a mouthpiece for others in the 'deep state'. The original plan was to eliminate all the independent states of the region, under the Bush-regime's declared vision of a 'New Middle East'. That plan seemed to be gaining some ground with the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the destruction of Libya. But Israel's 2006 attempt to subjugate Lebanon failed, as did the coordinated 'disarmament' operation against Iran. In my view Syria's resistance and resurgence, and the regional alliance forged by this long war, really signals the collapse of Washington's dream for a US-dominated 'New Middle East'.
Professor Tim Anderson is a distinguished author and senior lecturer of political economy at the University of Sydney, Australia. Author of the 'The Dirty War on Syria', he has been largely published on various issues particularly the Syrian crisis.