Ahlulbayt News Agency: On Friday, the United Nations Security Council held an emergency session at the demand of the US to discuss Iran unrest. Given the significance of the push by Western countries to intervene further in the Iranian affairs and in a bid to discuss their aims and future scenarios, Alwaght arranged an interview with Ahmad Zarean, an international affairs expert and the director of Tehran-based Andisheh Sazan-e-Nour Institute for Strategic Studies.
Q: What was the US and European aim behind calling for this session?
Zarean: For years, Iran has faced a multifaceted hybrid warfare campaign orchestrated by the United States. This campaign encompasses hard, semi-hard, and soft power dimensions. A significant component involves exerting political pressure, both regionally and internationally, against the Islamic Republic. The United States has attempted to leverage various tools, including calling for extraordinary UN Security Council sessions, to isolate Iran politically. Their aim is to translate destabilizing actions carried out by proxy forces within Iran into a diplomatic victory and a global consensus against Iran. Fortunately, this effort has failed and will continue to fail. The majority of nations recognize the deceptive nature of American actions and their double standards regarding human rights. This explains the support Iran received from countries like China, Russia, and Pakistan during this particular session. Ultimately, Washington’s project to create political pressure and isolate Iran through these proceedings has been unsuccessful.
Q: What was behind inviting two largely notorious figures of Iranian opposition whose record of calls for violence and US military intervention and economic sanctions against Iran was quite clear?
Zarean: A significant challenge for Washington in attempting to foment unrest in Iran is its lack of a reliable opposition force; a credible political and social movement with unified leadership with the capability to mobilize demonstrations in Tehran and elsewhere. So, they had to invest in utterly bankrupt figures who possess neither a domestic social base, popularity, acceptance, nor influence among the Iranian people. Figures like Ahmad Batebi, Masih Alinejad, who fled the country years ago during 2009 protests, lack any genuine understanding of the current Iranian situation, nor are they recognized or even known within Iran. The vast majority of the Iranians are unfamiliar with someone like Batebi. The situation regarding the Pahlavi movement is so precarious that Western powers were unwilling to invite him as the so-called representative of the opposition to the United Nations Security Council, recognizing his deeply unpopular and discredited image. The Iranian people’s historical memory simply does not embrace the Pahlavi dynasty, given the dark legacy of the Reza Shah and his Son Mohammad Reza Shah. Therefore, you see why they did not invite Reza Pahlavi to the Security Council. Instead, they rely on these two failed individuals. This demonstrates Washington’s inability to cultivate a strong opposition force. As a result, they are compelled to present these individuals to the international community as representatives of the Iranian people, a nation global intelligence agencies, research institutes, and nations themselves understand to be false. These figures hold no standing within Iran, possess no political weight or credibility, and their very presence at the Security Council is a clear indication of the failure of the United States policy regarding recent riots.
Q: You talked about double standards in Human rights advocacy. Over the past two years, the US vetoed several motions to stop Israeli genocidal war on Gaza at the UNSC. How do you see this double-standard approach?
Zarean: The double standard applied by the United States and its Western, like Britain, France, and Germany, is a well-established pattern. We have seen the violent suppression of protests in Ferguson, and similar incidents have occurred in both Britain and France. These nations have a long history of suppressing peaceful demonstrations, let alone dealing with instances of unrest or armed actions.
The multiple interpretations of human rights standards are ultimately driven by strategic interests: to weaken the Islamic Republic of Iran in the region, thereby securing the objectives of the Zionist regime. We observe how unrest in Iran are leveraged to exert pressure on Iran. Even within United States’ own allies, similar events occur, yet are conveniently ignored. The recent visit of Mohammed bin Salman to Washington provides a clear example: when questioned about the Khashoggi assassination in Saudi Arabia in 2018, Trump effectively dismissed the concerns, redirecting the focus to Saudi investment in the US. This demonstrates a clear United States strategy: to exploit human rights as a pretext for pressuring and weakening Iran and realizing the agenda of the Israeli regime. This strategy has, and will continue to be, demonstrably unsuccessful; it is a futile exercise this time too.
Q: While many observers call the recent Iran riots a sequel to the 12-day Israeli and American war on Iran and even the documents about Mossad and CIA involvement are undeniable given the admission of the Israeli and American intelligence agencies, Westerners, especially the Americans talk about options on the table against Iran. How likely are Washington and Tel Aviv to act on their threats? How will be the Iranian response to such aggression?
Zarean: They ushered in a phased war against Iran starting with 12-day war in June. That earlier phase involved aerial bombardment, targeted assassinations of military leaders, and a systematic weakening of Iranian security apparatus. The subsequent aim was to instigate internal chaos, leveraging a network of operatives to pressure Iran from both external and internal fronts, a deliberate attempt to destabilize and ultimately dismantle the Islamic Republic. That plan failed, however. They then changed their war plan. Instead of initiating with overt military action, the current strategy focuses on activating internal networks to generate unrest, creating a diversion that would drain Iran’s military and security resources. The goal was to exacerbate social divisions and create a window for renewed military intervention. Had this unrest continued unchecked, and the populace hand not maintained its vigilance and discernment, a military escalation would have undoubtedly resumed. So, The United States and Israel’s intent remains to re-ignite these riots and reactivate remnant sleeper cells, paving the way for a complementary military operation. However, replicating the scale of unrest seen in January 7 and 8 is highly improbable. The attempted mobilization last Thursday demonstrated the resilience of the Iranian nation; the expected disruptions simply did not materialize. Therefore, the project to destabilize the country has faltered, which significantly diminishes the likelihood of a external military intervention. My analysis is that this particular scenario is losing momentum.
But the reason why they keep underscoring their threats is because they want to send messages to the rioters and their operatives in Iran that the plan is still on the table and if they can sink the country in chaos and exhaust the security and military forces, the West will keep focusing on the same scenario. But I need to reiterate that since people separated ways from the rioters and the security and intelligence forces, with support of people, have dealt heavy blows to the secret mercenary networks, the scenario of a foreign military action should be ruled out.
/129
Your Comment