[size=30]Iran and America ... and the retail tradeBy Khairallah Khairallah July 19, 2019 [/size]
Iran and America ... and the retail trade
Does Iran mean that its ballistic missiles mean that the problem is over and that all the sanctions will be lifted, and billions of dollars will be poured on it again, as happened in the era of Barack Obama.
Iran has been able to exploit all the opportunities it has had in the region
The agreement on the Iranian nuclear file itself was not the problem one day. Ballistic missiles are not the title of the problem now. The problem has always been Iranian behavior beyond the borders of Iran. The problem was specifically the US launching more of Iran's hand outside its borders once the nuclear deal was reached. There, then, is simply the other file that the region suffers, especially the Arab countries and the Arab Gulf countries in particular. The name of this Iranian behavior file is no more. Is Iran a normal and normal country capable of establishing healthy and healthy relations with its close and distant neighbors ... or does it have something to export beyond its borders, without backwardness and misery?
Over time, it turns out that the only goods that Iran can export are chaos and investment in the emergence of sectarian militias. The United States has turned a blind eye to it since 1979, but Iran has rewarded its behavior. The George W. Bush administration's sin lies in handing over Iraq a silver dish to Iran, radically different from the regional balance. The administration of Barack Obama came to complete this task by withdrawing militarily from Iraq in 2011, and then considering the agreement on the nuclear file a goal in itself.
The Obama administration has ignored all considerations in order to avoid disturbing Iran during secret and public negotiations on its nuclear program. Iraqis, Syrians, Lebanese and Yemenis paid the price for this disregard. The people of Bahrain would have paid the price, too, had it not been for the bold step taken by Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies to prevent the fall of Manama into the hands of the mob. At that time, in March 2011, the Pearl Roundabout in the center of the capital was turned into a hotbed of tension to spread chaos throughout Bahrain and overthrow the regime under American silence.
The Obama administration has been silent, and the Bush administration has accepted the Iranian actions in Lebanon. The United States did not want to know one day what Hezbollah was doing. It was the Lebanese people who faced the party after the assassination of Rafik Hariri and his comrades in February 2005. When the Lebanese needed genuine US support in May 2008, when the Beirut and Jabal invasions took place, the Bush administration did not remain silent. Has paid Lebanon and is still paying for the invasion that came immediately after Hezbollah, Iran, was able to fill the vacuum created by the Syrian military and security withdrawal from Lebanon.
The Obama administration also silenced Bashar Assad's use of chemical weapons in the regime's war against the Syrian people. That was in August - August 2013. Who remembers how Obama forgets what he said about a "red line" that the Syrian regime can not overcome? It was clear that avoiding a response to the killing of hundreds of Syrians with chemical weapons was due to the desire not to disturb Iran, which secretly negotiated with the Americans in the Sultanate of Oman over its nuclear file.
These are just a few examples of the American disregard for Iranian actions and attacks throughout the region. Iran wants to deal with the United States, and has succeeded in doing so to a large extent, what is required of the US engagement with the concept of wholesale trade.
In the recent past, the nuclear issue was Iran's paper. I have now thrown through Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif the ballistic missile, as if the problem with it is confined to these missiles, which are only part of the broader problem, that is, what is Iran doing in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen?
Such questions could have been avoided if Iran's existence had any positive effect on its existence in any Arab country. Of course, what matters to the administration, especially management like the Donald Trump administration, is its interests. There is once again fear of the fall of the administration in the Iranian retail game. All Trump's speeches and his Foreign Minister Mike Pompeo reveal a deep understanding of the nature of the Iranian regime and its continuing practice since 1979.
In the current war, the United States seems to have scored important points. Economic sanctions have taken effect on the one hand, and there has been no military confrontation on the other. The war remained in the economic context associated with sanctions. Most of all, everything Iran has done has not led to a rise in oil prices. There is a world of change in oil and gas prices. This is a world that Iran refused to recognize and deal with before it collided with the new realities.
If it did not collide with these facts, it would not resort to waving the ballistic missile, although the paper is accompanied by impossible conditions such as asking Washington to stop supplying its allies with sophisticated weapons. But what is important is that the Islamic Republic has found itself in a position to find a way out of which it can negotiate again with the Americans. Will America fall back into the trap of Iran, or go to the question it was supposed to pose from the beginning to Iran? This question is what the "Islamic Republic" ultimately wants?
It is inevitable to admit that Iran has been able to exploit all the opportunities in the region, including the fall of Iraq, to say that it is a regional power. These opportunities would not have been possible without the Americans' acceptance of them in the language of the retail trade, rather than saying that a deal of another kind is required, including the regional role of the Islamic Republic and its unacceptable behavior towards its immediate surroundings and the countries of the region in general. Can Trump change the rules of the game and prove that it is a different US administration than its predecessors?