14.2 C
Los Angeles
April 25, 2019
Herald Opinion

UNGA: A Meeting Point Between Terror Sponsors and Peace Lovers

The United Nations General Assembly “UNGA” opens its seventy-third session on September 18 in the presence of the 193 Member States. States are keen to participate at the highest levels to present their views on general issues as well as specific issues that surround them and effects their internal affairs. They also discuss their response to the requirements and standards of progress and their impact on the political, economic and social life of their peoples.

The international community is faced with genuinely acute threats, on top of them come terrorism, its various sources, its expansion, its multiple impacts, and its practices that could amount to crimes against humanity. These crimes forced millions of people to flee from the disaster areas due to hunger, oppression, and lack or absence of the very basics of life. Some of those people go beyond the border of their homelands in search of a haven in neighboring nations. They also may go on riskier missions by sea boats, making themselves liable to be exploited by human traffickers and smugglers.

Iranian president Hassan Rouhani will show up at the US with the prime aim of broaching on the impact of the US sanctions on his regime. That came after the US president Donald Trump pulled out of the nuke deal. Reactions of the US and Iran, to the American move, will likely appear evidently in the Iraqi arena. Repercussions of the two sides’ relations appeared after invading Baghdad and handing over power to sectarian parties aligned with Iran. They catapulted the country into a vicious cycle of sectarianism and terror sponsored by the US itself under George W. Bush administration and his successor Barrack Obama. This policy has led to expanding the Iranian terrorism at the expense of the sovereignty of multiple Arab nations.

Terrorism has dared to spill over into Europe, threatening security and stability there and globally. As days pass, documents reveal the relationship between the al-Qaeda terror group and the Iranian regime whether in terms of providing safe passages for the group’s fighters, financing, and logistical support. The nuke deal, inked under former Democratic president Barrack Obama, came as a reward for Iran and its terror-backing agenda. By signing the deal, the US renounced its role as a major superpower globally and especially in the Middle East, which is a vital region. Then came its disastrous withdrawal from the Middle East which was backed by the Europeans’ short-sighted visions. These visions are based on economic interests or even blackmail. And they are coupled with the changes in the new US policies under the Trump administration and his vision for the commercial relations and the deals signed under former administrations.

President Barrack Obama has given an explicit impression, not an implicit one, to Russia that he is withdrawing from the areas of interest for the Iranian regime where it spreads and fans the fire of sedition. Obama turned a blind eye to the activities related to financing the terror groups indoctrinated to serve the expansionist project of Mullah regime. He allowed Moscow and Tehran to establish bases for an international axis which seized the opportunity to fill the vacuum as both Russia and Iran were well-aware of the fact that they are in an interim period where power would transition to another administration even if the candidate is affiliated with the Democratic Party.

Therefore, the tempo of terrorist acts has seen a surge during the second presidential term of Obama. Russia has become more involving in the Syrian issue, assuming the role of Assad regime’s top defender at the international forums. It waged a savage war on civilians, bringing about justifications for this. And it exploited the war on terror to make a case for occupying the country and establishing permanent military bases there.

This is what Iran did in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon and other spots at varying degrees. After some gestures from the media, the Iranian regime started to mobilize for its project. The media gestures came following the launch of Russian missiles from Iranian bases. The move caused Iran to believe that it is guaranteed to go ahead with its sectarian scheme in the region in partnership with the Russians.

There is another urgent question: Will the issue of Idlib massacre will be delayed even after the end of UNGA meeting? Or will the quasi-outbreak of the crisis pave the way for reaching a solution to save civilians who were embroiled in the conflict after they fled their homes after the de-escalation deals. This has turned Idlib into a mass grave that epitomizes the Syrian tragedy where all people are waiting for the death penalty to be upheld.

President Trump will chair a special UN Security Council meeting to discuss the repercussions of Iranian terrorism on global peace and the impact of sanctions on the regime as Congress prepares to study a bill to counter Iran’s influence in Iraq and publish a list of armed groups linked to the Revolutionary Guard. This comes despite the fact that the Iraqi authorities are that which protect the militias on fatwas of clerics or by passing laws in parliament, or even through giving them seats in parliament in suspicious elections.

The United States is tightening the noose around Iranian terrorism with sanctions and double measures to isolate the regime internationally. But in Iraq, after the incidents that hit the city of Basra and the burning of the Iranian consulate building, the US found itself and its troops and diplomats on the verge of being targeted by the armed factions. Those groups made statements and incited unknown gunmen amid a state of high alert, which prompted a firm response from the US. It hinted at a decisive response in case there is an attack on the US interests.

What happened in Basra has led cards to shuffle when it comes to forming the biggest bloc in the Iraqi parliament and picking a new premier, a process which refuses to part with the sectarian realities in the country and does not allow political differences to be settled through insurgency. If a patriotic government is formed in Iraq, it will in no way serve the sectarian project of Iran at which the Iraqi people are brimming over with frustration. The people now are at the crossroads with the political class confined to the inception and will of the US occupation. Those politicians are still insistent on rejecting all paths for reform aimed to redress the losses caused by the US invasion, which raises suspicions.

The US has enhanced the Iranian presence in Iraq. And now, its move to reverse the status quo requires taking the initiative and reconsidering the mistakes of occupying Iraq which led to consolidating the clout of the pro-Iran militias. They seized power based on US motives. This has led to implementing a system based on sectarian quotas and writing a constitution that is tailored to fit the schemes of the Iranian regime and its ceiling of expectations in Iraq. The Iranian regime uses the argument that all peoples, including the Iraqis, have the right to decide their own fate away from occupiers, to defend itself.

War on terrorism is proving successful especially at home in Iran. The regime is pushed to the corner when it comes to the economic aspects through diminishing the sources of its funding and its activities beyond the border, which are documented. But the conflict between the two occupation forces, the US and Iran, is heading towards a different direction which is not consistent with the sanctions or the great disparity in power between the two nation. The impact of the US policies, as a superpower, should be more evident when it comes to implicitly trimming the expansion of the Iranian regime.

But Iraq, according to the US vision, is a country without people. This could be echoed in the remarks of the Iraqi foreign minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari who described the protesters who torched the Iranian consulate headquarters in Basra as ‘fringes’. He added those people, in reference to the protesters, are not the ones to trust when it comes to establishing good ties with Iran. But the government, clerics and parliament are the ones to trust.

Will the US be dragged into conducting militia-style combat missions in case a conflict with the Iranian militias placed on terror militias breaks out after the awaited US bill?

This issue was raised in discussions within the US administration, Congress, Senate, Pentagon as well as strategic research centers. What about the destiny of peoples and the challenges that have been facing Syrians and Iraqis who faced genocides? At the podium of the UNGA meeting, we will see leaders speaking of the necessity of not preventing the peace-loving peoples. But who will answer for the victims?

Advertisements

Related posts

 Required Components to a democratic alternative in Iran

Mahdavi Nasim

Free Iran Rally in Paris, no to oppression in Iran and terrorism in the EU

Mahdavi Nasim

Twitter Inc. are they Dictators or Supporters of free Speech?

Bahar Mehr

You are welcome to voice your opinion even if it goes against ours.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

The Herald Report