Dismantling the Axis of Resistance … A Constant American Goal

The division in the American political elite vis-à-vis Iran is between a team that believes its Islamic regime can be overthrown through extreme pressure and a hybrid war, perhaps leading to an open and widespread military confrontation with it, and another group that believes that what is required, and that can be achieved in their opinion, is to change the policies of this regime, not overthrow it. The ideological-ideological core of the Donald Trump administration belongs to the first team, while its president is in an intermediate position, waiting for Iran to fulfill its conditions to conclude a “deal” with him, while Joe Biden and his team take the second approach.

However, supporters of “regime change” and those seeking to “change their policies” share their consideration of the Islamic Republic’s principled position on the Zionist entity, and the resulting policies adopted by it, as a rationale for conflict with her. Iran’s development of its military and missile capabilities, quantitatively and qualitatively, and its assistance to the other parties of the axis of resistance to do the same, and the consequent gradual but continuous transformation of the total balance of power in the region against the The interest of the Zionist entity, the cornerstone of American and Western hegemony over it, occupies a place. It is central to the motives of the hybrid war that has been waged against him in recent years. Perhaps it is useful to remember that the acceleration of the process of development and accumulation of the aforementioned capabilities, and the provision of allies with them, occurred after the signing of the nuclear agreement between Iran and the 5 + 1 group in 2015, and coincided with the reversal of the course of the confrontation in the interest of the Syrian state and its allies after the Russian intervention at the end of the same year. Would the Barack Obama administration have signed the Iran nuclear deal if it had the power to predict the events that will follow? The answer is definitely not. The organic relationship between the United States and the Zionist entity and its eagerness to secure its qualitative advantage would have pushed this administration to include Iran’s missile program and its role in the region as part of its conditions for signing the agreement. Biden, if he wins the presidency, is likely to take this approach, with the different ways of dealing with Tehran from those followed by Trump, to get him to accept him.
There is no doubt that the Obama administration’s work to achieve a kind of “disengagement” with Iran is part of its overall strategy of “turning to Asia” and facing the rise of Chinese power. And this confrontation has become the focus of consensus among American elites, considering that it must be a priority on the agenda of any American president, regardless of his political identity. It is assumed to dedicate itself to this priority, given the declining capabilities of the American empire, to proportionally ease the burdens of its costly “involvement” in the Middle East and its conflicts, while preserving the security and immunity of its allies there. especially the Zionist entity.

The Biden administration, if it wins, will proceed with the strategy of “cutting weapons”, or at least paralyzing it.

The Obama administration considered that the signing of the nuclear agreement with Iran, and the consequent departure from the isolation imposed by Western countries and the promises of a fruitful economic partnership, will encourage some of the poles of his regime to demand a focus on the solution. internal problems and challenges associated with economic development, scientific and technological development and withdrawal. One of the rampant conflicts in the neighborhood, especially those that place it in the face of the West. Consequently, these conflicts, especially the raging ones in Syria, had turned, in the years 2014 and 2015, from the perspective of the Obama administration, into a war of attrition for the Syrian state, Iran and Hezbollah, and began to unfold in their disadvantage after they crossed paths during that period. In 2015, countries in the region such as Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia supported the Syrian opposition factions, which led to the formation of the “Army of Conquest” and launched an offensive during which it was able to occupy cities such as Jisr al-Shughur. and Idlib and advance towards the Syrian coast. Of course, this intersection has received American and Western support. The Obama administration’s narrative was clear: we agree with Iran, and we and those with us will intensify the pressures on the ground on its allies in Syria to exhaust and weaken them all, in preparation for its defeat and the consequent dismantling of the resistance axis. In other words, we are talking to Iran and cutting off its weapons in the region. This is the general context in which the nuclear deal with Iran was signed. However, the Russian intervention in late September 2015 turned the scene upside down and allowed the Syrian state and its allies to repel the hostile attack and restore the initiative, and the rest of the story is known to all others.
Importantly, the dense dust of the Syrian war enabled the resistance axis to turn threat into opportunity, and initiate accelerated development of missile and military capabilities, alarming Zionist military leaders for its disastrous implications on their vision. on the balance of power in the region between the entity and its enemies. To try to stop this process, they launched what they called “operations without war”, that is, thousands of raids and attacks on missile sites and their storage centers, but they did not. Trump came to power and adopted the policy of “maximum pressure” on Iran, and withdrew from the nuclear deal, to force him to give up his missile program and his role in supporting his allies in the axis of resistance. Instead of the previous policy of “cutting off the arms”, he moved to the policy of “aiming for the head and arms”. However, this policy, despite its high human, economic and financial costs for recipients, did not work because it did not achieve its objectives.

If Trump remains in office after the elections, he will follow the same policy in an attempt to enforce compliance on Iran, with heavy pressure from pro-Israel ideological-ideological groups to resolve the conflict by resorting to war. Biden, for his part, if he wins, will not be content to revert to the nuclear deal in its original form. Rather, it will seek to make amendments to it that will include in its annexes provisions related to stopping the development of precision missiles, both quantitatively and qualitatively, and supplying them to the allies. In return, it will try to “lure” Iran into turning the agreement into a treaty, obtaining the signature of Congress and with the American and Western political and economic opening, opening the door for it to get out of the blockade towards “progress and prosperity.” However, in addition to the incentives, the pressure will continue during the negotiation phase in an attempt to extract the greatest possible concessions. In parallel, the Biden administration, if it wins, will proceed with the strategy of “cutting the weapons”, or at least paralyzing them, tightening the siege of Syria through the “Caesar Law” and “Hezbollah”, and at the same time promoting, in the integration policy framework Between pressure and temptation, or carrot and stick, for the idea of ​​a “regional security framework” that includes the different countries of the region for the “peaceful” resolution of conflicts and “cooperation with each other”. Some Lebanese and Arab media trumpets, closely related to the Emirates, have begun to publicize this framework or organization, arguing that it will allow them to reach solutions to all the wars in the region and open “new horizons” for them. Biden, if he wins, will seek, through “crude”, “soft” and “smart” tools, to dismantle the axis of resistance to protect Israel, which is a common goal between him and Trump and all those who preceded him. Presidency of the largest white colony, the United States of America.

Subscribe to «News» on YouTube here