US embassy in Baghdad a military & espionage agency, says Iraqi analyst
An Iraqi expert believes that the American embassy in Baghdad functions as a military, intelligence, and espionage agency that provides support for the adventurous actions against Iran on Iraqi soil.
“The American embassy in Baghdad is not an ordinary diplomatic institution but it is a military, intelligence, and espionage agency,” Ali Fahim remarked.
The analyst also stated that this is a center that “manages all hostile activities and provocative actions against the Islamic Republic of Iran.”
The following is the entire text of the interview conducted and published by the Tehran Times:
“Q: What are the reasons and behind America’s recent moves, especially sending B52 bombers to the region. Was the move a provocation or a preparation for a military confrontation?
A: The Persian Gulf these days is witnessing the movement of armed vessels under and over water and also in the sky as the anniversary of the assassination of General Qassem Soleimani and his martyr companion Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis is rapidly approaching.
Iranian leaders have promised revenge against persons who committed the assassination and the other sides ordered and directed the operation.
In this context, Tehran has listed the names of 37 persons with a direct relationship to the crime, and at the top of the list is U.S. President Donald Trump.
Meanwhile, Tehran has proven its ability to bring in whom it wants to prosecute in its territory; as happened in the past months when Iran brought four people who were wanted due to security charges from the U.S., France, Pakistan, and the UAE. After Soleimani's assassination, Iran faced another terror operation, the assassination of nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhri Zadeh by the Israeli Mossad last month.
Tehran must respond forcefully and punish the Zionist authorities for this crime, otherwise it will be considered an easy target that can be struck when its enemies wish.
This is contrary to what we expect from the Islamic Republic, which considers deterrence as the most effective strategy. It is Iran’s trump card in front of its enemies.
If Iran loses this card, the other cards and options will fail.
Iran will not risk remaining silent and admit the strike without a response, but the time, place, and manner of retaliation are dependent on wisdom, management, and calculation of the results with extreme precision.
This policy is what the Islamic Republic has followed previously, but at the same time it does not want to be dragged into a military confrontation that is ill-considered, incalculable, and at a time imposed by the enemy on it; in such a circumstance, it is facing a rogue president who is now considered like a wounded lion after losing the American elections to Biden, who has pledged to return to the Iran nuclear deal.
Trump withdrew the U.S. administration from the JCPOA and now tries to make the situation difficult and hamper Biden’s possible return to the deal through a reckless movement that may drag the region into a war with an unpredictable result.
Firing rockets at the American embassy in Baghdad by unknown parties is just an excuse, and the White House always blamed factions affiliated with Iran.
Meanwhile, the commander of the Quds Force, Ismail Qaani, visited Baghdad a few days ago and met with Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa Al-Kazemi and Iraqi officials to inform them that Iran is not responsible for the attacks against U.S. interests in Iraq, which shows Iran is aware of an American plot to drag the region into a war.
However, Iran is not entering a military confrontation that Washington has determined its time and location.
It is mentioned that some time ago Trump asked his senior advisers in a meeting in the White House whether he had options to take military action against Iran’s main nuclear sites, but his team advised him against such a risk because a strike against Iran’s facilities could easily escalate into a broader conflict in the last weeks of his presidency.
After the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium is 12 times more than the amount permitted under a 2015 nuclear deal with world powers which came as a response to the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA, Trump demanded the Iranians to hold new negotiations with him, but he did not receive an answer from Tehran.
American authorities have justified their move by sending B52 bombers carrying nuclear warheads and heavy ammunition, which have been deployed before January 2021, by claiming that the planes were sent to the region to deter aggression and reassure U.S. partners and allies.
This was followed by the sending of the nuclear submarine (USS Georgia), which carries about 54 Tomahawk guided missiles to the (Persian) Gulf, in addition to the Israeli submarine crossing the Suez Canal heading to the same region is a provocative step against Iran.
But what is remarkable about this move is that it is declared publicly and is covered by media, while neither America nor Israel has previously revealed the movement of its military units with this clarity.
This gives an impression that the goal is to send messages that are clear and open to Iran to deter it from taking revenge for the assassination of Soleimani and al-Muhandis in Baghdad.
It seems that Americans want to set a firewall to limit the fires of a battle.
Q: Do you think that the U.S. is serious about closing its embassy in Iraq? What would be the repercussions of such a step?
In September America had threatened to close its embassy in Baghdad, according to its Secretary of State Pompeo, which ignited protests among Iraqi political circles, between supporters and opponents.
Pro-American figures inside the Iraqi government described such a step as dangerous, warning of dire consequences if America fulfilled this threat.
In line with the Iraqi government, some political groups that are affiliated with the American embassy and their electronic army and trolls made every effort to portray a dark reality as a result of this procedure.
As for the seriousness of the American administration to take this measure, I think the issue would not be easy. It means concession of defeat and leaving the battlefield in favor of its archenemy Iran.
The American embassy in Baghdad is not an ordinary diplomatic institution but it is a military, intelligence, and espionage agency that manages all hostile activities and provocative actions against the Islamic Republic of Iran.
In addition, the embassy hosts a special cell for Mossad that manages its operations in Iraq and the region, besides its military, logistical, and air defense capabilities.
The issue of closing the American embassy in the Iraqi capital is just a fantasy and delusion that functions as a test balloon or leverage.
The most that America can do is to close the doors of the embassy and send its ambassador to Erbil for a few days, to show that it is serious by this step and will carry out some of its threats.
Q: Do you think that the incoming Biden administration's policies will differ sharply from Trump’s regarding Iraq?
The policy of the White House, in general, does not change at all with the change of names and personnel, or the exchange of a Republican president with a Democrat, especially in the international scene.
In fact, the interests of Israel is a priority and all presidents compete to achieve this interest that has been unchangeable in recent decades.
“Regarding Iraq, I should say that Iraqis are afraid of Biden’s attitude and plan (once he was vice president under the Obama era) to divide Iraq into three states for the Kurds, Sunni Arabs, and Shia Arabs and to demarcate new borders for new Middle East (West Asia).” Every president who came in power did his best to prove that he is better among others in obeying the orders of the Zionist lobby and gaining its approval.
The difference is in approach and speed. Some presidents rushed to fulfill Israeli ambitions while others were slow to repair America’s international reputation, but the goal is the same, supporting interests of the Jewish state.
On the domestic side, of course, there is a relative difference between the Democratic and Republican parties on the one hand, and between the presidents themselves, regardless of the party to which they belong, on the other hand.
Each party has goals and principles that it seeks and follows. Each president also has made pledges to his voters in the election campaigns.
In the Middle East (West Asia) we are not interested in or affected by American presidents’ domestic policies.
What affects us is their handling of the conflict with Israel, which has proven all events over the years of the Palestinian uprising, the complete bias toward Israel by America.
Regarding Iraq, I should say that Iraqis are afraid of Biden’s attitude and plan (once he was vice president under the Obama era) to divide Iraq into three states for the Kurds, Sunni Arabs, and Shia Arabs and to demarcate new borders for new Middle East (West Asia).
Nevertheless, this project failed due to the support of Russia and Iran for the Syrian Republic and (protecting) its territorial sovereignty.
So, I do not think that this idea will return again as a clear project, though it is a strategic goal for Israel.
Tel Aviv is seeking the elimination of Iraq as a unified country, and their presence in northern Iraq has increased as they are working continuously to split the region.
Israel must pave the way to take a such step while they failed in the ISIS case which its mission was to destroy Iraq.
Q: Why do Western countries always criticize Iran under the pretext of human rights and democracy, while turn a blind eye to what is going on in Palestine and Yemen?
As Arabs and Muslims, we have become accustomed to double standards and a distorted view by the West on the same issues.
The scale in which they measure the various issues is dependent on their interests and ideologies.
As for terms like democracy, justice, equality, and human rights, they are the only tools to be exploited. They are used to implement their plans by attractive slogans.
They use these slogans when they need them and then they violate the same standards when it doesn’t serve their interests.
The only constant standard for Western powers is their interest and the rest are invaluable terms. The simplest example of this is their attack on Iran while they justify the unjust blockade of the Islamic Republic on the accusation of its lack of democracy and its violation of human rights.
At the same time, they protect tyrannical and dictatorial regimes in which no elections are held and freedom of opinion is prohibited.
In these regimes nobody dare question or criticize rulers who dominate their country, corrupt families who oppress their people, oppress minorities, and rob them of their most basic rights and do not have the lowest levels of freedom.
They prefer not to see this paradox, rather they support aggressive countries against the weakened countries.
In contrast to all human values which the West claims upholds, they are watching people dying of hunger, poverty, and disease, and sell bombs and missiles to be used against unarmed people by tyrannical regimes.
They stand openly with the aggressor and justify their position by achieving legitimacy at the expense of killing children, destroying cities, and dividing countries as is the case in Yemen, which is a stain on humanity's face as a whole.
Everyone who is silent about it is a partner in it, and the other prominent example is murder of the Saudi dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi in an attempt to conceal this crime after the American investigators themselves proved that the main responsible for this crime is Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, but the Trump administration did not take any steps towards this clear crime.
The interesting point is that bin Salman repeated the attempt to assassinate another Saudi opponent in Canada, but he is granted immunity because it is following the orders and policies of Washington.