RSS Feed
July 13th, 2023 
Awake Goy 
TEHRAN– Ali Akbar Velayati, a senior adviser to Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei on international affairs, underlined the need for the vigilance of all parties, including Iran and Russia, regarding NATO’s plots and the future of the Caucasus region.
In an article for the Tasnim news agency, Velayati has offered an analysis of the latest situation in the region and the international system, touching on issues ranging from recent moves by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Turkey, and the Republic of Azerbaijan in the region to the north of Iran and south of Russia.
Following is the full text of the article:
Contrary to its terrifying nature, a 43-year period from 1871 to 1914 was known as the “Armed Peace” Period. It was a forerunner to the most severe and broad human war in history, which resulted in over 16 million deaths, millions of wounded, and millions of people displaced. Countries such as France, Britain, Tsarist Russia, Germany, Austria, Hungary, and Italy became aware of the inventions and manufactures of various forms of weaponry, such as rifles, tanks, and airplanes, throughout the 43-year period of the Armed Peace period (Maqdes, 1375, p. 23).
The First war concluded with the Treaty of Versailles (refer to: Mali, 1991, pp. 127-128; Palmer, 2010, pp. 1236-1241; Hughes, 2010, pp. 105-107; Tenbrook, 2006, pp. 208-211; Carter, 2011, p. 114; Giri, 2000, pp. 34-35; Shirer, 1988, pp. 103-104).
However, after 21 years, this peace pact prepared the groundwork for a much more horrific return of another World War. Over 70 million people were slaughtered in 6 years, and the Americans marked its horrific conclusion with the use of two nuclear bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, resulting in approximately 220,000 deaths. This act was recorded as the most despicable human military action in history (Shirer, 1988, pp. 107-108; Dolandlen, 2009, pp. 158, 386; Tavakol, 1984, pp. 36-41; Palmer, 2010, pp. 1356-1467; Tenbrook, 2006, pp. 217-245; Giri, 2000, p. 35; Nehru, 1982, Vol. 3, pp. 1822-1823; Moghadam, 2003, Vol. 1, pp. 80-81; Abu Hamzeh, 2018, p. 107).
The Second World War victors signed a new treaty at Potsdam that benefitted themselves while penalizing the defeated. As a result, the three countries that had a larger role in these military events felt a sense of victory. They met in Yalta and signed a treaty bearing the same name. These two accords were put in place to prevent another world war, but in the years after the signing of the Potsdam and Yalta agreements, international relations entered a new phase, and a new phenomena known as the “Cold War” formed.
During the Cold War, two military alliances, NATO and the Warsaw Pact, took shape. The formation of these two military alliances reflected the concerns of the two new factions, the East and the West, which were formed in response to the contrast and conflict between two ideological and political schools: Liberalism and Communism (Mohammadi, 2009, p. 51; Mosallanejad, 2015, p. 16).
This serpent sprang from behind the Berlin Wall and proceeded all the way to the border between North and South Korea. According to Churchill’s naming, the Western bloc called themselves the “Free World,” while they gave the name “Iron Curtain world” to the Eastern bloc.
In the middle of this, a Third World emerged as a result of countries’ emancipation from Western colonialism and the oppression of neocolonialism, which the West referred to as the “Third World.” In 1955, on the picturesque Indonesian island of Bandung, a new revolutionary organization was established that was neither Eastern nor Western, giving rise to the “Non-Aligned Movement.”
This movement included prominent people who emerged from the depths of oppressed and colonized masses and rocked the foundations of established colonial regimes. Gamal Abdel Nasser (1918-1970 CE) was among them, the son of fighters who suffered under Zionism’s tyranny and advocates of the clandestine Balfour Declaration. Marshal Tito (1892-1980 CE) was the leader of the Adriatic guerrilla warriors that opposed Nazi invasions. Jawaharlal Nehru (1889-1964 CE) was Mahatma Gandhi’s (1869-1948 CE) successor. Solomon Bandaranaike, Sri Lanka’s valiant liberator (1899-1959 CE). Makarios III (1913-1977 CE), a fierce Orthodox leader who stood up to England’s injustice. Indonesian President Ahmad Sukarno (1901-1970 CE). Ghana’s president, Kwame Nkrumah. Guinea’s leader, Sekou Toure (1922-1984 CE). Samora Machel, the leader of Mozambique (1933-1986 CE). Jonas Savimbi, the leader of Angola (1934-2002 CE). Julius Nyerere, the leader of Tanzania (1922-1999 CE). Dom Mintoff, the Prime Minister of Malta (1916-2012 CE). Zhou Enlai, the Premier of China (1898-1976 CE).
The consequences of the Cold War between the East and the West, the impact of the Non-Aligned Movement, and the strengthening of anti-colonial struggles all contributed to the emergence of a new phenomenon in the world: the continuation of local wars between countries and various factions, without these local wars escalating into global wars. It was symbolized by the establishment of a direct hotline between the Kremlin and the White House, ensuring that in the atomic age, a comprehensive war would neither be provoked nor permitted.
During the period from the 1950s to the 1970s, the Russians, and their followers, surpassed the Western powers in the realm of international politics. Wherever a subject was discussed and voted upon in the international arena, given the influence of the Russians in the Third World, the Russians, or more broadly, the “Eastern Bloc,” garnered more votes than the United States and its allies. It reached a point where Dr. Amadou-Mahtar M’Bow, the representative of Senegal, managed to become the Director-General of UNESCO, the most important scientific and cultural international organization affiliated with the United Nations.
Due to this occurrence, leftists have controlled the intellectual and cultural landscape of the world since the 1950s, and the Americans have become so passive that they have decided to leave UNESCO. This event can be considered as one of the latest signs of defeat, namely the cultural defeat of the US against the dominant leftist culture during three decades.
During the Vietnam War, Hollywood produced films in an attempt to sway public opinion around the world in favor of America’s supposed righteousness. Starring one of the prominent actors in the cowboy world, John Wayne, “The Green Berets,” was made that faced criticism, condemnation, and mockery in most parts of the world at that time.
Things had progressed to the point where a proposal in the United States Senate was made for the United States to withdraw from some United Nations institutions, such as UNESCO. However, the dominant leftist culture of the time began to disintegrate from within. Based on the principle that whenever power emerges, if it becomes disconnected from the elements that gave it birth, it decays from within. The clear manifestation of this harmful phenomenon arrived when the leftist center began to decline. Thus, a government that was once formed on behalf of the proletariat and relied on the October Revolution of 1917 had now progressed to the point where, alongside the statue of Lenin, they were constructing special roads for the unimpeded passage of government limousines, claiming to represent the proletariat. This marked the end of the era of working-class rule.
Finally, for reasons beyond the scope of this article, the Soviet administration admitted defeat in confrontation with the West and collapsed. The bearers of the red flag lowered it to the ground, and Moscow began to retreat from its previous positions. Ultimately, with the fall of the Berlin Wall, the defeat of Eastern thought reverberated beyond this barrier.
The wavering of former proletarian representatives led them to gradually step back, while the neorealists, revolving around the Anglo-Saxons, moved forward.
Once again, another phase of the East-West political conflict began. During a morning ceremony with a group of US Navy officers in the early 1990s, George H. W. Bush declared that the world is unipolar, that there is a superpower, and that the US is the guarantor of global security. With the illusion that Americans could operationalize McLuhan’s theory, whom believed that the world is a global village (with the premise that this village has a steward, and that steward is the US), the complement to this theory was Fukuyama’s theory, which believed that the end of history is liberal democracy, and the US, as the symbol of liberal democracy, represents the ultimate global governance, ruling as the steward over the global village.
In 2001, the Twin Towers were suspiciously attacked by two airplanes, and this suicidal attack became an excuse for the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003. During this period, American exceptionalism reached its peak. But in the end, they were defeated and retreated on both fronts.
The side plan of the US in the Middle East region, as they interpret it, has caused upheaval and disruption in the existing equations and balances in West Asia and North Africa by various factors. With their support, Daesh (ISIS) emerged as an extremist group against the Iraqi government. They formed a coalition that fought against the Houthis for years. A union composed of Turkey, Qatar, and the Muslim Brotherhood was organized and launched an attack aimed at overthrowing Syria.
In return, throughout these years, Iran has emerged alongside the region’s nations. It stood up to the Syrian government’s detractors. It stood up to Daesh in Iraq and the Houthis’ enemies in Yemen. Multiple victories were achieved after years of comprehensive struggle and unwavering efforts by Iran and the nations of the region. The decisive defeat of Daesh by the Quds Force and the Popular Mobilization Forces under the command of the Iranian and Iraqi martyr commanders, General Qasem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, was accomplished. They prevented Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi from becoming Baghdad’s self-proclaimed caliph. In Yemen, with the help and support of Iran, the Houthis prevailed over a large part of the country.
The most difficult task, however, was done in Syria, where they were able to halt Turkey’s expansionism with the assistance of Russia. Due to various failures, the Turkish government has constantly changed its tactics and methods in recent years. At the beginning of the aggression against Syria, it approached the Muslim Brotherhood and Qatar and sought to overthrow the Syrian government with their assistance, but it failed.
Turkish officials delivered a speech against the Zionist regime in the World Economic Forum Davos, calling it a “child-killing” regime, but because they were unsuccessful in achieving any of their specified objectives, they changed their method and rolled out a red carpet for the Zionist regime’s president during his trip (to Turkey). They also changed the modus operandi in the domestic policy in order to remain in power and win the recent elections. An example of this was the move by the Justice and Development Party to get closer to the Nationalist Movement Party headed by Devlet Bahçeli.
On the other hand in February 2022, the Russians invaded Ukraine, arguing that NATO leaders and Westerners strived every day, and mostly successfully, to expand NATO to east, despite their firm promises to Putin. Initial measures taken about Ukraine joining NATO had made the Russian seriously worried. They sternly warned the Americans and the West about such events, saying if (the West) takes such a measure, Ukraine will be invaded by Russia.
At that time, I had predicted that the Russian were certainly very serious about launching an attack on Ukraine and that if the Westerners were to act rationally, it would be appropriate to send the Russian a message that they would study the issue of Ukraine’s accession to NATO. But unfortunately the Europeans, influenced by the Americans’ deceits and temptations, did not take Russia’s warning seriously and then paramilitary groups captured areas of Ukraine inhabited by Russians, such as Luhansk and Donetsk, and earlier had made attempts to recapture Crimea.
But the main issue is that the hypocritical Americans stood against the Russians with cost being paid by the Europeans and now the economic, political, military and social situation of the Europeans is by far worse than those in any other region in the world. Ultimately, the voices of conservative individuals like (Emmanuel Macron) were raised against the US and, certainly, other European countries will also not allow the US to exploit them longer. Our prediction is that Russia will defeat Ukraine even if it means sustaining more losses.
Now, in the midst of the Ukraine war, we are witnessing another style of change in policies of Turkey that introduced itself as being close to Russia. In recent days, it was reported that Turkey has agreed to approve Sweden’s NATO accession. It also handed some of Azov forces to Ukraine. As these change in stances occurs, in recent month the issue of Turkey being linked to the Republic of Azerbaijan has also been raised, which Iran opposes. Those opposed to this say that if there is going to be a facilitation of the ties in the connection between the Republic of Azerbaijan and Nakhchivan, there is no need for occupation of a wide area of Armenian territory by neighbors. All of these facilities such as transfer of gas, electricity current, transit route, etc can be made available easily without violating the sovereignty of Armenia and this is something common among countries.
Many observers were surprised as to why the two governments of Azerbaijan and Turkey are insisting so much on the possibility of rising tensions among related parties. Gradually, the realities became known and the understanding of experts is that the intention behind these extensive links that connect Nakhchivan to the Republic of Azerbaijan is that, first, they would divide Armenia into two parts and, second, they disconnect Iran and Armenia, severing a link that dates back to the era of the Achaemenid and Parthian Empires. Third, it would limit Iran’s connection to outside and from then on, we will be neighbor to 14 countries, instead of 15, and the Islamic Republic of Iran’s free connection with North Caucasus, Russia and the European continent will be disrupted. Any change in regional borders will cause long-term tensions. And the most worrying thing would be the presence of alien countries in the border (regions).
Iran, China and Russia created a powerful and stable triangle in Asia and, undoubtedly, despite the US’ failed desires in the new world map, the Americans and the West cannot ignore Iran as the main power in the West Asia region and a country that is influential in international developments. Today, the relations between Russia and the US have also changed strategically and at least, contrary to George H. W. Bush’s words, the world will be multipolar in the future.
Our strong guess is that the issue of establishment of connection between Istanbul and Xinxiang, more than signifying the formation of an imaginary world named pan-Turkism, given the scope of Turkey’s ties with NATO, will lead to creation of a strip that will surround Iran from the north and Russia from the south and spread NATO’s influence in the region. The opening of the Nakhchivan path, instead of developing trade and cooperation, may cause NATO and some of its members that play a role in this conflict, to pave the way for the more serious and active presence of all facilities and accesses in the north of Iran and south of Russia.
Unfortunately, the serious and complex problem of clashes in Ukraine caused some negligence on the Caucasus region and the three plus three formula that was initially accepted by the six countries of Russia, Iran, Turkey, Georgia, Armenia and the Republic of Azerbaijan, was trampled upon. And now the South Caucasus region is a place for the interference and illegal and corruptive presence of the European Union, France, the US and the Zionist regime and if this trend continues, this very sensitive region will practically turn into a threat to the security of the entire region.
Our Russian friends to be careful and know that any little negligence in the Caucasus will make it a place for invasion and rivalry among different countries and ill-intending parties that would attack the interests of Russia and the Islamic Republic of Iran. If they neglect, the Americans and their agents who could not do anything of importance in Ukraine, will increase tension-creating factors in the very sensitive South Caucasus region and undermine the security of the entire region.
Undoubtedly, the Westerners that face the problem of supplying energy today, will not overlook the facilities and resources of this region and the regions around it. They have their greedy eye on the region and will not spare any effort to encroach on it. Fortunately, the smart leaders of Russia are aware that they have sanctioned buying Russian oil and gas and are seeking access to the energy resources of the Caspian and the Caucasus and we all should safeguard it. Moreover, the influence and aggregated presence of the enemies of Iran and Russia, including the US, Europe and the Zionist regime, in this sensitive region will endanger future interests of other regional nations as well.
Any neglect and oversimplification of the problems and complicated issues that have taken place in this region will cause them not to limit (their intentions) to the South Caucasus region, but also spread their influence to the North Caucasus and, most importantly, the Caspian Sea and the countries around it, and this should be a red line of Iran and Russia. The Caspian Sea only belongs to the countries bordering it and no one (else) will by any means allowed to gain a foothold in this very important sea.
Some regional countries that are NATO members and the changes in their stances were discussed earlier, on the assumption of the strengthening of their ties with NATO, have been (trying to implement the agenda) of NATO and, above all, the US, (in the region) and in the future may create problems and obstacles for Russia, Iran and China as the trio allies that form the largest set of power in Asia, and, of course, this will face the strategic alertness of these countries’ leaders.
Meanwhile, there has been a significant and regrettable development in recent days, that is the issuance of a joint statement by Russia and the countries of the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council. We say to our Russian friends not to be naïve about this. The issue of Iranian islands, including Abu Musa, the Greater Tunb, and the Lesser Tunb, is crystal clear according to international rules. Here are several historical reasons that clarify this matter (the fact that the trio islands belong to Iran):
- During the reign of Nasser al-Din Shah, when Mirza Ali Asghar Khan Atabak was the Prime Minister (of Iran), upon the request of the Iranian government, the Ministry of Defense of the United Kingdom sent a map of the region as an official response to Iran’s request, on which Abu Musa, the Greater Tunb, and the Lesser Tunb were depicted as part of Iran’s territory. This serves as strong evidence of Iran’s sovereignty over these islands.
- After the United Kingdom raised its flag on Abu Musa, Mirza Ali Asghar Khan Atabak ordered it to be lowered and the Iranian flag to be reinstalled.
- In 1971, when the second Pahlavi (Mohammad Reza) relinquished Iran’s rights to Bahrain and committed a major betrayal, with the mediation of the UK, the aforementioned situation was returned to Iran. In this regard, David Owen, the British Foreign Secretary, played a crucial role.
- After the Islamic Revolution in Iran, particularly after the imposed war, the UAE has seized every opportunity to promote this unjust claim. Now, some of our friends, like Russia, have fallen into the same pit that China fell into not long ago. They believe that by endorsing such baseless claims, they will have good economic relations with the UAE in the future. It seems that Russia’s action is also a result of certain naiveties that have been observed in some Russians, especially in areas where there is a lack of deep familiarity and understanding between Russia and those countries.
Related posts:
Views: 0
Posted in 
Tags: 
