US to Keep Pursuing Regime Change Policy in Syria, Iraq: American Academic
- November, 30, 2017 - 17:59
- World news
TEHRAN (Tasnim) – An American university professor and political scientist warned that Washington and Tel Aviv will continue to insist on their regime change policy in Syria and Iraq despite the eradication of Daesh (ISIL or ISIS) from the Arab countries.
“It is clear that the US/Israel policy of regime change is still in place, meaning that: a peace settlement in Syria has to include the possibility of an Assad exit in the future, (via election or treaty agreement time table); effort to produce another ‘regime change’ in Iraq (undercutting Iranian and Shiite influence in the Iraq central government); and regime change in Iran itself via war if necessary,” Beau Grosscup, California State University Professor Emeritus of Political Science, told the Tasnim News Agency.
Following is the full text of the interview:
Tasnim: On Nov. 18, the Syrian army and its allies seized full control of Al-Bukamal, Daesh’s last significant town in Syria. The army had declared victory over Daesh in Al-Bukamal earlier this month but the terrorists then staged a counter-attack using sleeper cells hidden in the town. But it was retaken in another major offensive. What’s your take on this?
Grosscup: The nature of war, especially in a non-surrender situation like this is: a) The Syrian government declares victory as a tactic to say to the enemy, surrender it’s hopeless even though there still is active resistance; b) and/or the Daesh command structure is broken so there are fighters who haven’t gotten orders, but more likely want to fight to the end, As ‘terrorists’ assumed to be fanatical, a small group or individual can easily cause havoc. Finally, the end of war always has ‘mopping up’ issues.
Tasnim: Major General Qassem Soleimani, who commands the Quds Force of Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC), on Nov. 21 declared the collapse of the Takfiri terror group in Iraq and Syria. What’s your prediction for the region in the post-Daesh era?
Grosscup: It is clear that the US/Israel policy of regime change is still in place meaning that: a peace settlement in Syria has to include the possibility of an Assad exit in the future, (via election or treaty agreement timetable); effort to produce another ‘regime change’ in Iraq (undercutting Iranian and Shiite influence in the Iraq central government); and regime change in Iran itself via war if necessary.
Tasnim: The secretary general of the Lebanese Hezbollah resistance movement said recently that despite US claims about fighting terrorism, it spared no effort to help Daesh forces in Al-Bukamal. “The US helped Daesh as much as it could in Al-Bukamal short of directly engaging forces that fought to liberate the town from Daesh,” the Hezbollah leader said. What are your thoughts on this? What is your take on Iran’s role in this?
Grosscup: I agree with his assessment as a cornerstone of US foreign policy is: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Before it hooked up with Daesh, US supported Al Nusra, an Al Qaeda affiliated group, and created so-called ’rebels’ (terrorists) to oust Assad. The history of US War on Terror is full of these obvious contradictions but as the most powerful state, the US ‘owns’ the word terror, meaning it can tell us who the terrorists are and who the freedom fighters are and enforce that distinction in public discourse and policy. It is obvious Iranian leaders support the Hezbollah statements as it is in their interest to be part of the battle to influence global opinion to try and forestall the US regime change effort by undercutting the ‘high moral ground’ the US tries to occupy and sustain with its War on Terror, as it puts Iran on the defensive as a ‘State sponsor of terrorism.’ Of course, this designation is central to US efforts to justify its opposition to the Iran government and decision to go to war.