Series of Answers by the Eminent Scholar Ata bin Khalil Abu al-Rashtah, Ameer of Hizb ut-Tahrir, to the Questions of his Facebook Page Followers
Answer to a Question: To Mais Bader
Question:
Assalamu Alaikum Wa Rahmatullah Wa Barakatuh. My eminent Sheikh, may Allah protect and care for you. The question: Why has the United States allowed Iran this relatively rapid escalation of its diverse military capabilities, such that it has become one of the most important countries in the region in terms of playing influential roles in the course of events in Iraq, Syria, the Gulf, and the volatile region in general? And what is the American policy in containing this "uncontrolled" role? May Allah reward you with goodness...
Answer:
1- To say that Iran has an "uncontrolled" role in the region is misplaced. Iran moves alongside America in all regional issues... Iran is a central state in American policy in the region, and America relies on it in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and elsewhere... Anyone who looks closely at Iran's actions will find this clearly. More than one Iranian leader has stated that Iran's cooperation with America is what enabled it to occupy Afghanistan and Iraq... and so on in other issues.
2- We issued an answer to a question on the 14th of Shawwal 1434 AH, corresponding to 21/08/2013 CE, titled: "The Reality of Iran Regarding American Policy?" in which we detailed the reality of Iran's relationship with America and its cooperation in regional issues. You can refer to it to understand its contents. I will excerpt the following for you:
(- All the political actions carried out by Iran in the region are in alignment and harmony with American projects:
In Lebanon, it established a party for itself from the followers of its school of thought and armed it, so it became a private army there, separate from the Lebanese army. The Lebanese regime recognized it and its weapons, bearing in mind that the Lebanese regime is a secular system that follows American policy. The Lebanese regime did not allow other parties to carry weapons or recognize their arms. Iran's party in Lebanon supported the Syrian regime, which is linked to America, just as Iran did. America did not prevent the Lebanese regime from allowing Iran's party to intervene in Syria to support Bashar al-Assad's secular regime; rather, there is implicit American approval for this party's intervention in Syria without being obstructed by the Lebanese army.
When America occupied Iraq, it encountered unexpected resistance, so it brought Iran into Iraq to help influence its followers, swaying them and preventing them from acting against the occupation. Instead, it made them stand against the resistance, confront it, and grant legitimacy to the occupation and the regime established there. This was especially true after 2005 when America allowed the coalition of pro-Iranian parties to come to power under Ibrahim al-Jaafari and then Maliki. These governments were established by America and are linked to it. The Maliki government, supported by Iran, signed security and strategic agreements with America to maintain its influence after its formal occupation of Iraq ended. This indicates American satisfaction with the Iranian role, whose officials admitted to cooperating with America in the occupation of Iraq and in working to secure stability for American influence there. Iran opened an embassy in Iraq immediately after the occupation. As soon as Jaafari was elected, Iran's then-Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi visited Baghdad in 2005 at the height of the occupation. Both sides condemned the resistance to the occupation under the guise of condemning terrorism in Iraq. Jaafari visited Iran and signed numerous agreements, including an intelligence cooperation agreement to establish security, monitor crossings and borders, connect Basra to the Iranian electricity grid, and establish an oil pipeline between Basra and Abadan...
As for Iran's relationship with the Syrian regime, it is old, dating back to the outbreak of the first uprising in the early eighties of the last century. At that time, it supported the Syrian regime in its suppression of the Muslim people of Syria to maintain it within the American project supporting the regime led by its agents, the Assad family. Iran knows it is a secular, Ba'athist, nationalist regime, similar to the Saddam regime it was fighting, and has nothing to do with Islam; rather, it fights Islam and its people. Iran realizes it is linked to America, so it did not defend the rights of Muslims but did the opposite, fighting them and supporting a criminal regime of kufr, and it continues to do so. The Iranian regime maintains close relations with the Syrian leadership, covering military, economic, and political aspects. Iran has transferred many weapons to support the Assad regime and provided it with oil and gas at reduced prices due to the lack of energy reserves in Syria. Political relations can be observed specifically in the Iranian intervention in the Syrian uprising when the Assad regime was on the verge of collapse. Were it not for the Iranian intervention by sending forces from the Revolutionary Guard, Iran's party forces, and Maliki's militias affiliated with Iran, Bashar and his regime would have collapsed. The massacres in Al-Qusayr, Homs, and today's chemical massacres in Ghouta and elsewhere are witnesses to that intervention.
In Afghanistan, Iran supported the American occupation and supported the constitution it drafted and the government it formed under Karzai, in service to America. Iran secured the north of the country when America failed to defeat the Taliban. Former Iranian President Rafsanjani stated, "If our forces had not helped in the fight against the Taliban, the Americans would have drowned in the Afghan swamp." (Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper, 09/02/2002). Mohammad Ali Abtahi, former Iranian Vice President for Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, stated at the Gulf and Future Challenges conference held in Abu Dhabi on the evening of 13/01/2004: "If it were not for Iranian cooperation, Kabul and Baghdad would not have fallen so easily. But we received a reward and became part of the 'axis of evil'!" (IslamOnline.net, 13/01/2004). President Ahmadinejad repeated similar remarks during his visit to New York to attend UN meetings in an interview with the New York Times on 26/09/2008, saying: "Iran offered a helping hand to the United States regarding Afghanistan, and the result of this aid was the American President issuing direct threats to launch a military attack against us. Also, our country provided aid to America in restoring calm and stability to Iraq.") End quote.
3- All of the above is witnessed by the conclusion of the nuclear negotiations and America's insistence on closing this file to improve public relations with Iran, in order to implement the role America has designed for it in the region under the pretext of mutual interests—without any cover, even a thin veil as in the past! The American President delivered a speech at the White House dedicated to talking about the recent nuclear agreement with Iran, describing it as "a good deal that meets our core objectives" and said, "To the Iranian people, we are ready to work for the common interest" (American Radio Sawa, 02/04/2015)... The American President's statements clearly show that he wants to work with Iran under the name of common interest! And what common interest is there with the "Great Satan" other than achieving American projects in the region?!
4- Then there are the harmonious plans between America, Iran, and the Houthis in the events in Yemen! As for the relationship between the Houthis and Iran, it needs no proof; it is as famous as fire on a mountaintop... As for America's support for the Houthis, everyone with sight and insight realizes it. America acts in Yemen with its known arrogance, meaning through armed force and oppression. The Houthis occupied Sana'a and elsewhere, arresting and killing under the pretext of the "popular revolution and popular committees..." America was supporting these Houthi movements politically and security-wise. Politically, America does not consider the Houthis as terrorists like Al-Qaeda, but rather as a political movement. The US Ambassador Matthew Tueller said in his press conference on 18/09/2014: "We differentiate between those groups that participated in the political process; the Houthi movement participated in the National Dialogue Conference, resulting in many positive outcomes, and they have political positions and legitimate ambitions... Therefore, we support the Houthi and his movement in carrying out the same practices as political groups and parties" (Muraqibon Press website). As for security, when the Houthis entered Sana'a, the army and police resisted them, killing seven Houthis on 09/09/2014. The scales were almost tipped in favor of Hadi, but America hurried to send Benomar, the UN envoy (or the American envoy in reality), who pressured Hadi and diluted the matter by calling for negotiations, giving the green light to the Houthis to escalate their movement during the negotiations, supported by American pressure through Benomar on Hadi.
5- Recent events confirm this support. I quote for you some of what came in the answer to the question dated 27/03/2015 regarding this issue: (...America supplied the Houthis via Iran with various types of weapons and equipment so they could dominate Yemen by force because it realizes that the political class is mostly the products of the British... Thus, the Houthis thought they had the power to achieve dominance over Yemen, so they besieged the President to take what they wanted through the laws he issued. He would agree and then procrastinate in implementation until they imposed house arrest on him, but he escaped them and went to Aden. They followed him, and he escaped them again... America realized that its Houthi followers were in a state of confusion; they had spread across the country, but they could neither dominate nor return to the strength they had in their birthplace. So America saw fit to save them with a limited military action to hit two birds with one stone: to present them as victims of aggression after their own aggression had become settled in people's minds, and to create a pressurized negotiation atmosphere to reach a middle-ground solution, as is its habit regarding what it cannot take alone... This has become clear from monitoring what happened and is happening; Saudi Arabia consulted with America before the military action, and those carrying out the effective military role are America's agents, especially Salman, the King of Saudi Arabia, and Sisi, the Egyptian President. As for the rest of the Gulf states, Jordan, and Morocco, they are closer to a political role, following the British habit of keeping pace with America to be in the picture and have a share in the planned negotiations and the division of the influence pie... While coercive military actions sometimes succeed in opening the door to negotiations, they sometimes fail, causing things to become turbulent again, and Yemen—which was "Happy" (Al-Sa'eed) not long ago—suffers from its fire... back when agents and colonialist kuffar did not tread upon its pure land.) End quote.
By contemplating what happened and its results, it becomes clear that America was controlling the course of events. The focus of Saudi attacks was on the weapons that Muslims paid for, and the victims were mostly civilians, with few from the Houthis... Iran did not intervene but remained watching from afar even as voices roared with the "Decisive Storm" falling on the heads of the Houthis!
This indicates that the maestro of movements sets the rhythm to reach solutions that save the Houthis, not destroy them, and gives them a significant share rather than excluding them... Saudi Arabia realizes this and conducts its "Decisive Storm" and "Restoration of Hope" according to this rhythm... Similarly, Iran realizes this and watches without military intervention according to this rhythm...! In fact, it agreed to have its ships carrying relief to Yemen inspected before reaching Yemeni ports because America wanted that, so Iran submitted...! Thus, just as Saudi Arabia is disciplined in its "Decisive Storm" and "Hope" according to American directives, so is Iran. Both realize the purpose of these heated actions we have explained. And here they are heading towards a "heated" calm preceding "cold" solutions!
6- The conclusion is that Iran does not "stray" from American policy; rather, it does not depart from it, and all of this is under the pretext of common interest with the Great Satan!
Your brother, Ata bin Khalil Abu al-Rashtah
Link to the answer from the Ameer's page on Facebook
Link to the answer from the Ameer's website
Link to the answer from the Ameer's page on Google Plus