Iran rejects Deal of the Century proposed by US President Donald Trump

In a move consistent with the Islamic Republic's decades-old policy regarding Israeli-Palestinian issue, Iranian officials have harshly criticized US President Donald Trump's "Deal of the Century".

Speaker of the Iranian Parliament, Ali Larijani wrote a letter to the heads of parliaments around the world describing Trump's Deal of the Century as "disgusting," and "in violation of all international agreements and laws including the UN Charter."

Larijani wrote, “The deal ensures the continuation of occupation of Palestine and promised that Muslim nations and countries will confront the imposition of this unilateral deal."

He accused the US President of acting based on his personal interests rather than consulting the UN or the Palestinians.

Larijani also echoed Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's idea of holding a referendum in the Palestinian territories to determine the fate of Palestinians.

Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif slammed the US plan as "a nightmare for the region." He wrote in a tweet that the Vision for Peace "is simply the dream project of a bankruptcy-ridden real estate developer." Zarif hoped that deal would be "a wake-up call for all the Muslims who have been barking up the wrong tree."

In an earlier tweet, Zarif characterized the Deal of the Century as "an illusionist plan that is dead on arrival."

Repeating the idea of holding a referendum in the Palestinian territory, Zarif suggested that “Instead of a delusional ‘Deal of the Century’—which will be D.O.A.—self-described ‘champions of democracy’ would do better to accept Iran's democratic solution proposed by Ayatollah Khamenei.”

Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman, Abbas Mousavi expressed Iran's official view saying, "The Zionist regime is an occupying regime and the only solution to solve the Palestinian crisis is a referendum among all main residents of the Palestinian land and such vicious plans are doomed to failure."

Mousavi called on "All free nations and governments in the region and across the world to counter Trump's "disgraceful" scheme." However, he regretted that "some Muslim countries have forgotten the Palestinian cause," adding that such an attitude will undermine "the future and prestige of Muslims and Islamic countries."

Khamenei's office belatedly posted a series of tweets on the issue Tuesday afternoon which appear to have been taken out of his previous speeches.

In the tweets Khamenei said, "The Deal of the Century will never bear fruit," and called the "Jewishization of Qods" a "foolish and unwise" act. He reiterated that "The Palestinian nation and all Muslims will definitely stand up to them and not allow the so-called Deal of Century to be realized."

Usually, as it works in Iran, during the first hours after a development like the announcement of the Deal of the Century, everyone who considers himself or herself a politician says something about the matter which may not necessarily reflect the views of the government. Later, the Foreign Ministry Spokesman offers the regime's attestation in the matter.

The spokesman's statement as seen above contains three elements.

First, the regime does not like the Deal of the Century, second, it calls on other Muslim nations to oppose the deal and third, it offers Khamenei's solution which is holding a referendum.

All later comments, including Friday prayers sermons, embodied one or more of the three arguments. Naturally, those who take a more hardliner stance on the issue, including military officials, will focus on the confrontational part, calling on other nations to resist Trump's idea.

However, in this particular case, any comment by officials or any analysis by the media are also mixed with the usual anti-US and anti-Trump jargon while also marking the Islamic Republic's antagonistic opposition to the existence of Israel.

Traditionally, the Islamic Republic has opposed all solutions to the Israel-Palestinian conflict throughout the past four decades. Ayatollah Khamenei came up with the idea of referendum inspired by former ultraconservative President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad but put it forward after his Presidency.

What has kept Islamic Republic of Iran intact over four decades?

Since the end of WWII, the United States has conducted coups against many nations, including Iran in 1953. The US involvement in toppling Shah in 1953 has been confirmed by unclassified CIA documents. After the revolution in 1979, the US and its allies have been making efforts to topple the regime in Islamic Republic of Iran by establishing and supporting various rebel factions within the country, but all in vain.   

It may be worth probing the factors that have kept the regime intact. These include:

1. Since 1979, the US has become increasingly hostile, causing the general population of Iran to become united in support of the regime. The biggest evidence came recently at the funeral of General Soleimani inside and outside Iran.
2. Iranians are concerned that the US support might bring a regime change that could be worse than the present regime.
3. The current regime has successfully created a semi-welfare state by subsidizing basic necessities, and lately providing free medical insurance to all, a situation that does not exist even in the US.
4. The US threats including a steady increase of sanctions, as economic terrorism have had a direct impact on ordinary Iranians.
5. The US pressure on Iranians to topple the present regime is based on the recent US history of regime changes in many countries, specifically in the Middle East, Central and South America.
6. Trump’s maximum pressure on Iran via sanctions has had a significant impact on ordinary Iranians to remain united.
7. Iranians as well as rest of the world understand that western democracy is based on wealth and is not true democracy.    

Strategic Planning of the incumbent regime moved on many fronts to thwart the US, which are:

1-      Going to Syria and defeating US-created ISIS and elements backed by the west, which include, defeat of ISIS in Syria and containment of devastation in Iraq, Libya and Syria.

2-      Policies and the ability to produce defensive and offensive weapons have made the prospect of a US invasion costly.

3-      Development of strategic alliances with Russia and China, with their UN veto power has effectively made overt US aggression illegal.

4-      Iranian regime making a major strategic shift to the balance of world power in favor of Iran, Russia, and China, against other western imperialists.

5-      In June 2019 Iran surprised the world by shooting down a US drone in the Persian Gulf to which there was no US military response.

6-      In late December 2019 IRI conducted military exercises with Russia and China in the Gulf of Oman.

7-      On January 3, 2020 the US assassinated General Soleimani, an act condemned around the world. Following that action, Iran labeled the Pentagon a terrorist organization and US a terrorist state.

8-      The most important strategic achievement of Iran was its response to that killing, shooting 22 missiles into two US military bases in Iraq, again without a US response.

9-      Iran developed a policy of changing US assets into liabilities; also showed that the sole purpose of US weapons has been to increase corporate profit, not for defense.

10-   The US attempts to force Iraqi’s PM to resign, by suggesting he and his defense minister could be killed, failed when the PM refused and made it public, exposing the US as terrorist

Iranians have been gradually uniting as the government counters US provocations, sanctions, sustained hostility, aggression, and existential threats against them. Recently, they have been more critical of the US. There is general support to major strategic achievements including defeating ISIS in Syria and Iraq, and their strategic alliances with the emerging world powers of China and Russia.

Most importantly, the regime has prevented US from invading Iran, made history and changed the world balance of power against US aggression, hopefully moving toward a more peaceful and safer world.

United States making every effort to keep its troops in Middle East

Iraqi Parliament passed a resolution to expel US troops from the country two weeks ago. However, Washington does not seem ready to leave the country. According to some analysts, the US administration knows it very well that leaving Iraq could become the preamble of complete exit from Middle East and North Africa (MENA).

There is growing consensus that the presence of US troops in MENA and South Asia, especially Iraq, is part of greater agenda of fragmentation and establishing a “Feeble Middle East”. The strategy was formed during Bill Clinton’s presidency and it was practically launched by George W. Bush. 

The strategy has been applied in all the tactics and policies of US foreign and defense policies in the past two decades. There seems no ambiguity or disagreement between Democrats and Republicans regarding the necessity of its implementation. Criticizing Donald Trump’s recent behavior in the region by his Democratic rivals is related to the failure of the White House in carrying out the strategy.

The US withdrawal from the JCPOA, exerting pressure for a new deal or at least including new articles in the current deal, and insisting to limit the Iranian influence in the region can be assessed in this regard.

Washington has made great investment in exploiting the terrorist potential of Takfiri groups for the fragmentation in the region. The presence of US troops in the region, under the pretext of the fight against ISIS, is an issue of crucial importance for the White House, which it will not easily ignore.

The United States has witnessed major d.efeats in the political, military and intelligence areas by the axis of resistance. It has failed in executing its plans, despite spending billions of dollars of US tax payers. This became an important matter in Iraq and officials provided the conditions for greater synergy with the axis of resistance, a move that infuriated the White House.

Over the last four months, the US has put the tactic of “creating a power vacuum based on social protest” on its agenda to weaken those leaders who want complete expelling of US troops from the region. Washington has sought to undermine the Iranian-Iraqi strategic unity through anti-Iran slogans and prepare the ground for its troops to remain in Iraq.

The assassination of senior commanders of the resistance movement, Major General Qassem Soleimani, and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, was the same blunder that the theorists of the partition project were afraid of since they considered it as the loss of all American possessions in the region.

Iraqis agreed upon the expulsion of US troops from the country. The incident was the beginning of the new White House game in Iraq, US administration made every effort to disrupt the implementation of the resolution.

The US administration termed the resolution illegal and then claimed that the parliament did not have a quorum at the time of voting. The US administration also stated that under the Iraqi constitution, parliamentary sessions will take legal form if more than half of the members plus one person attend the session. This is exactly what happened during the voting.

When they failed in proving the allegation, US officials resorted to bypassing the resolution by bringing up again the old disputes between the Kurdish leaders and Baghdad. 

The US is also trying to convince the UN Security Council of the necessity of continuing its presence in Iraq to fight terrorism, by transferring a number of ISIS leaders (trained at U.S. bases, especially in Syria's Al-Tanaf and Al-Hasakah) to Iraq. In fact, several terrorist operations recently carried out by ISIS elements in Iraq is an example of the US hostility.

A new wave of violent protests has been staged in the past few days, which are allegedly being directly led by the US embassy in Baghdad. Washington is seeking to seize the opportunity and stabilize its presence in Iraq by disrupting the process of appointing a new prime minister. 

It seems that Iraq will witness some unrest due to enmity of the US and its regional and European allies, including Britain, United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia.

Lopsided reporting on United States-Iran Conflict

Without mincing words, it may be said that Pakistani readers/viewers get no clue of the current United States-Iran Conflict. To be precise they are lost by reading reports released by international media houses. The reason in most obvious, these media houses are owned and operated by anti-Muslim elements.

Over the years, distorted news reports were released about Pakistan-India conflict that culminated at East Pakistan, becoming Bangladesh. During 1965 and 1971 Pakistanis became addicted to BBC, as they were made to believe that the reporting was ‘fair’. When Saddam Hussein of Iraq attack Kuwait Pakistanis were introduced to another fantasy, CNN, as live coverage were provided by ‘embedded journalists’. After 9/11, United States attacked Afghanistan and Iraq and over the last four decades, Pakistanis have been completely brain washed and now they believe only Western media provides unbiased reports.

Let me point out the deficiency of Pakistani media houses, they hardly have correspondents even in Brother Muslim countries. As a result these media houses are obliged to use tinted reports released by international agencies, numbering less than half a dozen. Interestingly Pakistani news agencies also have arrangement with some foreign agencies and use their content without any deciphering.

Added to this, are the political affiliation of the owners of media houses with countries and sects. It is also not a secret that the successive governments in Pakistan have remained inclined to certain global and regional super powers, as a result some reports are overblown and some are completely blacked out.

Now coming to the current and the most contentious issue of United States-Iran confrontation, no one can deny Pakistan has been towing the US foreign policy, since independence. Over the years Pakistan also faced tenses relations with USSR. It has been facing tense relations with Afghanistan, Iran and India.

The biggest example of US hegemony is non-completion of Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) gas pipeline. The dichotomy of US policy can be gauged from the fact that India was allowed to construct Chabahar Port in Iran as well as rail and road links connecting the port to Central Asian Countries. Was not this hoodwinking aimed at undermining the importance of Pakistan?

I am inclined to infer that the most important aspects of present media system, and yet hardly known to the public that most of the international news coverage in Western media is provided by only three global news agencies based in New York, London and Paris.
Western media often report on the same topics, even using the same wording. In addition, governments, military and intelligence services use these global news agencies as multipliers to spread their messages around the world.These news agencies are the most important suppliers of material to mass media around the world and Pakistan cannot be an exception. No daily media outlet can manage without them. They influence our image of the world; above all, we get to know what they have selected.

In view of their essential importance, it is all the more astonishing that these agencies are hardly known to the public: A large part of society is unaware that news agencies exist at all.  On the contrary, they play an enormously important role in the media market.

There is something strange about news agencies. They are little known to the public. Unlike a newspaper, their activity is not so much in the spotlight, yet they can always be found at the source of the story.

In fact, not only the text, but also the images, sound and video recordings that we encounter in our media every day, are mostly from the very same agencies. What the uninitiated audience might think of as contributions from their local newspaper or TV station, are actually copied reports from New York, London and Paris.

Iraqi Parliament votes to expel US troops from Iraq

Reportedly in an extraordinary session on Sunday, the Iraqi parliament voted for a resolution requiring the government to order the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

The session came two days after a US drone strike on a convoy at Baghdad airport which killed Iranian Military Commander Qassem Soleimani and Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) Deputy Chief Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis.

“There is no need for the presence of American forces after defeating Daesh,” said Ammar al-Shibli, a lawmaker and member of the parliamentary legal committee.

“We have our own armed forces which are capable of protecting the country,” he said, Reuters reported.

Around 5,000 U.S. troops remain in Iraq, most of them in an advisory capacity.

During a massive funeral procession for General Soleimani, the commander of the IRGC Quds Force, and al-Muhandis in Baghdad, al- Kadhimiya, Karbala and Najaf, hundreds of thousands of angry Iraqi mourners carried placards demanding an immediate expulsion of “U.S. terrorists” from their country.

In the face of the Iraqi people’s will, the Iraqi parliament made a historic test about by voting to expel the U.S. troops.

Expelling Iraqi troops had turned into a “national demand” after the terrorist attacks on the top Iranian and Iraqi military commanders. 

Following the terrorist attack by the US, Iraqi caretaker Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi had asked the parliament to take a decision based on Article 58 of the Iraqi constitution about the “illegal action” of the US army.

The Prime Minister said the US move was a violation of the Iraqi sovereignty and an affront to national pride.

He called the US act a dangerous move which will trigger another devastating war in Iraq and the region.

Since the US terrorist attack, rival political leaders had been calling for expulsion of US troops from Iraq in an unusual show of unity among factions.

Hadi al-Amiri, the top candidate to succeed al-Muhandis, repeated his call for US troops to leave Iraq on Saturday during an elaborate funeral procession for those killed in the attack.

Iraqi Parliament Speaker Salim al-Jabouri has expressed anger over the US attack on the military convoy, saying, “What happened around Baghdad airport was an open violation of the Iraqi territorial sovereignty and violation of international agreements.”

He added, “Any security and military operation should be with the agreement of the government.”

Faleh al-Fayad, Iraq’s national security advisor and chief of Hashd al-Shaabi or PMF), has also said it is the duty of the Iraqi government and judiciary to respond to the violation of the Iraqi sovereignty.  

Also, Abdelkarim Khalaf, spokesman for the Iraqi Armed Forces has said "these strikes represent a treacherous stab in the back."

Protests erupt in United States after assignation of Soleimani in a US attack in Iraq

According to a Reuters report, groups of protesters took to the streets in Washington and other cities of United States on Saturday to condemn the air strike in Iraq ordered by President Donald Trump that killed Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani and Trump’s decision to send about 3,000 more troops to the Middle East.

“No justice, no peace. US out of the Middle East,” hundreds of demonstrators chanted outside the White House before marching to the Trump International Hotel a few blocks away.

Similar protests were held in New York, Chicago and other cities. Organizers at Code Pink, a women-led anti-war group, said protests were scheduled on Saturday in numerous US cities and towns.

Protesters in Washington held signs that read “No war or sanctions on Iran!” and “US troops out of Iraq!”

Speakers at the Washington event included actress and activist Jane Fonda, who last year was arrested at a climate change protest on the steps of the US Capitol.

“The younger people here should know that all of the wars fought since you were born have been fought over oil,” Fonda, 82, told the crowd, adding that “we can’t anymore lose lives and kill people and ruin an environment because of oil.”

“Going to a march doesn’t do a lot, but at least I can come out and say something, that I’m opposed to this stuff,” said protestor Steve Lane of Bethesda, Maryland. “And maybe if enough people do the same thing, he (Trump) will listen.”

Soleimani, regarded as the second most powerful figure in Iran, was killed in the US strike on his convoy at Baghdad airport on Friday in a dramatic escalation of hostilities in the Middle East between Iran and the United States and its allies.

Public opinion polls show Americans in general have been opposed to US military interventions overseas. A survey last year by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs found 27% of Americans believe military interventions make the United States safer, and nearly half said they make the country less safe.

Trump administration justifies killing of Soleimani

Qassem Soleimani, Commander of Iran’s elite Quds Force, was killed in the US air strike in Baghdad, the attack was ordered by President Donald Trump.  His killing has instantly upped the military stakes in the region. Some believe that his killing was an adventurist step that will increase tensions throughout the region and make the world even more dangerous. Others believe that the incident opens the doors of the region to all possibilities, except peace and stability and United States will have to bear the responsibility for that. Let us review what the western media has to say.

According to media reports, Trump administration has justified killing of Soleimani as an act of self defense. This announcement came in response to the accusations that United States has violated international law and concerns raised by legal experts and a senior UN rights investigator.

According to Reuters, Republican and Democratic lawmakers dispute the wisdom of the attack. Some legal experts questioned whether Trump had the legal authority to target Soleimani on Iraqi soil without the permission of Iraq’s government, and whether it was legal under international and US law.

Iraq’s prime minister said Washington had with the attack violated a deal for keeping US troops in his country, and several Iraqi political factions united in a call for American troops to be expelled.

The UN Charter generally prohibits the use of force against other states but there is an exception if a state gives consent to the use of force on its territory. Legal experts said the absence of consent from Iraq makes it difficult for the United States to justify the killing.

Yale Law School professor Oona Hathaway, an international law expert, said on Twitter that the available facts “do not seem to support” the assertion that the strike was an act of self-defense, and concluded it was “legally tenuous under both domestic and international law.”

The Pentagon said targeting Soleimani was aimed at deterring “future Iranian attack plans,” while Trump said the Iranian general was targeted because he was planning “imminent and sinister” attacks on US diplomats and military personnel.

Robert Chesney, a national security law expert at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law, said the administration’s best argument on the UN Charter issue is self defense. “If you accept that this guy was planning operations to kill Americans, that provides the authority to respond,” he said.

Scott Anderson, a former legal adviser to the US Embassy in Baghdad under Trump’s predecessor, Barack Obama, said Trump’s justification so far under international law is questionable, but he could try to argue that the Iraqi government was either unwilling or unable to deal with the threat posed by Soleimani, giving the United States the right to act without Iraq’s consent.

Article 51 of the U.N. Charter covers an individual or collective right to self-defense against armed attack. The United States used the article to justify taking action in Syria against Islamic State militants in 2014. The US troops in Iraq had been fighting Islamic State, and about 5,000 troops remain, most of them in an advisory capacity.

A strategic framework agreement signed in 2008 between Washington and Baghdad called for close defense cooperation to deter threats to Iraqi “sovereignty, security and territorial integrity,” but prohibited the United States from using Iraq as a launching point for attacks on other countries.

Under historic norms of international law, a country can defend itself preemptively if it acts out of necessity and responds proportionally to the threat.

Agnes Callamard, the U.N. special rapporteur on extra-judicial executions, questioned whether the attack met this threshold.

The targeting of Soleimani “appears far more retaliatory for past acts than anticipatory for imminent self-defense,” she said. “Lawful justifications for such killings are very narrowly defined and it is hard to imagine how any of these can apply to these killings.”

Democratic lawmakers called on Trump to provide details about the imminent threat that he said Soleimani represented.

“I believe there was a threat, but the question of how imminent is still one I want answered,” Senator Mark Warner, the Democratic vice-chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told Reuters.

Other critics raised questions about Trump’s authority to kill Soleimani under US law, and whether he should have acted without first notifying Congress.

Legal experts noted that recent US presidents from both parties have taken an expansive view of their unilateral ability to preemptively engage in force, including through targeted killings, a view bolstered by executive branch lawyers in successive administrations.

In the case of Soleimani, the administration’s self-defense arguments may hinge on disclosing specific knowledge of his imminent plans to attack Americans.

Self-defense could allow the administration to act without having to first notify Congress or act under a prior congressional authorization for the use of military force, Chesney said.

Democratic lawmakers did not defend Soleimani, who US officials have said is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans, but they called on Trump to consult with Congress going forward.

“This administration, like all others, has the right to act in self-defense,” said Rep. Elissa Slotkin, a former Central Intelligence Agency analyst who worked in Iraq focusing on Iranian-backed militias. “But the administration must come to Congress immediately and consult.”