Recently, the Middle East region has erupted into chaos, which at one point threatened a world war between the US and Iran.  To gain unparalleled insight into the complex global political systems, I decided to reach out to Denis Korkodinov, the Russian political scientist, consultant, and specialist in the Middle East, and editor of the World Geostrategic Insights.  Denis Korkodinov is the author of more than 2000 analytical articles published in international the press in Russian, Turkish, Azerbaijani, English, Arabic, Spanish, Albanian and Chinese. This wide-ranging interview covers the US, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, and Libya.

***

Steven Sahiounie: Why do you think that the US administration killed Kassem Soleimani at this time?

Denis Korkodinov: The assassination of the Quds force commander, Kassem Soleimani, from the point of view of the American audience, was caused by the strategic need to combat international terrorism. In any case, such an opinion was repeatedly expressed by US President Donald Trump and members of his administration. In particular, it was indicated that Kassem Soleimani was involved in the attack on the building of the US Embassy in Iraq and was preparing a series of other sabotage regarding American interests.

Meanwhile, the stated reason for the liquidation of a high-ranking Iranian general differs from the real reason, which served as the main argument for the administration of the White House. The fact is that the United States has been striving for decades to occupy a dominant position in the countries of the Greater Middle East, based on its advantageous geopolitical position related to access to the main sea routes and oil resources. However, the implementation of these plans is significantly impeded by Iran, which is implementing its own project of regional domination.

On the eve of the assassination of Kassem Soleimani, when there was a series of attacks on oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz and the Gulf of Oman, as well as a missile attack on Saudi Aramco sites, relations between Tehran and Washington reached a “boiling point” when it was clear that the murder was a high-ranking person of one of the parties to the conflict is inevitable.

Kassem Soleimani, thanks to his military talent and high diplomatic skills, for many years served as a kind of “Iranian Shah” in four capitals: Tehran, Baghdad, Beirut, and Sana’a. Among other things, he was able to extend his influence to Latin America (Venezuela, Cuba, Chile), where the United States is very sensitive to any attempts to limit their interests. In general, it was Kassem Soleimani who became clearly associated in the international environment with Iran.

It significantly impeded the US access to the eastern part of the Mediterranean, which is of global importance as the main route connecting Europe and the Greater Middle East.

S.S.: Where do you see Turkish-Russian relations and did they help in the war in Syria?

D. K.: Relations between Russia and Turkey were actually blocked as a result of the destruction of the Su-24 military bomber in the sky over Syria on November 24, 2015. However, after a public apology by Turkish President Recep Erdogan, dialogue between the two countries was resumed. And now Russian-Turkish relations continue to actively develop in all areas. At the same time, the development of a common strategy for the development of bilateral relations is in the competence of the top-level Cooperation Council, headed by Vladimir Putin and Recep Erdogan

Despite a number of significant disagreements, Russia and Turkey managed to develop a common vision of events taking place in northeast Syria. In addition, Moscow and Ankara proceed from the need that the territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic should be preserved.

At present, Russian-Turkish relations are being built against the backdrop of a worsening military situation in Syria and Libya. So, in the Syrian province of Idlib, government forces have recently launched an offensive, which has caused concern from Ankara. In addition, Turkish President Recep Erdogan announced the sending of a military contingent to Libya to help the Al-Vefak government, led by Fayez al-Sarraj. Support for this government lies in the special interest zone of Turkey, which sees Libya as part of the Ottoman Empire.

Moscow and Ankara in Libya occupy diametrically opposite positions. However, this does not impede the Russian-Turkish dialogue.

S.S.: President Erdogan sent the Turkish army to Libya. In your opinion, what is the purpose of this step?

D.K.: Turkish President Recep Erdogan motivated his decision to provide military assistance to official Tripoli with a desire to protect the internationally recognized Government of the National Accord Fayez al-Sarraj. However, this argument raises doubts in connection with the ongoing offensive of the Syrian government army in Idlib, where pro-Turkish militants are also represented.

Thus, announcing participation in the Libyan file, Ankara provided an opportunity to evacuate representatives of the armed groups loyal to it from Syria and provide them with new work in Libya. Confirming this, Syrian information sources note that almost immediately after the Turkish parliament decided on military assistance to official Tripoli, 1,700 militants arrived in Libya, which were transported by the Turkish regime from the Syrian province of Idlib. In addition, Turkey is recruiting recruits in Africa and other areas of Syria for subsequent transfer to Libya.

It is also worth noting that Recep Erdogan seeks to ensure control of Ankara over all territories previously part of the Ottoman Empire, including Libya. In this regard, the President of Turkey is considered the successor of the policies of the Ottoman sultans Selim I and Suleiman the Magnificent.

But the most important interest for the Turks, as well as all other regional players, is Libyan oil.

S.S.: Do you see more escalation between Washington and Tehran or will the two sides calm down and sit down at the negotiating table?

D.K.: The assassination of the Kuds force commander, Kassem Soleimani, could have been the “trigger” for starting a global conflict between various force groups led, on the one hand, by the United States and, on the other hand, by Iran. At the very least, the Ayatollah regime was determined to deliver a “crushing blow”, and still has not abandoned this plan. Moreover, there was a real risk of using nuclear weapons in the process of Iran-US confrontation. However, the collapse of the Ukrainian airliner radically changed the course of the geopolitical game. As a result of this, Iran was urgently required to revise its military strategy and temporarily abandon the use of ballistic missiles to strike at American targets in order to avoid the crash of another civilian aircraft.

It would seem that the conflict should be settled on this. Meanwhile, the United States has not abandoned plans to overthrow the Ayatollah regime. In turn, Tehran does not intend to limit its nuclear program. In addition, Iran still considers it its duty to avenge Kassem Soleimani, based on the principle of the talion: “blood for blood.”

Based on this, the conflict between the parties has become hidden. Moreover, the preparation of a “crushing blow” takes time.

S.S.: The Iraqi government asked the American army to leave Iraq. Will the US leave the country or will we see a resistance movement?

D.K.: On January 5, 2020, the Iraqi parliament decided to end military cooperation between Baghdad and Washington, as well as to withdraw all foreign, including American, troops from Iraq. And despite the fact that the Iraqi Federal Court and Iraqi “jokers” are now opposing this initiative, the decision to expel American troops has many followers. In particular, the leader of the Mahdi Army, Sheikh Muktad al-Sadr, together with the League of Holidays, Hezbollah Brigades, and the Iraqi People’s Militia, intend to organize a Resistance March against the United States on January 24, 2020, in Baghdad and other cities in Iraq. This action will bring together millions of people who are ready with arms in hand to expel all American troops from Iraq. And this scenario is quite real. In any case, almost all the opinion leaders and religious leaders of Iraq that I interviewed said that they were determined to raise an armed uprising and expel American troops from Iraqi territory.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

Steven Sahiounie is a political commentator.

Featured image is from InfoRos