Elections in Iraq took place on May 12. A month after the election, there is still considerable disagreement over its results. It is not known who won, although the list of “surfers” of Muqtada al-Sadr has taken the lead. There are various justifications to prevent the chest from harvesting the fruits of the results achieved by the “Saroon”.
All that is said is that Muqtada al-Sadr, despite all the taking and reaction to his actions since the US occupation of Iraq in 2003, and played different roles for the benefit of Iran in the past, finally showed a kind of Iraqi nationalism. The man revealed a clear desire to get rid of the heavy Iranian hand, which seeks to turn Iraq into a colony managed by Tehran.
It may be the first time in the world that a council of outgoing MPs has questioned the new council and its legitimacy after elections have been held in accordance with established laws. The old council took advantage of the current situation, given that its mandate expires on June 30, to cancel the declared results of the recent elections.
He wants a recount of all the funds in the whole country and a manual counting of votes. There is a striking blow to the idea of ??elections. For Iran, the Iraqi elections mean nothing as long as the new council is out of control. This is a scandalous scandal that effectively reflects the Iranian bankruptcy and inability to manage Iraq, including the election process.
There is simply a failure to pursue a policy of controlling the country and all aspects of its political life.There is an Iranian failure, after which there is a failure not only in Iraq. This failure appears everywhere where Iran intervenes directly or through its sectarian militias. But in Iran itself, where a whole people suffer from a regime that has nothing to offer except for the constant flight out of the country’s borders … and the promise of paradise.
In practice, Iran canceled the Iraqi elections. Wants elections on the scale or no elections. In the absence of the Iranian ability to control the Iraqi voter and his direction, and despite all the influence possessed by the militias of sectarian parties under the name of “popular mobilization”, Iran was unable to achieve the results that it wanted. There are several factors that have been played against it, including the divisions within the “popular crowd” itself where the taste of power has begun to appeal to its leaders.
If the rise of Muqtada al-Sadr’s star in Iraq reflects the Iraqis’ awareness that their country must resist Iranian hegemony and avoid the trap of stirring up sectarian instincts, the Iranian attack on the Iraqi elections reflects weakness. At the root of this Iranian weakness is that the regime in Tehran has nothing to offer Iraq and the Iraqis. If there is any hope of restoring Iraq’s unity one day, or of transferring some kind of unity under a constitution and laws that are related to what is civilized in this world, this hope is limited to the desire to distance itself from the present Iran in all its manifestations on every level.
Iran’s weakness is not only evident in Iraq, where Tehran is forced to derail the election results because it did not fit its candidates to take over the prime minister’s position, headed by Nuri al-Maliki. There is Syria, where Iran no longer knows what to do. Sooner or later, Iran will have to leave Syria. She certainly can not do that, although she is sure that Russia has its own accounts. Russia’s calculations in Syria are linked to what Israel wants, on the one hand, and the need to find an understanding with Donald Trump’s administration on the other.
What led to the Iranian policy in Syria bankruptcy is not after bankruptcy. Iran has no choice but to talk about a deficit. In fact, Iran has no choice but to withdraw from Syria or go to bomb the entire region. Iran seeks to open three fronts – southern Lebanon, Gaza and the Golan – as well as exert pressure on Jordan.And this is what the Gulf is alerted to.
Iran wants, brazenly, to cause another disaster in Gaza, where homes have been destroyed since the war of late 2008 and the beginning of 2009. It is clear that there is in Gaza who does not want to learn from the experiences of the recent past, and not convinced that all that Iran does is trade The Palestinian cause and the Palestinians.
Anyone who wants a vivid example of this can recover the last speech of Hizbullah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah on the occasion of Jerusalem Day, the day when Iran’s trade in the Palestinian cause reaches its climax. Nasrallah, who became the leader of the Quds Force in Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, Qassim Soleimani, called the Ayatollah to go to the Israelis, said: “To the invading Zionist Zionists, take your ships and planes and return from where you came … The day of the Great War is coming today In which we will all pray in Jerusalem. “
The fear, all the fear, lies in the fact that Soleimani, despite acknowledging that this is not his right, is behind the impeachment of Nasrallah by the name of the ayatollah. He is targeting him in the war that Iran intends to wage in order to avoid getting out of Syria. The victims of this war will be mostly Lebanese, Syrians and Iraqis.
How can a party, which is ultimately just a sectarian militia that is a brigade in the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, liberate Jerusalem, where no one is resisting the Israeli occupiers other than its people and honorable Arabs from the Gulf and Jordan who send them aid so that they can stay in their land? How can a party that participates in the war against the Syrian people from a doctrinal point of view and plays all the required roles in the field of destroying the Syrian cities, from Aleppo to Homs and Hama, played a role in liberating Jerusalem?
Those who call for the liberation of Jerusalem through Aleppo, Homs, Hama, Damascus and Qisair laugh at the Palestinians and the Arabs. It is a sale of illusions to cover the bankruptcy of Iran, which remains the Iraqi election best expressed. In the end, Iran’s hand or tools were not extended to a place where there was ruin. Unfortunately, escaping from reality to slogans has become a feature of Iranian politics.
The most dangerous is that there is still among the Arabs who believe. It is true that the number of confidants is much less, but it is also true that the era of the Iranian militias is not over yet, as evidenced by the suffering of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. When does this age end that the inevitable end of it? It is better to ask the question differently: what price will Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen pay before reaching this?
Source: Rawabet Center