Iran War Qassem Soleimani Assassination Quds Iraq PMU PMF

Video Transcript:

We do not seek war, we do not seek nation-building, we do not seek regime change. On January 3rd, Major General Kasem Soleimani, the commander of the Cods Force of Iran's Islamic Revolution Guard Corps, and Abu Madhi al-Muhandis, the second-in-command of Iraq's popular mobilization units, PMU, were killed by U.S. strikes on the Iraqi capital of Baghdad. The U.S. strike also killed several other Iraqi and Iranian commanders, and caused a regional crisis that put the entire Middle East on the edge of a new open military conflict. U.S. military accidentally forgot to mention that the PMU and the Cods Force, led by Soleimani, played a key role in the defeat of ISIS in both Iraq and Syria. The PMU is an official branch of the Iraqi armed forces. U.S. military accidentally forgot to mention that the PMU and the Cods Force, led by Soleimani, played a key role in the defeat of ISIS in both Iraq and Syria. The long fight against ISIS in the Middle East, the Middle East, the Middle East, the Middle East, the Middle East, the Middle East, the Middle East, the Middle East, the Middle East, the Middle East, the Middle East, the Middle East, the Middle East, the Middle East, the Middle East, the Middle East, the Middle East, the Middle East, the Middle East, the Middle East, the Middle East, the Middle East, the Middle East, the Middle East, the Middle East, the Middle East, the Middle East, the Middle East, the Middle East, the Middle East, the Middle East, the Middle East, the Middle East, the Middle East, the Middle East, the Middle East, the Middle East, the Middle East, the Middle East, the Middle East, the Middle East, the Middle East, the Middle East, the Middle East, The Long Fight Against ISIS in Iraq is now all but over, claiming victory, an American leg co-oilition of Iraqi government forces, and Kurdish troops, joined by tens of thousands of militia fighters, The long fight against ISIS in Iraq is now all but over. Claiming victory, an American leg coalition of Iraqi government forces and Kurdish troops joined by tens of thousands of militia fighters back by Iran. And it is the Iranian support for that force that is causing great concern in Washington. We return to our series Iran rising in Iraq and again aren't in a partnership with the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting, special correspondent Reza Sayah reports. At a training camp just outside the city of Kerkuk, a rare glimpse of America's newest problem in Iraq. The popular mobilization forces. The MF for short, Hachdol Shabi in Arabic, an armed militia more than 100,000 fighters strong, who helped crush ISIS in Iraq. Many armed, funded and trained by America's long time foe, the Islamic Republic of Iran, with no plans to disband. The PMF has reached a place where no one can stop it and this is a blow to US interest in the Middle East. Abu Ali Bak is the face of America's newest problem. A battle scarred PMF commander committed to God and driven by duty and in no small measure, revenge. When Bak was a child, Iraqi dictators Saddam Hussein, a Sunni Muslim, executed his Shia father. Bakinous family fled to neighboring Iran, believing Shia power in the region, where they lived for more than a decade. Twenty years later, he was back in Iraq, fighting ISIS. A terrorist organization many here believe was made up of Sunni remnants of Saddam Hussein's forces and supported Bak says by Washington's Sunni Arab allies. Everyone knows ISIS was manufactured by America's allies in the region. The PMF, backed by Iran, defeated ISIS, so those American allies are not happy. Was the threat of ISIS in Iraq that spawned the PMF in 2014. Most US forces gone and Iraqi forces too weak to take on ISIS. The Iraqi government called on Iran for help and Iraq's highest religious authority, Shia cleric Ayatollah Al-Sistani called for volunteer fighters. Within weeks, armed militias mobilized, backed by Iran. For the whole world, watched as Iraq was collapsing. In fact, it was only Iran that stood with us by providing us moral and material support. The PMF acknowledged support from Iran. Many fighters say they've traveled there. We heard several speak the Iranian language of Farsi. We loved Iran, yes. But PMF spokesman Haji Jada Asif insists they're not beholden to Iran and never use Iranian soldiers. I think most of the people in Europe or in America must not believe these slice. There is no Iranians in Haji Shabi. There is advisors, Iranian advisors. No Iranian advisor is more revered among the PMF than major general Qasem Soleimani, a senior commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guard and chief strategist of operations outside Iran's borders. Washington calls him a terrorist whose she- U.S. military accidentally forgot to mention that the PMU and the Qasem Soleimani played a key role in the defeat of ISIS in both Iraq and Syria. The PMU is an official branch of the Iraqi armed forces. The militias killed American soldiers in Iraq during the U.S. occupation. The PMF says he's a hero, a brilliant tactician who helped save Iraq. What is it about major Qasem Soleimani that inspires you and so many other people? When we see him, he goes he is brave. We go to the fight, one of us fight like a thousand soldiers. It was Soleimani who led many of the PMF brigades in a three-year ground campaign that overpowered ISIS and eventually set the stage for Iraqi forces to defeat the extremist group in Mosul. It's last major stronghold in Iraq. This is the town of Gayara, just south of Mosul, the former ISIS stronghold in northern Iraq. Before U.S.-backed Iraqi forces launched an operation to take back Mosul from ISIS, it was the PMF that cleared out ISIS from Gayara and many other towns and villages on the outskirts of Mosul. U.S. artillery units positioned on the outskirts of the city, pounded ISIS held areas in Mosul. While U.S. fighter jets provided air support, but PMF leaders say they're estimated 20,000 casualties whose pictures line many Iraqi streets show who did the real fighting. The places we liberated were liberated by Iraqi forces. The Americans did not back up the PMF anywhere. They supported some Iraqi special forces by air, but most of the areas were liberated by the PMF. The Iraqi government credits all members of the coalition with defeating ISIS, but today it's the Iranian-backed militias that patrol key towns in northern Iraq, seemingly securing what Iran's critics fear most, the so-called Shi'a crescent, and Iranians fear of influence stretching to the Mediterranean. I personally don't think a country needs more than one army. Ala Sheikhur is an anti-Iranian Iraqi politician, and staunch supporter of President Donald Trump. Ala Sheikhur says the PMF should disband. Otherwise Iran has a powerful security presence that keeps Iraq weak and under Iran's control. An accusation Iran denies. I think they would like to have a mirror image of the revolutionary guards in Iran or a mirror image of the Hizbullah in Lebanon. Both of them are very popular in their respective countries. Are they getting there? Are they achieving them? I think we are already there. One of Iraq's top military officials disagrees. Major General Qais Alhamdawi says what Iran wants is a secure border and a stable neighbor free of extremism, not a building block in a Shi'a crescent. But this doesn't mean they interfere in politics and sovereignty. It doesn't mean they interfere in domestic affairs. We are very careful to make our relationship with Iran in accordance to the law and with respect to the state, just like we do with Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Jordan and the West as well. Alhamdawi says the many powerful factions of the PMF who oppose the Iranian government led by powerful clerics like Ayatollah Sastani and Muttader Al-Sader serve as a barrier to any attempts by Iran to dominate Iraq. Alhamdawi's convinced ISIS would still be here if it wasn't for the PMF and Iran support. Iran stood by the people of Iraq during complicated circumstances. I believe without the help of Iran, ISIS would be standing on the doorsteps of Baghdad. Iraq went through very difficult times. In fact, the PMF was one of the most important factors to the protection of Iraq. The U.S. government says otherwise. Last month, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson explicitly called the PMF an Iranian militia and demanded they know Iranian adviser is more revered among the PMF than Major General Qasem Soleimani, a senior commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guard and Chief Strategist of Operations outside Iran's borders. Washington calls him a terrorist. In terms of how you think about problem sets, when I was a cadet, what's the first, what's the cadet motto at West Point? You will not lie cheater steel or tolerate those who do. I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we steeled steel. We had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment. We caught him and we stopped him. It's a good thing for the world. He was traveling the region when he landed in Baghdad. The travels before that put him in places all around the region which were aimed solely at building out what they were referring to as the big attack. They were aiming to take down significant amounts of Americans. I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we steeled steel. We had been entire training courses. What they were referring to as the big attack. We lied, we cheated, we steeled steel. We had been entire training courses. The safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad. We lied, we cheated, we steeled steel. Some of Ben Laden calls this fight the Third World War. He says that victory for the terrorists in Iraq will mean America's defeat and to destroy the war. We lied, we cheated, we steeled steel. If we yield a rack to men like Ben Laden or enemies will be emboldened. They will gain a new safe haven. They will use Iraq's resources to fuel their extremist. We lied, we cheated, we steeled steel. We'll not allow this to happen. Some of Ben Laden and other terrorists are still in hiding. Our message to them is clear. No matter how long it takes, America will find you and we will bring you to justice. And I am ready and prepared to take whatever action is necessary. And that in particular refers to Iran. The world is a safer place without these monsters. Over the last several years we have consistently taken the fight to terrorists who threaten our country. Thanks to our military and counterterrorism. The world is a safer place. Still, we continue to face a terrorist threat. At this moment, the greatest threats come to me to know that we are radical groups exploit grievances for their own gain. We will conduct a systematic campaign of airstrikes against these terrorists. Moreover I might clear it with the rest of our terrorists who threaten our country wherever they are. No matter how long it takes, America will find you and we will bring you to justice. And I am ready and prepared to take whatever action is necessary. We are high down to a steep threat in our country wherever they are. October 2016, a coalition of military forces in Iraq launched an offensive to take back the city of Mosul from ISIS and fighting on the same side where the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Iraqi Army General Geisel Hamdawi says it was a superbly coordinated mission. It was the perfect example of bravery and cooperation among everybody. The PMF, tanks, army, air force, the American air force, special ops, and even citizens took part. This battle should be a lesson for all the armies in the world. The mission was called We Are Coming. Following the forces helping the Iraqi army, 500 American troops on the ground and U.S. fighter jets providing air support and 16,000 fighters from the popular mobilization forces. PMF for short, a volunteer Iraqi militia largely armed and funded by Iran and advised by Iran's revolutionary guard for the next several months. The Iranian-backed militia helped overpower ISIS on the ground in towns and villages surrounding Mosul. Once ISIS was encircled and trapped. In came Iraqi forces backed by U.S. artillery units and air power to finish the extremist group. What the United States and the United States is their goal to end ISIS, which we as Iraqis obviously appreciated. Iraqi politician Maazan Al-Ashaker says Washington and Tehran never publicly acknowledge the strategy and never made direct contact to discuss it. I'm talking U.S. and Iranian did not sit face to face, but the Iraqi sat face to face with Iranians and the same token sat face to face with the Americans to come up with a joint plan for both sides. The plan worked. In July, ISIS was defeated in its last major stronghold, thanks in part to a rare occasion where the United States and Iran tacitly cooperated to beat a common enemy. But Iraqi officials say, don't expect U.S. Iran cooperation of getting Iraq anytime soon. We're free to dream what we want, but it will not happen. Under President Barack Obama, the U.S. policy with Iran was cautious engagement on some issues. With the election of President Donald Trump, the policy immediately changed to confrontation, escalating the nearly four decade-long Cold War between the countries. In October, President Donald Trump repeated accusations that Iran's sponsors terrorism in the region and slap sanctions against Iran's revolutionary guard. The Iranian dictatorship's aggression continues to... The regime remains the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. The regime is also refused to certify that Iran was complying with the 2015 nuclear deal, even though the remaining world powers in UN inspectors said Iran was complying. Ten days later, U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson visited Riyadh to boost Iraq's ties with Iran's main rival in the region, Saudi Arabia. Tillerson also suggested the PMF was an Iranian fighting force, and called for the militia to disband, a demand the Iraqi government rejected, insisting PMF fighters were Iraqi nationals. Certainly, Iranian militias that are in Iraq now that the fight against a dash and ISIS is coming to a close, those militias need to go home. In last week CIA director, I came to the steel reveal that he had sent a letter to Qasem Soleimani, a senior commander in Iran's revolutionary guard warning Iran over its behavior in Iraq. He refused to open the letter. Didn't break my heart, to be honest with you. What we were communicating to him in that letter was that we will hold he and Iran accountable for any attacks on American interests in Iraq by forces that are under their control. We wanted to make sure he and the leadership in Iran understood that in a way that was just a little clear. Senior Iranian officials have hit back in the war of wars. Iran's foreign minister, Muhammad Javad Zarif, called U.S. policy in the Middle East dangerous. In a live televised address, Iranian President Hassan Rohani accused western countries, including the United States, of having fed in armed ISIS. And in a speech to university students last month, Iran's supreme leader called the U.S. Iran's number one enemy. My dear children, don't forget that in this very important path where you're following your goals, your number one enemy is America. American has to learn a lesson. Pro-Iranian political analyst Sayyid Hosseini says better relations between Washington and Tehran is good for Iraq. That won't happen. He says unless the U.S. changes what Hosseini calls a hostile policy against Iran. Until they don't correct themselves and their policies in the region, I don't think there will be a greater hope for them. American for them to be present in the region, they need Iranian. They must just come to term and accept the presence of a powerful Iran. Ali Iraqi's Dow, Tehran and Washington will change their policies. Ali Alami has owned this Baghdad supermarket for five decades. This is where Iraq's former dictator Saddam Hussein used to stop by for late night Shwarma, he says. So Saddam Hussein had Shwarma, it's your place. Alami says the U.S. and Iran are both here for their own interests, not to help Iraq. The location of Iraq is very strategic. There's oil, rivers. When Americans came and kicked out Saddam, they didn't do it for our interests, they did it for oil and money. Iran has expanded here, not for our sake, they did it for their own benefit. We pay a price as a people in Iraq. Iraqi politician Mutana Amin Nader is happy to see ISIS defeated in Iraq, but what he fears now is a dangerous proxy war between Iran and the U.S. Conflict between Iran and America make our people its victim. We give a very, very expensive price. It's the time to say enough for bleeding in Iraq and destroy it in Iraq. They should support us, but also keep away from us. With so much at stake here for the U.S. and Iran, keeping away from Iraq seems unlikely. How the two adversaries manage that high stakes competition while they're here may go a long way in shaping the future of Iraq. For the PBS NewsHour, I'm Reza Sayah in Baghdad. We caught him and we stopped him. It's a good thing for the world. It's the time to say enough for bleeding in Iraq and destroy it in Iraq. It's a good thing for the world. It's a good thing for the world. U.S. military accidentally forgot to mention that the PMU and the Qadz force, led by Soleimani, played a key role in the defeat of ISIS in both Iraq and Syria. The PMU is an official branch of the Iraqi armed forces. We caught him and we stopped him. It's a good thing for the world. It's a good thing for the world. Last night at my direction, the United States military executed a flawless strike that terminated. The terrorist ringleader. Responsible for gravely wounding and murdering thousands and thousands of people and hundreds and hundreds at least of Americans. Kassam Soleimani has been killed and his bloody rampage is now forever gone. We lied, we cheated, we steal a thought. He was plotting attacks against Americans, but now we've ensured that his atrocities have been stopped for good. They are stopped for good. We lied, we cheated, we stole. I don't know if you know what was happening, but he was planning a very major attack and we got him. We are a peace loving nation and my administration remains firmly committed to establishing peace and harmony. We cheated, we cheated, we cheated. We cheated, we cheated. We cheated, we cheated. We cheated, we cheated. We cheated, we cheated. We cheated, we cheated. We cheated, we cheated. We cheated, we cheated. We cheated, we cheated. We cheated, we cheated. We cheated, we cheated. We cheated, we cheated. We cheated, we cheated. We cheated, we cheated. We cheated, we cheated. We cheated, we cheated. We cheated, we cheated. We cheated, we cheated. We cheated, we cheated. We cheated, we cheated. We cheated, we cheated. We cheated, we cheated. We cheated, we cheated. We cheated, we cheated. We cheated, we cheated. We cheated, we cheated. We cheated, we cheated. We do not seek regime change. We lied, we cheated, we cheated. We cheated, we cheated. We cheated, we cheated. We took action last night to stop a war. We did not take action to start a war. We did not take action to start a war. We did not take action to start a war. We did not take action to start a war. We did not take action to start a war. We did not take action to start a war. We did not take action to start a war. We did not take action to start a war. We did not take action to start a war. We do not seek war. We do not seek nation building. We do not seek regime change. We lied, we cheated, we cheated. We cheated, we cheated. The PMF says he is a hero, a brilliant tactician, who helps save Iran. It was the PMF that cleared out ISIS from Caiara and many other towns and villages on the outskirts of Kabul. And armed militia, more than 100,000 fighters, are gone. Helped crush ISIS in Iran. Many warms, vulnerable, and planes, by a meridious one-time war, the Islamic Republic of Iran. Everyone knows ISIS was manufactured by a terrorist al-Azim al-Rijim, the PMF backed by Iran defeated ISIS. While the whole world watched as Iraq was collapsing, in fact it was only Iran that stood with us by providing us moral and material support. No Iranian advisor is more revered among the PMF than Major General Qasim Soleimani. No Iranian advisor is more revered among the PMF than Major General Qasim Soleimani. It was Soleimani that many of the PMF regains in a three-year-round campaign that over-powered ISIS. It was Soleimani that many of the PMF regains in a three-year-round campaign that over-powered ISIS. Al-Andaoui's convinced ISIS would still be here if it wasn't for the PMF and Iran's support. Al-Andaoui's convinced ISIS would still be here if it wasn't for the PMF and Iran's support. Iran stood by the people of Iraq during complicated circumstances. I believe without the help of Iran, ISIS would be standing on the doorsteps of Baghdad. Iran, in fact, militia, helped overpower ISIS on the ground. It tells the villages surrounding Muslims the politician Fazin Al-Asshaker says Washington and Zedron never publicly acknowledge the strategy. It never made direct contact to discussing. It's a time for a safe enough for the leader in Iraq. It's totally not. I think most people in Iraq are like us, most of the people in the US are not believe these lines. And armed militia, more than 100,000 fighters strong, who helped crush ISIS in Iraq. Many armed, funded and trained by America's long-time foe the Islamic Republic of Iran. In July, ISIS was defeated in its last major stronghold, thanks in part to a rare occasion where the United States and Iran tacitly cooperated to beat a common enemy. A key politician Maazin Al-Asshaker says Washington and Zedron never publicly acknowledge the strategy and never made direct contact to discussing. It's a time to say enough for bleeding in Iraq and destroy it in Iraq. I think most people in Europe or in America must not believe these lines. No Iranian advisor is more revered among the PMF than Major General Qasem Soleimani, a senior commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guard and Chief Strategist of Operations outside Iran's borders. Washington calls him a terrorist. Washington calls him a terrorist. Are we lying? We're kidding, we're still a storm. Washington calls him a terrorist. I think most people in Europe or in America must not believe these lines. America must not believe these lines. Not believe these lines. I've seen all the signs. They've been telling lies, they've been telling lies. Watch it how I move, watch it how I move. I'll be keeping track now. Watch out for the snakes. Watch out for the snakes. Yeah, watch out for the snakes. Watch out for the snakes. Yeah, watch out for the snakes. Major General Qasem Soleimani, Shia Yone Ali, O Ali, O Abadshur, Heide, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, I Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, Ida, I am the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the irifa Rashid & Al<|tr|> ISIS, but there's no direct U.S. involvement in Tikrit. Instead, Iraq has turned to neighboring Iran for help, with Iranian officers on the ground reportedly commanding Shiite Muslim militias. The fight for control of Tikrit is painfully slow. The latest U.S. military intelligence assessments, most of the fighters here are Iranian-backed Shia militia with Iranian weapons fighting to reclaim the city of Tikrit. Signs of Iran's influence everywhere. Iran's far-seat language heard here as field commanders review their plans. The U.S. has even asking Iran a long time enemy to get involved. That country faces a threat from the ISIS advance. Margaret Brennan is at the State Department where Secretary of State John Kerry is already reaching out to Iran. Margaret, good morning. Good morning. The administration wants Iran to help, but it's not clear yet what Tehran is willing to do. Secretary Kerry discussed that with Iran's top diplomat in a more than hour-long conversation Sunday afternoon, and the two plans to meet again later this week in New York. In a private meeting nearby the UN, Secretary Kerry met with Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif and brought up the threat posed by their shared enemy, ISIS, which is seized territory across Iran's borders in neighboring Syria and Iraq. Iran has military advisors in those countries, and now the U.S. wants help. The administration insists that it will not coordinate military operations or intelligence sharing with Iran. Doing so would anger U.S. allies Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Iraqi security forces and armed groups backed by Iran, known as the popular mobilization forces or PMF, hunt ISIL sleeper cells in northern Iraq. The U.S. calls the PMF Iran's proxy militia. They were set up after a decree by Iraq's top-shear cleric calling on Iraqis to fight ISIL when the Iraqi military fled ISIL offensive on the city of Mosul in 2014. Tens of thousands of PMF fighters were formally integrated into Iraq's security forces two years later. Ever since the revolution of 1979, U.S. presidents have viewed the Islamic Republic of Iran under the rule of the Ayatollahs as a threat and as an enemy, and the feelings pretty mutual. Iran's leaders have shown only a clenched fist. For decades Iran has fueled the fires of sectarian conflict and terror. Death to America, Kamini told the audience, because America is the original source of this pressure. But what if it was blowback from U.S. policies that helped the Ayatollahs take over in the first place? American's often asked, why can't Iran have a secular democratic government? Well, they kind of did, and it was the U.S. that helped get rid of that government and pave the way for the Ayatollahs and the Islamic revolution. You have to go back to 1953, and the coup against Prime Minister Mohammed Mosadek, who was democratically elected. A former time magazine man of the year, the populist Mosadek had a great deal of support from ordinary Iranians. He reduced the powers of the autocratic king, the Shah, and nationalized the Iranian oil industry. That upset the British, who had been in control of Iran's oil, and they decided to take action. We should not allow the biggest foreign essence in Britain to go without doing something about it. The sooner then that he left power, the better for Persia, not Dr. As for Persia. Right. So the British persuaded the Americans in the form of the Eisenhower administration to join them in getting rid of Mosadek. The British understood the extent of paranoia in this country concerning communism. This was the day of Joe McCarthy, and that the British consciously played on that fear in order to help persuade us to involve ourselves in the coup. Mosadek was not a communist, but he did have the support of the country's communist party. So the CIA just six years old swung into action. CIA agent Kermit Roosevelt, grandson of President Theodore Roosevelt, arrived in Tehran in July of 1953 to implement Operation Ajax. Thanks to declassified CIA documents, we now know the details of that plan included persuading the Shah to sign two degrees, sacking Mosadek and replacing him with a pro-American general, paying mobs of protesters to take to the streets and start anti-government riots, and funding a propaganda campaign to portray Mosadek as a pro-Soviet communist. That mob that came into North Tehran and was decisive in the overthrow was a mercenary mob had no ideology, and that mob was paid for by American dollars. By August, Mosadek had been forced from office and the Shah was back in full control. I owe my throne to God, my people, my army, and to you, the jubilant Shah told Roosevelt and the CIA as he kicked off a 26-year period of brutal dictatorship, which would end up sparking the Islamic Revolution in 1979. By the way, none of this is disputed anymore. The Clinton administration fessed up in 2000. The Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons, but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development. But even when US leaders openly admit to the US role in the Iranian coup, they try and play it down. Here's Barack Obama speaking in 2015. We had some involvement with overthrowing a democratically elected regime in Iran. Some involvement? Some involvement? Seriously? It may have been a British idea, but the coup itself was instigated, organized, executed, and financed by the CIA. And here's a key point. A bit, a lot of people seem to be unaware of. Declassified documents seem to suggest the CIA also worked with hardline members of Iran's Shia clergy, including Mossadeq's one-time ally Ayatollah Abul-Dasim Kushani, the speaker of Parliament, and they worked with him to help bring down that secular democratic government and bring back Masha. See, a lot of Shia clerics back then weren't happy about Mossadeq's alliance, but the communists, or his generally secular outlook, and so both the CIA and Britain's MI6 often to fund those clerics, including the powerful and influential Ayatollah Kushani. Ayatollah Kushani was a mentor to Ayatollah Qamani. Yes, the same Qamani who would later topple the despised Shah and found the Theocratic and anti-American Islamic Republic of Iran in 1979. Mossadeq back in 1953, nobody knows who Mossadeq was, democratic elected prime minister of Iran. He was overthrown by British and American interest because he threatened oil interest of the British. And as a result of that, the Shah of Iran came in, terrible dictator. As a result of that, you had the Iranian revolution coming in, and that's where we are today. Unintended consequences. Unintended consequences, or what's known in the intelligence business, as blowback. In fact, the very concept of, the very term blowback, was first coined by the CIA in relation to Iran in a secret internal report on lessons learned from the coup against Mossadeq. A coup remember that backfired, and yet nevertheless became a model for later CIA interventions from Guatemala to Chile. And whether it's coups, assassinations, invasions, more than 60 years later, the US is still in the regime change business with all of the attendant chaos, extremism, bloodshed, and blowback. I mean, the current US administration is talking about regime change in Iran again. Our policy towards Iran is to push back on this hegemony, contain their ability to develop obviously nuclear weapons, and to work towards support of those elements inside of Iran that would lead to a peaceful transition of that government. Are you kidding me? As Michael Morella, former deputy director of the CIA has pointed out, not only are you unlikely to be successful, but you're likely to have huge blowback. Yes, blowback. But is anyone in government even listening? A lot of people are interested in what's going on, but a lot of people are time poor, and those two words, middle east, people go, look, it's just insurmountable, I can't get there. Give us a snapshot into what you see. You know, I think it's probably the greatest transformation the region has seen since maybe Cix Peacot. We have had a fundamental shift in regional geopolitics, and it really converges over the Syrian conflict. What happened in Syria created very distinct camps in the region. So two sides, though a third did develop during this process, but it most importantly, it drew in major powers like Russia and China. That put a protective arm around this region and started to engage politically and economically, even outside the Levant. We have seen a global change in the balance of power. So it's resonated well beyond. I think what happened in Syria, I call Syria ground zero of these changes. Why do you call it that? Because I call it the main battlefield for World War III. The reason I call it that is because Syria was the trigger to bring the major powers into a standoff with the global hedgements of the day. And we knew that the Third World War would never be a conventional war because of nuclear weapons. So it would be an irregular war. And in fact, everything that's been happening in the least of an irregular warfare, save a few, you know, that Iraqi and the Afghanian Beijing. But everything through proxies, even Yemen, the containment of Yemen happening through American proxies. But Russia and China stepped in. And one side is going to come out of this healthier and with larger global clout. And I think it is the Russian Chinese side. I think they have common goals. They've also partnered with Iran and other countries on this. They have common vision. They have efficiency. The other side doesn't. It scrambles for its alliances. It throws things at problems, you know. Well, I have those powers come into Syria with such purpose. The Russians in Chinese came into this region into the Syrian conflict primarily because of terrorism. I mean, there are many things value to that part of the region. Energy, for instance. I mean, it's one of China's three priorities. Okay. Another Chinese priority is their built-in route. And if they want to ever get to the Mediterranean, they're going to have to go through these countries. The third one is what I think the Russians and Chinese and Iranians have found in common with each other. A dedication to international law. All three countries have found that they very much support the United Nations Charter. And the current global order as it was meant to be, which is all about the prevention of war and the maintenance of sovereignty and territorial integrity. Those are the two things that underpinned the nation state and the nation state is the current world order. It's really that simple. Are you saying that, for instance, other actors, the British, the Americans? Do you think that they've had an active disrespect for those institutions and that order? Absolutely. They have stretched international law as the UN Charter to, you know, it's virtually unrecognizable. They've created constructs like R2P, which is responsibility to protect, which means they can intervene in any situation if they perceive a human right crisis. And they define the human right. But they actually use it. I mean, the media, the pundit class, they regularly talk about R2P that we have the right to interfere in the business of states. We don't. That is clearly in the UN Charter, but they've used these constructs to slowly change the global perceptions of what is allowable, which is why the American Scripture is marching to Iraq illegally or in Afghanistan. And is that why we hear so much now about a new and emerging, if you like, rules-based order? Because this is in some way subverting international law and actually getting through an agenda that ultimately favors you. It's absolutely true. I do myself comment on this phrase of rules-based order. What does it mean? It means nothing. If you said law-based order, it would mean something. It would mean the UN Charter. When you say rules-based order, you're saying American rules, Canadian rules, British rules. But I think the absolute violation of the UN Charter by the British, by the Americans, by many Western countries has triggered a reaction finally. And this reaction was triggered in two major rising powers, Russia and China, who knew that if they didn't stop the onslaught somewhere, east of them, or west of them, it would come to Beijing, it would come to Moscow. As we look at Syria, when next for that nation state, for that sovereign state, as we look at it today, what's going to happen in the next six, 12, 18 months? Unfortunately, Sir, his destiny is still controlled and affected by this great parabattle. The Americans haven't trenched themselves in the northeast of the country, knowing full well that even if there were 10 American soldiers there, who would dare attack them? They established such magnificent deterrence globally. And then you have the Turks who took to the north of Syria, who had anti-Sewing position, and now they're worried about Kurdish expansion in the north under the tutelage of the Americans. There are many players still vested in the outcome. And I was an idlipp, the last bastion of the al-Qaeda and the sociotherapists in Syria right now. I spoke with soldiers, I spoke with others, trying to figure out when this battle would move, because I'd been in the south before the great battle started there. And you know, whatever I'd heard, turn out exactly that. And in lib, they had no answers, except one, which is we're still waiting for political decision. So many things are in the air. And you know, when you say, what are the geopolitical changes in the region? I mean, I just gave you a large picture. There's so many little pictures. Where is Turkey going to align itself? You know, it's bought the S-400s from the Russians. The Americans are putting pressure. Yeah. That's the missile defense system. The missile defense system, exactly. The Americans have threatened sanctions and other punishments, like being pulled out of the F-35 program. Which is the fighter plane? The fighter plane, yes. But the Turks are very fundamentally geared towards Europe, towards the West. They're very, even though you have an Islamist government, they're very fundamental geared towards their their part in NATO. So it's hard to see a very big transformation there. But on a smaller level, we see the Turks playing with the Russians and Iranians more actively, especially since the Gulf countries isolated the Qatar. And Turkey and Qatar became a third kind of unit. And the Iranians have been very good to this unit. As have the Russians, when there were sanctions on the radar, foodstuffs, you know, getting to the country, et cetera. So they're not a kingmaker, but they certainly have an influence. And I think we're going to see these little things do add to the big picture. But I think at the end of the day, you know, because we cannot anticipate what's going to happen in the Middle East ever, ever. If you look at the large picture, though, I can tell you that the non-US side will be the regional hedgements. They will emerge victorious, if you like, because they're there. And they have the best fighting forces in the region. They also have a fission scene, which we've not seen in this region. We've not seen this region for hundreds of years. And it's interesting to say this, because you talk about those players, and you say that, you know, the Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians, they have, as you put it, common vision and efficiency. The other players, led by the US, basically just have ad hoc responses to short-term pressures. Exactly. And you saying that is the dividing line between these two actors? Well, I think, you know, many of us have spent the last few years saying, what is American policy? Right? We don't have. But a lot of the Americans, I mean, you can ask the Americans, don't know that. Yeah. And part of the reason why that's the cases, because the US is far enough away geographically from this part of the world that they can make hay out of almost any situation, you know, and anyone who emerges. They just have ways. And the last resort scenario, or sometimes we wonder, the first resort scenario is just so chaos. You know, if you throw people off kilter, you can have the ability to maybe influence things more. Is that an active sort strategy, the scattergun approach of destabilize everything and then just see whether cards land? I don't know that it's an active policy, but it is all we're seeing pretty much. And when wonders if empire is shrinking, how do they deal with that? Well, you can shrink, but if others are shrinking alongside you, right? They just can't let others come to the fore. Right? So sewing chaos everywhere allows you still to play empire. Which is the old divide and rule idea. Yeah. Because talking to Colonel Larry Wilkerson about this, you know, he talks a lot about blueprint and scramble. And actually, if you hit a lot of the problems that we see in the world now with a blueprint idea of sharing resources, being neighborly, at common goals, at common vision, there's a way around this. But his view is that the Americans have gone hard for the scramble option. And actually, scramble leaves a lot more blood on the floor, but ultimately the short termism that you see in politics in the US, it serves that short termism. It's one of the reasons I have sometimes thought that a war would be a way to end all of this. I think it's the slow bloodletting in these countries that is the most harmful. So what are you saying? Because you don't strike me as somebody who is a hawk, but are you a pragmatist? Do you think, well, actually, let's just have, let's get this over and done with. And then we can sit down and start talking about peace. Well, let's look at if there was a war, what would it be? Okay, these Israelis versus Hisbalah, these Israelis versus Syria, the Americans versus Iran. All these players have said, if the Americans are Israelis long, anything big, they're all in. Okay, you launch something big against Iran, Hisbalah and Syria are in and vice versa, right? Because they know for them it's existential right now. It is, you're going to fight with everything you have if you're up against the wall. But the Americans and the Israelis cannot go as long as they can. We're the cockroaches in our areas. We will live and live and live and breathe and live and live. They only have so many bombs, right? They have to go back into production. Who's going to tolerate this? There's no economy in the Western world. How are they going to pay for this? And then the other part, which is the Russians and Chinese stepping in onto the international stage have made them really important mediators and intermediaries in conflict. So I think if there was any war launched in the region, everyone would pile on to try to stop. But so I think you would have a hard but short war and potentially it would end things because usually when a war ends, people sit to organize the peace. Right now, of course, we're looking at the Americans and the Iranians that stand off in the region. I think that's the most volatile thing going on right now, but it's not necessarily where the match will strike. Welcome back to Renegading. Before we talk more about a rapidly changing Middle East and how it's reshaping the global order with the journalist, Shami Noani, let's have a look at what you've been tweeting about in this week's Renegading Index. First up, we're going to tweet from Bernie Sanders. I make no apologies for opposing the war in Vietnam. I make no apologies for opposing the war in Iraq. I make no apologies for opposing the war in Yemen and I make no apologies for now trying to prevent a war with Iran. What's your view on that? Well, good for him, but I think it's not a comfortable place to be, to be an anti-war president right now, whether a Republican party or a Democratic party. And I think the anti-war candidates are the ones getting the most flak. Next from the Washington Post, opinion, Trump says war with Iran wouldn't last very long. He hasn't read enough history. I think he's absolutely wrong. What Trump's thinking about is we have the military might to hammer you so hard in one go. There'll be nothing left, but of course, that's not what's going to happen because they will not be hitting urban areas or anything like that. He's very wrong. This is going to be a war that'll surprise him if it kicks off. Next from the Hill, President Trump on Iran, we have a lot of time. There's no rush. They can take their time. There's absolutely no time pressure. I think that in the end, hopefully it's going to work out. If it does great and if it doesn't, you'll be hearing about it. What is this? Is this war? Is it sanctions? What are we going to be hearing about? What's he going to do? I think it's Trump's barato and Twitter. I think he's talking about the sanctions here. He thinks Iran will be broken down by the sanctions. To anyone who thinks that I just want to point out something. In 2012, when Obama sanctions were at their height against Iran, and those were the most punishing sanctions Iran had ever had at the time. I went to Iran and I looked around. I interviewed a lot of people, heads of industry, heads of association, heads of nuclear medicine, nanotechnology, literature, you name it. Every time I brought up sanctions, why aren't sanctions hurting you? Or aren't you worried about the sanctions? They would smile and say sanctions is what made us. The Iranians, I can't think of anyone else, maybe the Cubans, have managed to live through sanctions, strengthen themselves, strengthen their economies, diversify industry, agriculture, you name it. If Trump thinks they're going to be crushed by sanctions, he's picked the wrong country. I finally did a tweet from Charmin Namanie in response to CNN tweet. CNN says, non-military households would pay a war tax to help cover the health care on veterans of newly authorized wars under a planned better Iraq's campaign unveiled on Monday. Your reply is don't tax the American people, tax the corporations and individuals who made a killing on the wars. Really what the response should have been don't have wars, you won't have veterans in pain. I mean, I was looking this up recently, but I think it's pretty much out there fact that 22 U.S. veterans and fighting soldiers kill themselves every single day. You're never going to be able to get ahead of that health care and mental health problem. You know, the answer to this is not to have war simply that. Economically, Iran is quite a resilient economy. It has survived for the last 40 years with the onset of sanctions from day one literally when the revolution with the inception of the revolution in 1979. So what the Iranians did, the strategy after the revolution changed quite significantly that what is referred to as the resistance economy. They wanted to develop the architecture, the infrastructure to be independent economically. One of the things that the Iranian leadership over the years have quite categorically said that without dignity, there is no room to maneuver or negotiate. And this is something that I think a lot of other nations can really pick up from Iran that without dignity, really, there's no purpose in living. I mean, there's no doubt that the economic power is moving towards the east and it has been moving over the last decade or so. But the momentum is now even more because the issue of Iran is quite pivotal to the whole of the Eurasian economy, which includes obviously Russia, China, and also India. Iran is, I think, the third largest oil reserves, the second largest gas reserves that Iran has. So potentially, Iran could be a major energy supplier to Europe. So in science, technology, and all areas, which gives a nation that independence, Iran is doing significantly well. Therefore, this whole issue of nuclear technology and whether Iran was an atomic bomb, is really a red herring, what Washington and the Western really worried about that Iran is going leaves and bounds in all areas of technology, science, and intellectual development. So all this rhetoric around Iran at the moment and all the bluster that we've seen out of the Beltway, John Bolton, you know, all the chicken hawks in Washington. As you live in the region, and although not in Iran, but you've been there and you've understood the tectonic shifts that are going on, how does this play out? Well, I mean, obviously, the Iranians are worried. It's all they hear about and read. I mean, they worry on two levels. They worry about economy because the sanctions are, of course, meant to be extremely punishing, and they worry about war. So I think that Iranians have lived through both war and sanctions during these 40 years. If there's anyone who knows how to do in the region, it's them. But they've had, you know, peace reign for quite a few decades now. So this is of great concern. I do think the Iranians shooting down the U.S. drone probably alleviated some of that tension in Iran. First of all, it's good to finally see the capabilities of what their revolutionary guards and their, you know, military programs have a creator over the years. And I think it was good to see a non-reaction from the Americans. You know, unfortunately, I think the Americans have escalated and, you know, every day it's rhetoric practically to a point where they need a face-saving exit. If anyone needs a face-saving, the Americans are all ego, you know. So how that's going to come about will be very interesting. You can't explain possibly why the U.S. has had the side of the two towards Iran all along. But developing countries in particular have to be markets for sale of American goods, otherwise, you know, it might set a precedent of these countries develop themselves, you know, develop their own political ideologies, their own kinds of democracies. Why? Because then they become a threat of a good example. They become a threat of a good example. Iran is a strategic country in a major area, you know, important area. So for Iran to then take this mantle is more frightening for them. On top of that, don't forget what happened to Iran was a popular Islamic revolution over through a king. What's surrounding Iran? A bunch of American-backed monarchies. This is a fear to their, their clans in the region as well. So, Iran's remained a target. Then of course, since the Israeli escalation against Iran that's gone on for a long time, Iran has well, the emergence of his beloved Iran has become a threat to Israel. So, Iran's been target number one. The strange thing about this to me is why haven't they targeted Iran before directly? It's always indirect, irregular warfare tactics, sabotage, subversion, sanctions, and then attacking Iran's allies. There is an element in Iran that wants this because this is what the confrontations always been around. They've always understood it's always been US versus Iran, not Saudi versus Iran or any such thing. And is that why you see such muscular rhetoric coming out of Iran now saying, actually, come on, if we're going to do this, we're not going to back down. Let's have this fight. If you're paying close enough attention that Iranians have always spoken that way, they've always spoken very proudly. They talk about their rights. They talk about their international legal rights. They stick to the script. They're not saying anything differently other than now there's a volatile situation, but come at us and we will strike back. We will retaliate. This is perfectly legal under international law. So, you know, Iran's holding its cards close. It's just, no, we know how it's going to react, but I think that's their major advantage. And I think that's why the US will not attack Iran very easily because the pentagon knows more than any other entity because they've wargamed this scenario over and over again for decades. What would happen if we attacked Iran this way, this way or this way? And the result has never been good. And this is the Millennium wargames. And it's basically trying to gamify how conflict in the Middle East would pal out. And what happened when they run the game? So the Millennium wargame happened in 2002 and it was a $200 million wargame. So one side is the US and the other side, they did not name, but it was in the Persian Gulf and everyone understood it to be Iran. So they did their thing, the Americans in this wargame, and they took out Iran's communications, all their abilities in the direct vicinity of where the Americans were. And within 48 hours, the Iranian side had pretty much taken out all the US's naval capabilities and much of it's, I think, 16 battleships or something like that. So they stopped the game, they set new rules, and they started over. And the guy leading the Iran team quit and he went public with this. And this is the problem. The pentagon, I mean, a friend of mine, the sour, I know about it, the friend of mine, the pentagon told me a few years ago, the Iranians win against us in every regular war for exercise that we game. And I think when they rig it and they cheat the Americans, they're not learning. And they know this, which is why I think I think they're quite afraid to take on Iran. They don't have money and they don't have the public support. That's K is new. It is key. It is key. There's a lot of propaganda going. I mean, I always say propaganda is a frontline tool to prepare populations for green or war. You cannot do it. The US military does not do it unless they've seen that and laid the groundwork for people to actually support the war, not just take it. But when we take a snapshot into what's going on now, they don't seem to have the traction that, for instance, we all see in the photo of Colin Powell sitting there with a little vile at the U.N. And we had weapons of mass destruction. But now, when you look at the rhetoric around Venezuela, the rhetoric around Iran, you just don't have... It's not taking hold. I think the reason also is, you know, before Afghans and Iraq 9-11 had happened, it was a great way to rally populations away. So it goes to the US. And an exciting event. Exactly. So, Americans didn't care the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with it or that Taliban had nothing to do with 9-11. It didn't matter. It's all you needed, the trigger event. Whereas with the event of Zoya-la-Nirah and American populations can't rally around it unless something specifically happens. Now, if you wanted hit even the military aircraft and soldiers, American soldiers that died, I don't even think that would be it because legitimately a lot of American politicians were saying, why were we flying in their airspace? Why are we provoking them in their waters? So there's a split, not just Republican Democrat, but on both sides on whether or not the war is necessary. The big theme here is the emergence of a multipolar world as opposed to an American world, American policemen of the world. What does that look like from here, from where you're sitting? So over the short term, we're going to see conflict continue. Everyone's hand is still in the game. Everyone's in the western countries, the new emerging powers, regional countries, adversaries in the region. Everyone's hand is still in the game. We are seeing shifting positions, but there's no telling. With the Middle East, it's always an incident that can suddenly change the trajectory things. However, as I've said earlier, the reason in two decades, Iran will be with its full territorial integrity and sovereignty intact as will Syria and Lebanon and Iraq is because these four countries have common vision. And these four countries have started working out of a single command center. They never did that before. They have had now actual field experience together. They've done joint operations. Their fighting forces are very well tested and have, I would argue, defeated. Been the main players to defeat ISIS and terrorist groups in the region. So these four will emerge with, I would say, Chinese help because China is going to offer the opportunity for the economic boom that the West cannot possibly offer the Middle East anymore. And Russia will come in and offer its, you know, its S-400s. And I love this S-400 idea because actually, if everyone had one, including the United States, how could there be any more air war? And these are the missile defense systems. Yeah. I actually, somebody had written on Twitter, it was very smart. They said the S-400 is Russia's foreign policy in a nutshell. If people have this, you stop war. If you stop war, you focus on economy. You strike me as optimistic about the Middle East. Because I'm looking at the long vision, I see these players, I see how they operate. Their temperaments are the same. They don't want to rush to judgment. You know, they keep their cards close to their chests. But when they need to deliver, they deliver. If Iran's threatening the U.S. with retaliation, you can bet there will be a retaliation that will shock us all. These countries act very sensibly. And I think the main thing is they have, they're right there in the Asian landmass. They can help contain Asia. And that's all you need to grow economically. And political power comes from economy. That's it. There is no growth potential like you have an Asia right now. It's the only place in the world where you have vision and money and the players and the alliances, etc. to make this a reality. And so I think in two decades we're going to see that being very real and the American Empire out. And Syria has been in a sense the territory for this shift, this massive shift of global power. That's what you're calling. Yes, it's been the trigger, but the emerging powers have robbed that brass ring and won with it. I mean, thank you very much for your time. It was my pleasure. That's it from Renegade Inc. this week. You can drop the team a mail, studioatrenegadeinc.com or you can tweet us at Renegade Inc. Do you want us next week for more insight from those people who are thinking differently, but until then, stay curious.