From the Pentagon in 1975 to the White House in 2026: One Project, One Policy, One Confession
In a meeting examining the dimensions of international politics, experts reviewed, in light of Trump's remarks, the possibility of changes in US foreign and international policy regarding support for separatist terrorist groups, and the consequences of such a move.
According to Mehr reporter, the meeting "Examination of the dimensions of the US President's public acknowledgment of terrorism and separatism in Iran from the perspective of international politics" was held at the initiative of the Watchdog Strategic Institute in Ambassador Arjan, which is followed by the experts' views.
In January 1404, there were protests in Iran, the level of violence and loss of life and money was not consistent with the previous cases in 1996, 1998 and 1401. While the previous riots at their peak and in a period of one week to ten days, and even in the case of 1401 sporadically in 3 months, according to official statistics, they left only around 300 dead and a total of less than a thousand dead; But this time, in just two days of protest, the official statistics show a figure of more than 3,000 dead. This abnormal mutation clearly indicates the possibility of an unconventional or unusual intervening variable in this scene.
This question occupied the minds of analysts for weeks and months until in the middle of the war and when the Americans were fed up with the inaction of organized terrorists in the war against YA and Trump declared the Kurds (Kurdish terrorist groups) responsible for the failure of the Dimah riots project. In this confession, Trump criticized the Kurds (Kurdish terrorist groups) because they did not deliver the weapons sent by the United States to be used in the Dima riots.
This unprecedented public confession by the highest official of the American government contains several very important propositions. First, the Americans are in contact with known anti-Iranian terrorist groups and consider them to be a part of their weapons against J.A. Second, these terrorists are supported financially, logistically, and armed by the American government. Thirdly, the Americans had the will to arm the Iranian protesters and the consequences of arming the protesters are quite clear: people facing the armed forces, mass killing, urban war and civil war. Fourth, this decision did not remain at the level of will and the Americans followed the implementation of this decision by sending weapons to one of the most dangerous anti-Iranian terrorist groups.
Now that the active will of the Americans to arm the Iranian protesters has become clear; The important thing is that it is very likely that Americans did not follow this issue only from one channel. What is certain is that the area of access and influence of separatist Kurdish terrorists can ultimately be limited to the Kurdish areas of Iran in the west and northwest of the country. Therefore, other measures have been devised to arm the protesters in other parts of the country, and perhaps they have been implemented successfully.
Now the question is whether it is possible to establish a direct connection between Trump's admission of arming the protesters and the shocking death toll. What is the meaning and consequences of this confession from different dimensions, including legal, political, and security, and what offensive opportunities does it present to the country?
In the third meeting of the series of scientific meetings, Fawad Ezadi, Associate Professor of American Studies at Tehran University, and Ehsan Mohedian, Ph.D. in International Relations and University Lecturer, criticized the dimensions of the US President's public confession of supporting terrorism and separatism in Iran from the perspective of international politics. It should be noted that this meeting was held with the initiative of Didban Strategic Institute in Safir Arjan on October 1, the main points of which you can read below:
America's 47-year-old policy of overthrowing the Iranian government
Emphasizing that since 1957, America's main goal has been to overthrow Iran's government, Fawad Ezadi said: "Behavior change" and "government change" are actually a single reality, because the areas in which America insists on changing Iran's behavior are the same areas from which Iran's power originates. From about 10 to 12 years ago, Israeli experts concluded that Iran should be divided, because even with a change of government, any new government that has national concerns will eventually become a regional power. This view became official American policy in the second Trump administration.
The CIA and twenty years of investment on terrorist groups called for separatism
He added: The CIA has been organizing, financing and arming groups in the Kurdistan region of Iraq for more than twenty years. There was a four-year plan in which numerous attacks, riots and coups were predicted and parts of Kurdistan were to be separated from Iran. By publicly confessing, Trump actually absolves himself of responsibility and blames the intelligence agencies.
The plan to divide Iran into six countries, from before the revolution in the Pentagon
Yazidi emphasized: the final result of this project is access to Iranian oil. In order to reach Iran's oil, Iran must not exist, because if Iran remains a country, the isolated oil-rich sectors will become a national ideal. But as long as the Islamic Republic is standing, it will not allow Iran's oil to be lost, nor will it allow it to disintegrate. It is the Islamic Republic that has preserved the territorial integrity of Iran. The plan to divide Iran into six countries was discussed in the Pentagon even before the revolution. This is not an issue unique to one person or one government, but a long-term American-Israeli project. Even if disintegration doesn't work, the US will change tactics, but the gist of the story remains the same.
documents of spy den and WikiLeaks; A testament to long-standing support and unchanging American policy
Ehsan Mohdian stated that "the nature of American policy has not changed, but the level of its transparency has changed", and said: America has always supported terrorist groups in Iran. In the spy nest documents (70-80 volumes), especially its 20-25 volumes, the use of ethnic grievances in Kurdistan, Baluchistan, Khuzestan and Turkmen Sahara as vulnerable points against the national structure of Iran is repeatedly mentioned. WikiLeaks documents also prove the continuation of this process; Including the August 2007 document in which the head of Mossad informs the US representative in NATO of Israel's intention to use the Kurds and ethnic minorities to overthrow the Iranian government.
Trump's confession; Exposing American diplomatic hypocrisy and duplicity
In response to the question about the international consequences of Trump's public confession, Movahdian listed three dimensions: first, the violation of international law and the principle of interference in the internal affairs of countries (Paragraph 4, Article 2 of the United Nations Charter); Second, public incitement to armed action and invitation to Kurdish separatist terrorists based in Iraq to attack Iran; Third, exposing the duplicity and diplomatic hypocrisy of America, because it has been supplying weapons to armed groups at the same time as diplomatic negotiations.
He added: "Unfortunately, we also played badly in dealing with America's crimes and our deterrence has become problematic." If we had given a decisive response after the martyrdom of Soleimani, the cost of America's crime would have been very high, but with gradual responses and deceptive diplomacy, we retreated until we reached the current situation.
The solution is to change US behavior through deterrence
In the final part, Izadi stated: America's main problem with Iran is Iran's oil and resources and its geopolitical position. The martyred leader also said that "America is devouring Iran" and Iran's oil, gas, mineral resources and geopolitical position are attractive to Americans. Trump has also clearly said that he wants Iran's oil. If we come to this reality, the solution is to change American behavior by building deterrence and increasing the costs of hostile policy. America must be convinced that not only Iran's oil is not available, the oil and gas resources of the region may also be out of reach, there is a risk. Now this has been researched, Americans earn between 1000 and 1500 billion dollars from the countries of the south of the Persian Gulf. If he realizes that this income is also a risk for him and the continuation of the current policy can take this income from the hands of the Americans, then they will change the policy.
He emphasized: It is the Islamic Republic that has preserved the territorial integrity of Iran. If there is no Islamic Republic, Iran will be divided.
The third way: changing behavior and not negotiation
Referring to Trump's public admission of supporting terrorism and separatism in Iran, the expert on American issues said about the requirements of Iran's declarative and practical policy with regard to the transparency and openness of American policy: The first point is to understand the fact that the issue of separatism in Iran has been discussed since before the revolution. This is very good for the future of Iran if the general public knows about it.
Yazidi added: This is why Dr. Araghchi said that we have two options: one is to defeat America in the military field, or to negotiate. First, if we take America, well, we can't take America now. The second option is negotiation. Now they wanted to say that we don't have one more option, they defamed us. According to the literature produced by the martyred leader in these areas, the third way is to change behavior. Basically, countries do this in their foreign policy.
The nature of American politics has not changed. What has changed is the level of transparency and disclosure of this policy. America has always supported terrorist and separatist groups, but in the Trump era, these supports have become public, official and open, and there has been a change in the level of transparency and tools. The goal is to divide and swallow Iran. The same project that was supposed to achieve the attack on Iran in 2003 was implemented last year and this year (three imposed wars) and the rest of it is the continuation of the same plan. Therefore, neither Trump nor Netanyahu should be considered an exception; Because a long-term project of dividing Iran existed before the revolution and became more operational after the revolution and has continued until today.
International dishonor, the reduction of trust among allies even among terrorist groups, the risk of spillover of instability to the region are the international consequences of Trump's public admission of sending weapons to separatist terrorist groups.
The policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran towards this public policy of the Americans should be focused on creating effective deterrence and changing the behavior of the United States through increasing spending, strengthening the national discourse, and maintaining the Islamic Republic as a guarantor of territorial integrity and not negotiation.