A terrorist attack during a military parade on people in Ahvaz, North West of Iran left tens of innocent civilians killed and injured.
Hours after the attack Saudi backed Al-ahvazi separatist terrorist group and ISIL claimed the responsibility for the terrorist attack.
To shed more light on the issue, an interview was done with Bangkok- based geopolitical researcher Anthony Cartalucci.
Here is the full text of the interview with him:
Do you see any foreign elements behind this attack?
Foreign elements can be implicated at least as far as long-stated and open admissions by Western policymakers regarding their interest in fomenting armed violence in Iran. The 2009 Brookings Institution paper, "Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy Towards Iran," had an entire chapter in it titled, "Inspiring an Insurgency: Supporting Iranian Minority And Opposition Groups." The West has - since the attack - repeatedly referred to the terrorists who perpetrated it as a "minority" and "opposition" group.
The US-NATO-PGCC clearly are supporting armed terrorists in Syria, including in a proxy war with Iranian-backed militias. The West has admitted interest in bringing armed violence to within Iranians borders, with Ahvaz being a crystal clear example of this interest materializing. Whether or not foreign elements organized or planned the specific act is another matter that will require further investigation.
Saudi Arabia and the UAE didn't condemn the terrorist attack. Why?
Saudi Arabia and the UAE are openly supporting terrorism around the globe. An Associated Press investigation exposed their collaboration with Al Qaeda in Yemen. They are also backing various terrorist groups in Syria. They also have openly expressed a desire to bring similar chaos to Iran itself. They are likely aiding the US in sponsoring the very terrorist groups carrying out attacks inside Iran. Part of the strain of extremism they infect terrorists with in the first place is the belief that terrorism is justified. By condemning the Ahvaz attack even for the sake of putting forth a more enlightened face for Western audiences, would resonate poorly among the extremists these regimes are still attempting to recruit, radicalize, and send off to carry out violence.
How do you assess the US administration's reaction to the attack which it did not explicitly call a terrorist act?
It would seem many that the US is mirroring Saudi and Emirati malice, but I would say it is much worse than that. While Iranians mourned in the wake of the Ahvaz attack, prominent US politicians were hosting MEK terrorists in New York City explicitly calling for the overthrow of the Iranian government. While the Western media repeatedly frames these calls within a context of "peaceful" revolution, it is clear from events in Libya and Syria that the "revolution" will be just another episode of violent, attempted US-backed regime change.
Refusing to condemn this as a terrorist act could be an indication that many more attacks are planned and are planned to look like another "revolution" or "uprising" rather than the state sponsored terrorism it really is.
What can be the real goal of the attack perpetrators at this time?
Like in Syria, the US seeks an engineered, violent overthrow of the Iranian government. It is going to do this by using its extensive control over the media to portray state sponsored terrorism as a "popular uprising." The terrorists themselves have no chance of accomplishing their goals. But those using terrorists to create chaos they can leverage toward coercing or overthrowing a targeted government, have much to gain from an attack like in Ahvaz, and more like it. Thus the goal of those sponsoring the terrorists behind the Ahvaz attack is to create the illusion of an indigenous insurgency - when in reality it is foreign state-sponsored terrorism aimed at regime change.
By Payman Yazdani