'Hook's resignation proves US' anti-Iran policies inept'

TEHRAN, Aug. 12 (MNA) – In an interview with Mehr news agency, Iranian political expert Prof. Mohammad Marandi said Brian Hook's resignation will make the world countries more doubtful about the practicality of US’ pressures on Iran.

Last Thursday, on August 6, the US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that the State Department's special envoy for Iran Brian Hook was departing his post.

The news came somehow as a surprise regarding Hook's anti-Iranian stances and efforts since his appointment as one of Pompeo's top advisers in August 2018. Hook has played a big role in the US administration after Trump's withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and the world powers, most importantly via running the "maximum pressure" campaign against the Islamic Republic.

Pompeo's announcement of Hook's successor, Elliott Abrams, who simultaneously serves as the US Department's special representative for Venezuela, however, was not that much a surprise, regarding Abrams' background. Considered as an American veteran diplomat by his advocates, Abrams is the one with failure in leading the US-engineered coup d'état in Venezuela and his role in other US scandalous failures. 

Accordingly, observers are expecting Abrams' future moves and efficiency in helping the US with its anti-Iranian targets, given the fact that the US has been trying its best to extend Iran's arms embargo at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).

Iran, however, believes there is no difference between John Bolton, Brian Hook, or Elliott Abrams; when it comes to the US policies against Iran.

Prof. Mohammad Marandi

In an interview with Mehr news Prof. Mohammad Marandi, head of the American Studies Department at Tehran University, elaborated on the most recent substitution in the US administration.

While US President Trump may leave the White House in a few months, how do you translate Brian Hook’s resignation?

Whether being dismissed or persuaded to resign, stepping down of Hook is a good proof for the failure of the US ‘maximum pressure campaign’ against Iran. It shows that the US has not been successful in reaching any of its anti-Iranian targets and that President Trump has no understanding of the regional issues as well as those related to the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The only achievement of the ‘maximum pressure campaign’ has been its terrible impact on the lives of common people in Iran and depriving innocent and sick people from obtaining their medical requirements, which is for sure not a point of importance for the US officials.

In my opinion, Hook’s resignation will psychologically influence the international community. It will make the world countries more doubtful about the US’ capability in imposing pressure on Iran and ineptness of policies against the country. Any proof for the inability of the US would be in favor of the Islamic Republic.

How do you assess the new US special representative for Iran, Elliot Abrams?

Abrams has a bad reputation in Latin America. He has murdered a large number of people back in the 1980s and is recognized as a war criminal. He was also convicted in US courts for violating regulations.

Will Abrams play a trump card? Will his anti-Iranian policies be more practical and effective than those of Hook’s?

I don’t think so.

In my view, appointing him as the new Iran special envoy will not help the US with reaching its illegal goals, either.

There is nothing more to be added to the US maximum pressure campaign against Iran. All needed is done. There is no other new option for the US to put into practice. That is what ‘maximum’ means!

In addition, Hook was among the rare fixed players in Trump’s administration. The US President has dismissed several officials by the time but Hook was not among them.

I reiterate that considering the imminent Presidential elections in the US, Hook’s resignation or dismissal will not bring the US any significant achievement.

Abrams is also the US special representative for Venezuela. How do you evaluate Trump’s decision about appointing him as the new special envoy for Iran?

Abrams is also dealing with Venezuela simultaneously and of course, there are some similarities between Iran and the South American country.

But the point is that despite his background and experience in Latin American countries, Abrams’ policies have not been successful in Venezuela. This is while, compared to Iran, Venezuela is a smaller country, less populated, and is geographically located near to the US.

The new US special Iran envoy is a man with a bad reputation, who is also in charge of coping with another anti-US country. Now, he needs to focus on a second country, i.e. Iran, which is bigger and more powerful, while he has not been successful with the first one.

Interview by: Haniyeh Sadat Jafarieyh

News Code 162130


Your Comment

You are replying to: .
  • captcha