Assessment by Former US Marine Corps Commander on Washington's Strategy Towards Iran

On Saturday, December 16, a conference was held in Paris with the participation of several former US officials and military commanders, as well as politicians from Europe, Canada, and countries in the Middle East and Africa. This conference was organized by the National Council of Resistance, a political organization that includes the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran, and speakers discussed Iran's role and intervention in regional countries, the internal situation, and the current state of the Iranian government. General James Conway, former commander of the US Marine Corps and one of the senior commanders of the US Army during the invasion of Iraq in 2003, answered questions from Radio Farda about US policy towards Iran and his experiences in Iraq on the sidelines of the conference. The US government has strongly criticized the nuclear agreement with Iran, and two other issues related to Iran have also been raised in Washington: one is Iran's missile program and the other is Iran's role in the region. Iran claims that its missile program is purely defensive and is not part of the nuclear agreement, and also states that it does not interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. What strategy do you think the US government can adopt regarding Iran's missile program and its role in the region? First of all, this is a very difficult issue; otherwise, we would have done it by now. Today in my speech at this conference, I said that the US prefers to do this in cooperation and alliance with others, not alone. I think our recent history shows this. Today we had Arab, European, and North American speakers here, and what I realized is that all our opinions about what steps to take are not aligned, and of course, I am not surprised by this. Some countries and important figures think that trade with Iran is more important to them than Iran's interference in the affairs of others or civil rights and other issues. I don't think the US holds such a view, and the question arises as to what we can do as part of an alliance to be effective. It seems that the actions taken so far have had no impact. When you take action, you naturally want to achieve an acceptable result. So do you think forming an alliance of Europeans and several Middle Eastern countries would be the best option? Yes, I think so, and even the United Nations should be involved in this. Iran has violated the restrictions imposed by the United Nations regarding ballistic missiles. So what is the UN's response? We are interested in doing what is right and legal. The UN should carefully assess Iran's activities and decide whether Iran has complied with UN resolutions or not. If it has not, then it should respond. You worked with General Mattis, who is now the US Secretary of Defense, during the Iraq War in 2003. On Friday, Mr. Mattis said in a press conference at the Pentagon regarding Iran that 'we do not see a military role for the US in exposing Iran's activities. The reason that Ms. Haley did not speak about one of our generals regarding the missile launched from Yemen is that this is a diplomatic effort to show Iran's activities and objectives to the international community.' How do you think the US will accomplish this? You mentioned forming an alliance. If this effort does not succeed, what is the next option? I think Mattis's view on any military intervention on a large scale is completely correct. You know that we have some military activity in Iraq where Iran is also present. They are also in Syria. We provide spiritual support to regional powers in the Middle East while they are engaged in Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, and even the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt. Therefore, we have some military role, but what General Mattis is talking about is broader and more important than this. You know that we recently designated the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization. We hope that Europe and other countries will adopt a similar stance. The result of this has been that there has been a lot of interaction regarding this action from Iran, and I think this can be effective in curbing the activities of the clerics and the leaders of the Revolutionary Guard that we have witnessed in recent years. My next question is about Iraq. You participated in the military invasion of Iraq in 2003 and are familiar with the political issues and politicians in Iraq. Considering the defeat of ISIS, the Kurdish issue, and the role of other countries like Iran in Iraq, what future do you envision for this country? I have become very disillusioned with what has happened. I could never have imagined the reality we see in Iraq today in 2003. Iraqis are proud people, but it seems they have handed their country over to Iran, and they do what the Ayatollahs want. I hope one day the Iraqi government realizes this great mistake, but for now, they have not yet come to this conclusion, and Iran has a lot of influence over what happens in that country. We never imagined such a thing in 2003. So how can this issue be resolved diplomatically? I don't think it is America's responsibility to solve this issue. We can continue to encourage Iraq to adopt the right policies. The reality is that Iraq is a country with a Shia majority. The Kurds and Sunnis do not need Iran's interference in the Iraqi government, and perhaps through democratic means or pressure on their government, they can take back their country. But it does not seem that the situation is heading in that direction right now. My next question is about the tension between Iran and Saudi Arabia, which is increasing day by day. What strategy can the US adopt to reduce tensions in the region? This is a dangerous issue. If the Iranians are allowed to fully pursue their nuclear program based on assessments after 8 years, this will greatly worry Saudi Arabia and other regional powers, and we should not forget Egypt and Turkey. Even the United Arab Emirates. So will we see the development of nuclear weapons in the Middle East in the next 10 years? I hope not. The tension between the two countries has always existed, and now the US does not want to get involved and take action, but we certainly fully support Saudi Arabia, which is trying to curb Iran's destructive interference in the Middle East. However, Iranian officials and some other countries point to Saudi Arabia's role in the region, such as in Yemen. Saudi Arabia began military attacks on Yemen in defense of its legitimate government, and this internal war continues to this day. I do not think the Saudis will allow such influence to emerge on their southern borders. This is a very important issue for the Saudis. They rarely engage in military operations, but they are fully involved in this matter to ensure that there is no threat on their southern borders. The US provides them with moral support and, in some cases, practical support to keep them safe from what they consider a national security threat.