Since the killing of Soleimani, Friday, January 3, 2020, in a qualitative operation carried out by units of the American army, the analysis does not stop anticipating an looming clash between Iran and the United States. However, I want to say to those who want to probe deeper into the nature of the American and Iranian policy in the region for decades, that it is in fact based on understanding, not conflict.
Iran is fundamentally located in the strategic void between American influence and that of major rivals of the United States, such as Russia and China. On this basis, the United States will not do without Iran, as Iran is part of the regional bloc that has a role in arranging US interests in the geography and politics of this region.
Therefore, the nature of the interaction between them since Khomeini and the Wilayat al-Faqih group (Governance of the Jurist) ascension to power Iran is based on political and interest understandings that are the basis of their conflict. All remaining operations and conflict tools between the United States and Iran are to improve negotiating capabilities, achieve the greatest gains, or reduce losses on both sides. The goal of these operations is to let Iran gain a vital environment in the political geography of the Arab region, and to enable the United States to continue its influence that keeps Iran under control and refines its capabilities to achieve common interests.
Take all the confrontational tracks between Iran and America from the occupation of the American embassy in Tehran, on November 4, 1979, to the killing of Soleimani (January 2020). All of these are pressure operations, ongoing negotiations, attempts to achieve the interests, and the understandings on the vital role of Iran in the region as a country that has the ability to take care of the interests of any superpower in a Sunni demographic environment that historically possesses hostility against the American interests and against "Israel"
Since the Islamic revolution, until today, we have not witnessed the killing of one Israeli inside "Israel" with Iranian fire. Iran has a clean record of directly killing Americans. The operations launched against the Americans from parties loyal to Iran are well disciplined and directed towards achieving political and strategic negotiating goals between the two parties.
The gains that the United States has achieved from Soleimani's murder are its ability to change the symbols of Iranian negotiation when a strategic dispute occurs, knowing that Qassim Soleimani was the commander in chief who coordinates and negotiates with the Americans in the region on the ground. Thus, the United States affirmed its prestige as a country with the decision to change and dominate. Trump won an electoral victory and a comfortable situation in the upcoming elections by getting rid of the two largest heads classified as first-class terrorists in the United States (Al-Baghdadi and Soleimani). Likewise, he put the Democrats in the United States in a state of embarrassment and political confusion about how to deal with Trump's decision.
The United States has also satisfied its Arab allies by taking action to punish Iran for its hostilities in the Gulf, and made those countries rush significantly and with greater fear to cover under the American protection.
As for the Iranian gains, they have been achieved in an unprecedented way since the Iranian revolution. The Iranian people have never come out in solidarity with the Supreme Guide of the Iranian Revolution and his current leadership since then except in the scene of popular solidarity during the funeral of Soleimani, who united Iran, people, government and leadership in confrontation of the American threat. This popular solidarity with the Iranian leadership occurred despite the effects of the disastrous siege and the collapsed economic situation, as if it was a message of apology to the Iranian leadership that we stand with you despite all the effects of the siege and the difficult circumstances.
Concerning Iraq, the decision to end the open military cooperation with the foreign forces, especially the US, was taken, although it is considered a tactical repositioning. This is a material and moral victory for Iran in Iraq, and a weakening of the popular youth political movement in Iraq and Lebanon against Iran. This may lead to a popular, political and strategic reorganization of Iran in the face of the Arab geography.
Negotiations have taken place in Switzerland under the patronage of Qatar between Iran and the United States in the past few days. Those negotiations were apparent failure but its reality is sharing of influence and positions in the Arab geography, and the achieving of the interests for the American and Iranian parties at the expense of the remnants of the Arab political system and the hopes of the popular Arab movement. Nevertheless, the game of politics in the new decade 2020 will mark a new stage with new changes that will start with a set of transformations that we await on the basis of this conflict.
It is the game of international politics that puts the regional state under the influence of international control and the major states are between control and lawlessness and the ability to control the path toward interests.
Previous understandings between the United States and Iran in the past four decades have exhausted their purposes. They have namely brought the Arab-Sunni situation into a weak and devastating situation, under the Iranian and the American hegemony. Likewise, ending the extremist and moderate Sunni jihadist energies (including Hamas), as it has come under Iranian control and fears that it will turn into an Iranian militia in the future. Those energies that were facing "Israel" and resisting the colonizers. They have also weakened the moderate political movement and subdued the tracks of the Arab revolutions.
Iran has guaranteed its vital environment and negotiating position in any upcoming political measures and arrangements.
However, the Iranian and American policy in the region will continue to suffer from the two largest strategic problems:
Firstly: They run their interests demographically and geographically, not in favour of their interests in the long-run.
Secondly: The discrepancies in the level of the Iranian and American “Israeli” projects in the region.
This may drive the living masses in these societies able to benefit from them to adopt a strategic vision of change in the future if the appropriate factors for change are available.