The role of IRGC against regional terrorism

It is an undeniable fact that if not for the Islamic Republic of Iran’s principled policy of promoting peace and stability in the region, terrorists on the payroll of the US, Saudi Arabia and Israel, would have seized control of several countries, especially Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen.

An interesting analysis in this regard was published by the site ‘moderndiplomacy.eu’, titled: “The role of IRGC against regional terrorism”, written by Sajjad Abedi of Iran’s National Security and Defense Think Tank.

The creation of Hashd ash-Sha’abi or Popular Mobilisation Units (PMU) in Iraq was a great step that Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) took to increase the military power of the brotherly Iraqi people and the army against Daesh or the takfiri terrorists, which caused to open the blind knot of the confused Iraqi crisis in a large extent.

The onset of the political crisis in Iraq and Syria led regional and transnational actors to pursue a particular policy in the face of insecurity, based on their interests. Given the geopolitical and geostrategic significance of the two countries in Southwest Asia, the approaches of each of these actors differed in their dealings with the story. Strategies and measures of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the field of foreign policy, compared to certain supporters of chaos and insecurity in the region, are based on religious teachings, rationality, interests of the Islamic Ummah and national interests. These are therefore very different from the contradictory and shaky policies of the governments claiming to fight terrorism, but trampling human rights and democracy instead.

With the onset of the crisis in Syria and the role of regional and transnational states that were largely in the interests of the terrorists and rioters, Iran also expressed its willingness to resolve the crisis with Syria’s desire. Initially, activities began on diplomacy, and the Islamic Republic was able to play a diplomatic role, and invited some countries, such as Russia and China, to have a more active presence in Syria to resolve the crisis.

Despite effective efforts in this field, Iran came to the conclusion that not all diplomacy capacities could be used to cope with insecurity and it has to pursue the issues more seriously. Although these measures were not so favorable to the US and its accomplices, it was natural that the national interests of each country, such as Iran, were at the head of national security, and moreover there were redlines that ought not to be approached. In other words, the Islamic Republic of Iran could not simply witness the crisis of various confrontational and terrorist groups and their supporters in the region, with only the role of spectator on the scene.

Iran’s defense policy in the West Asia-North America region is based on principles; therefore on the basis of these principles, the Islamic Republic protects the sovereignty of the legitimate and legal governments. Naturally, due to this principled belief of the Islamic Republic of Iran about the sovereignty of the people of Syria to determine their political destiny, Tehran, as a general principle in foreign policy, emphasized support for the legal government in Damascus against insurgents and terrorists.

On the battlefield and in defense policy, the Syrian government faced turbulence on the one hand, which was gradually increasing, while on the other hand, the US and its allies were sparing no efforts to support terrorists, both militarily and financially. The Syrian government’s approach and its defense policy to deal with this crisis lacked the required strength and in the set of these approaches, there was little efficiency to solve the problem. This weakness in identifying the causes and sources of insecurity and the lack of use of the popular mobilization in dealing with terrorists, coupled with the unfamiliarity of the Syria’s national army with urban warfare led to a more complicated crisis.

It were these factors that made Syria invite Iran to fight the terrorists, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), as the executive arm of the Islamic Republic, was tasked to provide training and guidance.

Thus, with the arrival of the IRGC on the scene and the use of military advisories by the Iranian forces, the Syrian army began to strengthen its defenses, and practically with changing the rules of the game, the terrorist attacks were stopped in many areas. To be more precise, the classically-trained Syrian army learnt to develop its defense capability in dealing with terrorists and was able to acquire urban warfare techniques with the help of the IRGC’s training, thereby greatly reducing casualties.

Through use of the power and capacity of the freshly trained popular mobilization units and proper communication with tribes and tribesmen, as well as with the followers of different religions and creeds, in addition to the intelligence assistance provided by the Syrian army, the terrorists were trapped in a state of turmoil.

As a result, the countries involved in the Syrian conflict in line with their sinister goals, now saw their hopes unattainable. In such a situation, westerners and other supporters of the terrorist currents were horrified about the changing circumstances on the battlefield and tried to accuse Iran of what they called military intervention in Syria.

The seizure of insurgent strongholds by the Syrian army provided documented evidence of the active support to the Takfiri and other terrorist groups by the West, by the reactionary Arab regimes and by the Zionists. At the same time, the victory of the Resistance Forces in Aleppo as a result of the military assistance and combat strategy provided by the IRGC, along with widespread use of mass mobilization units was a turning point in the conflict in Syria that strengthened the Syrian government’s position to continue to confront the insurgents and terrorist groups.

The influential role of the IRGC in Syria has led advocates of terrorism, especially the United States, which desperately resorts to every conceivable pretext to try to weaken Iran’s position in the region, to acknowledge the role of the Islamic Republic of Iran to resolve the crisis and urge Iran to engage in engage in negotiations for its settlement.

The rise of Daesh as a terrorist power in Iraq and Syria has caused changes in equations in the region over the past few years. The rapid advance of the heretical and macabrely murderous Takfiri groups in the Iraqi crisis had created difficult conditions. When it suddenly emerged on the scene – with the organized support of the West, Saudi Arabia, and Israel – Daesh faced little resistance in both Syria and Iraq.

In Iraq, the fighting capability of this brutally merciless terrorist group with the support of Arab reactionary regimes, coupled with the apparent betrayal by some mid ranking commanders of the Iraqi Army and the Ba’thist remnants of the Saddam era, provided grounds for the Takfiris to flourish in military arena for some time through occupation of vast sections of Iraq’s five major provinces.

In those days, whispers abounded of some US-led countries forming an anti-Daesh coalition, though its initial rumblings were felt from the very first days of its formation. The bitter satire was that some of the Arab and European countries that claimed to be part of this coalition, were the main suppliers of funds and weapons to Daesh. At the same time, warplanes of the US and some West European countries targeted civilians instead of bombing the positions of the Takfiri terrorists.

Naturally, these publicity stunt did not contribute to containment of terrorism but on the contrary strengthened it.

Since the Islamic Republic of Iran saw the lack of integrity of the participating members as the most important reason for the failure of this supposedly anti-Daesh coalition, it had to pursue another path to assist the Iraqi people in order to save them from the barbaric Daesh groups.

Arms assistance and advisory services to the army and volunteer groups in Iraq were among the effective ways for Iran to eliminate this intrigue.

The creation in Iraq of the Hashd ash-Sha’bi or Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) on the fatwa or edict of Grand Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Sistani from holy Najaf, and the quick decision to the request from Baghdad to provide arms and training to them through the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) was a dynamic move that increased the military prowess of the people and the regular army against Daesh.

As a result of the successful measures of the IRGC in Iraq, the role of the US-led supposedly anti-Daesh coalition greatly weakened and raised Iran’s position as the guiding spirit and the leadership of the Resistance Forces.

The military and intellectual battles of the IRGC with Daesh, while greatly reducing the sphere of influence and the circle of activities of the terrorists, has also led to safeguarding of Iraq’s national sovereignty and territorial integrity. In other words, the IRGC’s advisory role in Iraq led to mobilization of various ethnic and religious groups of the country, including the Kurds, Sunni tribes and the long suppressed Shi’a Muslim majority, as Hashd ash-Sha’bi, an effective factor that made the Takfiri terrorists retreat in disarray from the occupied territories. The other thing was that as a result of these efforts, the ghost of war and chaos that was threatening Iran’s borderlines in the early days of the crisis in Iraq, had been halted and several hundred kilometers away.

Meanwhile, the role of Major General Qassem Soleimani in defusing the crisis, driving away the terrorists and stabilizing Syria, is undeniable. The countries and the peoples of the region have hailed him as one of their greatest saviours.

Therefore, in view of these facts, the strength of the IRGC in decisively defeating the US and Israeli trained terrorists has increased Iran’s soft power amid growing popularity in the neighbourhood, thereby turning into nightmares the daydreams of Washington, Saudi Arabia and the illegal Zionist regime.

AS/ME