The Muslims of Iran Must Reject Negotiations with the Deceiving United States

It can be said that negotiations achieve for the cunning state that which it could not achieve on the battlefield. So, how should the Islamic Ummah view American attempts to negotiate with Iran, whilst the Muslims of Iran have repeatedly said that the Americans are making excessive demands, flip flopping on stances, deceiving and outright lying?

Firstly, the subject of negotiations in itself: Negotiations are used by Western colonialists when defeat on the battlefield is imminent, or the course of the conflict is on the trajectory of defeat. The Islamic Ummah does not forget the treacherous Doha Accords in the case of Afghanistan, particularly regarding American supervision of relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan, on the basis of counterterrorism. It is a chain of intervention that led to the armed clashes between two Muslim peoples, whilst the chain has not ended, with Trump openly declaring his aim of restoring American control of Bagram Air Base. So, after failing to subdue the Muslims of Afghanistan, despite a war of twenty years, and a grand coalition of Western states, the US used the rulers of Muslims to arrange negotiations with the Taliban, in order to preserve its interests after its humiliating withdrawal.

Secondly, failure on the battlefield forced the US to negotiate: Crippled by the cowardice of its troops, the true military capabilities of the US have been now seen in Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq and now Iran. Trump predicted four days of battle, but the firm resolve of the Muslims of Iran overturned his prediction, such that he scrambled to change deadlines, declared objectives and milestones. The strategic objective of war against Iran is to make it a subordinate state which sacrifices its own interests for the sake of American interests, after Iran had been a state orbiting US foreign policy for decades. Trump failed miserably, as war rallied the Muslims of Iran around their military, and the military leadership was able to assume control of decision-making command. So, as before, the US turned to negotiations, which it uses to achieve strategic objectives that it cannot fight to achieve, or to buy time for a second military offensive.

Thirdly, abandonment by Europe, also forced the US to negotiate: Trump has repeatedly expressed frustration at the traditional allies of the US in Europe, regarding their refusal to deploy troops and warships in a timely manner, as well as resisting the use of America of its bases. Trump had dreamed of a grand coalition of Western states to fight Iran, as Bush Senior had achieved against Iraq in 1990, and Bush Junior had achieved against Afghanistan in 2001. Not only did the grand coalition not materialize, Europe, led by Britain, mobilized to undermine the US justifications, narratives and directives. It is also relevant to note that Russia and China benefit from the US bleeding in a quagmire, just as the US made Russia bleed in the Ukraine, and made China suffer from lighting fires of rivalry and conflict around it.

Fourthly, the military leadership of Iran remains dominant in steering affairs, whilst negotiations allow the political leadership to become dominant: Trump has men within the political leadership that are willing to make Iran subordinate to the US, and so he hoped that a limited strike at the top tier of leadership would create a vacuum for his men to fill. However, the military leadership assumed control over decision making command. It is not willing to yield on vital security matters, such as nuclear capability and control over the Strait of Hormuz.

Continuous war, even if it is prolonged and low intensity, will only further consolidate control within the military leadership. So, the US deployed the rulers of Muslims to open the doors for negotiations in order to give an opportunity for the men of Trump within the political leadership to steer the direction of the country. It is thus no surprise that the Iranian press has revealed tensions between the political figures and the military high command.

Fifthly, the reality of the conflict is not of two legitimate disputants seeking reconciliation over a right. Instead, the reality is of an aggressor usurping the rights from the rightfully deserving: The US has no say whatsoever over the right of the Islamic Ummah to maintain control over its strategic waterways, or develop its deterrent military capabilities. The US is an aggressor that first used war to seize the rights of the Muslims of Iran, violating their sanctities, and is now using deceptive negotiations to achieve the same. Thus, the issue for the Islamic Ummah is to side with the Muslims of Iran militarily, against the aggressor, and repel the aggression with military force. This is after the Islamic Ummah failed to side with the Muslims of Gaza, and abandoned them to negotiations, which were used to force displacement, compel disarmament and facilitate expansion of the Jewish occupation of the Blessed Land of Palestine. The Islamic Ummah must not persist in sinful neglect. It must encourage the Muslims of Iran to reject the negotiations with the deceiving aggressor. It must command its armies to establish the Second Khilafah Rashidah which will mobilize all the armies of Muslims against the enemies, forcing their retreat. Allah ﷻ said,

[قُل لِّلَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ سَتُغْلَبُونَ وَتُحْشَرُونَ إِلَى جَهَنَّمَ وَبِئْسَ الْمِهَادُ]

“O Prophet! Tell the disbelievers, “Soon you will be overpowered and then driven to Hell—what an evil place to rest!”” [TMQ Surah Aal-i-Imran: 12].

O Ummah of Islam! Hizb ut Tahrir seeks nussrah (military) from your armies for the establishment of the Khilafah Rashidah (rightly guided Caliphate) on the Method of the Prophethood. Open doors for its shebaab to access your sons, brothers, fathers and grandfathers in the armed forces.

Written for the Central Media Office of Hizb ut Tahrir by
Musab Umair – Wilayah Pakistan