BEIJING, Jan.9(Reuters)- Iran has vowed revenge after Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps \"Al-Quds Brigade\" commander Sleimani was killed in a U.S. air strike in Iraq in the early hours of January 3. In the early hours of the morning, at least two Iraqi military bases stationed in the United States were attacked by dozens of Iranian missiles. Later, Trump said the United States would impose more economic sanctions on Iran.
Is it against the norms of international relations that the US has violated Iraq's territorial sovereignty by committing \"decapitation \"? What threat to the situation in the Middle East? Yang Guang, president of the China Middle East Society, and Wu Bingbing, director of the Institute of Arab Islamic Culture at Peking University, spoke at the Forum.
Power Forum: Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps fired dozens of missiles at at least two Iraqi military bases with U.S. troops in the early hours of the morning. Iran's foreign minister said he did not expect to expand the war, but was determined to strike any incoming enemy. What has been done to the stability of the Middle East by the vicious cycle of retaliatory clashes over US air strikes?
Yang Guang: The Middle East is now a \"21\" pattern - the Arab and non-Arab camps, and the middle of the two camps, mainly composed of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and other countries. There is no direct conflict between the two camps themselves, and the points of conflict are mainly reflected in the countries in the middle zone, which are also the most sensitive, ethnic and sectarian contradictions in the Middle East. Therefore, how to deal with the conflicts of the countries in the Middle East is particularly important for the peace and stability of the Middle East region. As a responsible power, not to mention in iraq, the sensitive middle of the country intensified the conflict, but the u. s. has done precisely this time to inflame the contradictions, to the detriment of regional stability.
Wu Bingbing: Some of the US military operations in the Middle East have actually created more tension. The fundamental solution should be for the United States to stop its intervention in the Middle East, especially in ways that would bring about regime change and tension through military means in the region.
Yang Guang: Whether the United States conducts war operations on the territory of a third country is in accordance with the relevant provisions of international law is debatable. In addition, the United States proposed that Suleimani is planning a terrorist attack, so the operation, but the United States has not cited evidence. In many aspects of international affairs, the United States also often has some excuses, but it is hard to believe without showing evidence.
Wu Bingbing: It is a complete violation of Iraq's sovereignty to carry out military operations on its territory that the Iraqi government is completely unaware of and to attack and kill high-level foreign nationals visiting Iraq. Iraq has also responded through parliamentary legislation, demanding that the United States withdraw its troops in a clear response to the US military's violation of Iraq's sovereignty and its inability to bring security to Iraq.
Power Forum: In recent days, more than 70 cities in the United States held anti-war rallies, people protested against the U.S. surge in the Middle East, demanding U.S. troops withdraw from Iraq. Why did the Trump administration launch the attack in such a loud anti-war voice?
Wu Bingbing:2020 is an election year, and the Trump administration, on the one hand, should consider avoiding an attack similar to the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that occurred during the Obama administration; on the other hand, the Trump administration should say that he is more capable and effective than the Obama administration and can be tougher to face such challenges and threats. But as things stand, this has triggered overall regional nervousness. From America's point of view, many Americans actually do not want to see the United States fall into a long-term ground war, because whether it is the war in Afghanistan or Iraq, the direct involvement of the United States does not actually bring security to the two countries, but rather makes the two countries more insecure. America's inability to address regional unrest is a consumption that Americans do not want to see.
Yang Guang: After Trump took office, he has been working to overturn the Iran nuclear deal signed by Obama and renegotiate with Iran. Not only must iran's path to nuclear weapons be completely blocked, but the issue of the iranian missile issue and its role in the surrounding region should be fully integrated into the agenda of negotiations with iran and eventually put iran to death. The Trump administration killed Suleimani but wasn't prepared to fight a full-blown war with Iran, as the U.S. election was about to launch a war to send more U.S. troops to the Middle East, which was very bad for Trump's re-election.
On the other hand, Iran is not ready for a full-scale war with the United States, and the military forces on both sides are very different. Although the situation is now tense, the possibility that the incidents of reprisals and counter-reports will evolve into an all-out conflict between the two sides is not great and may ultimately have to be settled through negotiations. Now Iran's position has left the door open for future negotiations. The possibility that some people would talk of events triggering World War III is virtually impossible.
The powerful forum: in response to the january 3 air strike, the pentagon issued a statement saying it had taken pre-emptive action on the territory of other countries to prevent \"terrorism \". Has the US falsely accused China's Xinjiang of adopting preventive counter-terrorism measures in the past been a manifestation of its hegemonic politics and double standards?
Yang Guang: Xinjiang affairs are China's internal affairs, and the problems occurring in the Xinjiang region are not human rights and religious issues, but anti-secession and anti-terror issues. Some countries in the West have said and said something about the preventive counter-terrorism measures we have adopted to safeguard the security of the people of all ethnic groups in Xinjiang, including the Muslim people, and have intervened only to create obstacles to China's peaceful rise.
The United States adopts double standards on many international issues. They have set many new standards for their own interests, such as \"human rights over sovereignty \", which is used when they want to use it, and\" new interventionism \"when they do not. \"New interventionism\" means that some Western countries, such as the United States, go beyond the basic principles of existing international law, violate the Charter of the United Nations and interpret their acts of intervention in the international arena solely on the basis of new standards formulated by their own strategic designs. Their actions on the Xinjiang issue are a reflection of such \"new interventionism \".