“International resistance against imperialism (and unbridled capitalism used as an economic weapon) ought to be the duty of every country wishing to guarantee economic and military sovereignty,” Federico Pieraccini, who is based in Milan, said in an interview with the Tasnim News Agency.
“The dawning of the multipolar age bodes well for the future of the resistance axis, representing a fundamental turning point in our era,” he added.
Pieraccini is an independent freelance writer and political expert based in Milan, Italy. He specializes in international affairs, conflicts, politics, and strategies. He has covered conflicts in Ukraine, Libya, Egypt, Syria, and Iraq.
The following is the full text of the interview:
Tasnim: International developments are full of examples of how regional and trans-regional countries have successfully adopted strategies of resistance against oppression and unilateralism that have borne good results. As you know, countries like Iran, Syria, Yemen, Venezuela, and Palestine have protected their national sovereignty against foreign threats and have achieved many gains through this strategy. In contrast, some countries have adopted a strategy of appeasement or reconciliation when being hectored and bullied by world powers. Given the experiences of these resistance countries, what do you think about their approach and the concept of resistance?
Pieraccini: International resistance against imperialism (and unbridled capitalism used as an economic weapon) ought to be the duty of every country wishing to guarantee economic and military sovereignty. The example of countries in the Middle East and beyond (Venezuela, DPRK) that form the axis of resistance ought to be an example to countries currently finding themselves under the military and economic dominance of the United States, sometimes improperly referred to as the Atlantic alliance (NATO).
The dawning of the multipolar age bodes well for the future of the resistance axis, representing a fundamental turning point in our era. The military umbrella offered by countries like Russia, helping to ward off possible conflicts, guarantees greater stability in the region, given that the United States, Israel and Saudi Arabia know that Russia would be more inclined to help Iran and other allies rather than remain neutral in the event of a conflict. Similarly, Chinese economic aid is essential in supporting the economies of the countries in the axis of resistance as they face illegal sanctions imposed by Washington to crush their economies.
Tasnim: Do you think that countries which currently toe the line of major powers like the US ought to emulate these experiences of resistance countries to protect their independence and stand against unilateralism?
Pieraccini: The multipolar world order in which we live today needs an expansion of centers of power around the globe. If China, Russia and the United States currently represent three poles of global power, India and the major European powers continue to play a role that is ambiguous and difficult to analyze. New Delhi is trying to gain its strategic autonomy, helped by Washington's unilateral impositions, which only serve to drive the Modi-led country into full Eurasian integration, as seen at the G20 and the SCO meetings with (Vladimir) Putin and Xi Jinping.
In this respect, imports of oil and gas from Iran should be increased to demonstrate to the rest of the world that Washington's sanctions and diktats have no effect on great powers in a multipolar world order.
The situation is even more embarrassing for European countries, with little hope that Berlin, Paris and Rome will be able to distance their economic and military policies from those of Atlanticism and the US dollar. Although Trump is a person who inspires fights rather than harmony, Merkel, Macron and Conte do not have the means, will or ability to create strategic distance between European countries and the United States for the purposes of greater economic and military autonomy and freedom.
Tasnim: In an op-ed article written for Tasnim, the Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, Ali Shamkhani, warned the European countries of the risks of inaction regarding the US administration’s unilateral policies, saying the current EU leaders will be held accountable for Europe’s future challenges. Shamkhani criticized Europe for becoming an unimportant and passive actor that accepts humiliation at the hands of the US and has to live with the destructive effects of Washington’s unilateralism that have affected several international treaties. What is your take on that? Isn’t it better for the EU to stand up to US bullying and unilateralism?
Pieraccini: Washington's abandonment of the JCPOA (2015 Iran nuclear deal), and its insistence that its European allies not trade with Tehran, has made plain Europe’s subordination, obliged to genuflect before what effectively amounts to their American overlords.
Although Europeans have slowly activated an alternative payment system to that of SWIFT called INSTEX, it is still unlikely to see any European banks bold enough to circumvent the US ban and accept payments from Iran. The likelihood of US retaliation is high, and a fragile European banking system that is tightly linked to the US dollar would suffer a significant blow.
A ban on operating in the US market would be devastating to any European entity, especially a bank, and this weighs heavily on the minds of Europeans when they consider whether to continue trading with Iran.
As correctly stated by Shamkhani, history will remember America’s subjugation of Europe, and as a European, I feel responsible for the actions of my government, actions that are certainly not creating a prosperous, free and independent future.
In the long run, sovereign countries like those of the axis of resistance will have more options to choose from in a multipolar environment, being able to act in favor of their own national interest. Whereas we Europeans will continue to be subject to Washington and her interests in exchange for absolutely nothing.