Will America carry on war against Iran?

Oct 10, 2005 02:00 AM

by Azat Artsakh

The question is worrying the international community for Iran is one of the largest exporters of oil which is getting more and more expensive on the international markets. In case US wages military actions against Iran, the price for oil may mount to an unpredictable level, ruining economies, even those of developed countries.
However, not everyone is worried about the growth of prices caused by war against Iran. For instance, Russia, Azerbaijan and other oil exporting countries will only benefit from this. But this circumstance does not necessarily mean that the Baku authorities are for applying force against their southern neighbour. On the contrary, the president of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev does every possible thing to protect his country's territory in case US wages war against Iran.

And this is not accidental for besides the risk of the counterattack of Iran there is also the inflow of refugees from South (Iranian) Azerbaijan. Yerevan does not want war in Iran either, for in that case the implementation of the Iranian-Armenian economic programs, including the gas pipeline so necessary to Armenia, would be at stake.
However, the above mentioned circumstances do not worry the Americans much. A fundamentalist country like Iran which considers the US its enemy, would never allow Washington to create a geopolitical and economic situation which would perfectly fit into the policy of the White House to eliminate all the obstacles on the way of establishing control on the Near East, rich in oil resources.

There are two ways of achieving this: either by overthrowing the power of mullahs through peaceful means, i.e. destabilization of the situation in the country, or repeating the scenario of Iraq.
The first variant became difficult to realize due to the victory of conservative Mahmud Ahmadi-Nedjadi in the recent presidential election in Iran. Consequently, the option of dealing a blow to Iran comes forward.
But the second variant is not easy either because it first of all requires the endorsement of Europe and the countries of the region, as well as the UN Council for Security. Without the consent of the latter it will be difficult for Washington to attack Iran.

Consequently, the Americans should start preparing the Council for Security. In order to persuade the international community of the rightness of applying violence against Iran in the future there needs to be a threat coming from this Islamic country, which will worry the world. Possession of nuclear weapon could be such a threat.
Thus, it is possible to accuse Iran of attempts to create nuclear weapon under the guise of the civilian nuclear program. However, at the UN Council for Security Russia and China also have definitive votes and are not happy with the hegemonic policies of the United States.

Even if the possibility of nuclear weapon of Iran really threatens humanity, Russia and China will hardly vote for the interests of the US, pursuing their own hegemonic aspirations. By the way, there was a similar situation on the eve of the war in Iraq.
Therefore the Americans neglected the UN Council for Security and dealt a blow to Iraq, not even waiting for the approval of this organization.

However, times have changed. The policy of Bush in Iraq is criticized in the US as well, and Washington cannot neglect the UN Council for Security, especially after the resolutions adopted during the 60th session of the UN General Assembly. Consequently, it will take the Americans long-lasting preparations with the adversaries of fundamental measures against Iran.
They chose the European Union and MAGATE as instruments for exercising pressure on the international community.

So far the European Union, namely Great Britain, France and Germany, have been negotiating with official Tehran for Iran's nuclear programs. At first the dialogue between the government of Iran and the European "trio" seemed to be constructive.
However, the analysts who were more attentive had a different opinion. They thought that the European "trio" would sooner or later bring the talks to failure, blaming Tehran for this, for the goal of the European Union was to stop Iran's nuclear programs.

There appeared a convenient occasion. It was the election of conservative Mahmud Ahmadi-Nedjadi. This reason was supported by his speech at the UN World Summit. The message of the president of Iran was not accepted similarly by everyone.
The US and the countries of the European Union, as it could be expected, criticized the speech of Mahmud Ahmadi-Nedjadi. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the president of Iran practically gave no reply to the concerns of the international community about what Iran was doing in the past 15 years. In addition to this, Condoleezza Rice pointed out that the international community shared the opinion that there is serious reason for concern about Iran's nuclear programs. She said Iran should be prevented from getting technologies which might potentially lead to creating nuclear weapon.

The US Secretary of State assured that at some point the issue of Iran's nuclear programs would be discussed at the UN Council for Security, especially if Iran continues to be reluctant to prove that it does not intend to develop a nuclear weapon program under the guise of the civil nuclear program.
On his part the foreign minister of France said what he heard on that day convinced him of the urgency of extending the Iranian issue to the UN Council for Security.
The press secretary of the British foreign ministry expressed a similar opinion. According to him, the speech of the Iranian president let everyone understand that he was not going to implement the agreements signed by Iran.

In the meantime, at the 60th session of the UN General Assembly Mahmud Ahmadi-Nedjadi literally took an oath that Iran had no intentions to create nuclear weapon.
“Iran is an Islamic country, and Islam does not believe in nuclear weapon," he said. At the same time he emphasized that Iran has an indivisible right to producenuclear power, calling the policy of the West towards his country as "nuclear apartheid". The arguments of the US and the European Union that it is not necessary to produce nuclear fuel for developing a nuclear program for generating energy, for it can be successfully imported, Mahmud Ahmadi-Nedjadi said civilian use of nuclear fuel without creating a full nuclear cycle is a pointless undertaking.

And what he said was true. In fact, Iran has a strategic nuclear program. The country plans to build dozens of atomic power stations and produce nuclear energy by new technologies. Therefore, Iran needs to have a complete cycle of nuclear fuel enrichment. Otherwise, along with possessing tremendous technological capacities, Iran is going to depend on countries, producing nuclear fuel. However, considering the Iraqi experience, the leaders of Iran are well-aware that if the US intends to accuse someone of something, it is pointless to try to prove one's innocence.
Evidently, the reason for the hard words of Mahmud Ahmadi-Nedjadi should be looked for in New York. At the same time, as it should have been expected, two great countries, Russia and China, acted against extending the issue of Iran to the UN Council for Security by the Board of MAGATE.

Russia is especially enthusiastic about defending Iran's nuclear programs. It is easy to understand Moscow because Russia itself is building a nuclear power station in Iran and has a lot of opportunities to sign other agreements with Iran. Therefore, stopping Iran's nuclear programs would mean economic losses for Russia.
In the meantime, everything said above is just diplomatic steps made by the West, Russia and Iran in reference to Iran's nuclear programs. We think Iran is considering creating nuclear weapon to stop blackmail and threats in its address.

In Tehran they are convinced that if Pakistan and India already possess nuclear weapons, let alone the enemy of Iran, Israel which possesses over 450 nuclear warheads, Iran also has the right to have nuclear weapon for the sake of its security. Otherwise even Azerbaijan will be made to threaten its southern neighbour.
As to the statements of the Iranian leaders that Islam forbids possessing nuclear power, soon they will insist that Iran will never be the first to use nuclear weapon, for Islam forbids application of nuclear weapon. That is to say, Iran will have no problem with the requirements of Islam.

It is also interesting that the speech of the president was not approved by everyone in Iran. The former deputy of the Majlis, the member of the reformist political party Mosharekyat, Ali Mazuri stated that the nuclear undertaking set forward by Mahmud Ahmadi-Nedjadi in New York does not contain practical proposals. He thinks that general calls and unreal slogans will not help solve arguments on Iran's nuclear programs.
As an example of the non-practical proposals of Mahmud Ahmadi-Nedjadi the reformist cited the idea of setting up a UN commission on disarmament in the Near East. The famous Iranian analyst Ali Horram is also critical about Mahmud Ahmadi-Nedjadi. He described some of the proposals of the president as "projectionist".

However, we think that these controversies are rather struggle for power in Iran than real attitudes towards the nuclear program. Anyway, the speech of Mahmud Ahmadi-Nedjadi at the 60th session of the UN General Assembly produced a new situation around the "Iranian case". And it is not excluded that the policy of the West on Iran will become more ardent, essentially changing the relations within the region.
This situation will not pass by Armenia and Azerbaijan though military actions against Iran in the foreseeable future are hardly possible.

Source: Armenian News Network/Groong
Alexander's Commentary

Change of face - change of phase

In the period of July 20 till August 3, 2015, Alexander will be out of the office and the site will not or only irreg

read more ...
« May 2020 »
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Register to announce Your Event

View All Events