|
Some form of attack on Iran is becoming more likely by the month, as President George W. Bush tries to find a way to improve his legacy in the Middle East. He must know that Iraq is a disaster which has left America's reputation in tatters, and that his Annapolis initiative on peace in Palestine is going nowhere.
In this gloomy scenario of American failure, Bush must see anything that supports regime change in Iran as a major plus.
A series of airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities (peaceful or otherwise) would be a blow in the right direction for Bush, showing that he is still in charge and can make a difference. It would be important to Bush to do this before the US presidential elections, so that any credit for the raids goes to him personally.
In addition, he will not have much domestic flack for any action. All the candidates for the presidency have come closer on their Iran policies, and they would find it hard to attack Bush on his refusal to consider Iran's right to a nuclear programme.
Even the Democratic presidential nominee, Barak Obama has moved closer to the Bush line, and the Republican candidate, John McCain, has been an ardent enemy of Iran all along.
It is alarming that Iran and the US are determined to fail to understand each other, and are determined to be at odds. One of the more obvious examples was in 2003 when Iran faxed a peace proposal to the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, but she claimed not to have seen it, and anyway never followed up on it.
A more recent example is in the details of the offer made to Iran on June 14 by China, France, Germany, Russia, the UK, the US and the European Union, in which they presented ideas to Iran on how they would recognise Tehran's right to building a peaceful nuclear programme if it verifiably stopped any enrichment of uranium and reprocessing activities.
They backed this with a wide raft of encouraging measures that all these major world powers would take if Iran followed what they are looking for.
But one of the major problems with Iran being able to accept the 'offer', which the Iran Six group knew perfectly well, was that Iran does not see the enrichment of uranium as being linked to any military programme.
Despite powerful statements against nuclear weapons from the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and all other major Iranian politicians, all making very clear that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons programme, the group of world powers does not see things the same way.
Uranium enrichment at an early stage improves the efficiency of peaceful nuclear power stations. The same process of enrichment, if continued past a certain level, produces fuel for a nuclear bomb.
The lack of trust is in part due to the hatred between Iran and the US, and their contrasting views on how the world should be run.
The gap has widened due to Iran's deliberate refusal to agree to go through the legally unnecessary process of rebutting the unsubstantiated accusations from sometimes unsourced Western intelligence agencies that Iran has had a military programme in the past.
This refusal is designed to irritate the Americans. It also definitely makes Iran look very shifty, and this is slowly convincing a wide section of world opinion that Iran must have something to hide. This helps Bush in his planning for a possible military attack, since it will reduce the level of world outrage at the action.
The present confrontation is over Iran's supposed nuclear weapons programme, but the real dispute has been going on since the fall of the Shah. It is over successive American adminstrations' refusal to consider the Islamic Republic of Iran as anything other than a dangerous maverick regime, which should be toppled.
Made clear
This is again made clear by an important article by the influential journalist Seymour Hersh, who wrote in the New Yorker this month that a recent highly classified presidential finding was focused on "undermining Iran's nuclear ambitions and trying to undermine the government through regime change".
The article says that Bush's programme for regime change in Iran includes $400 million going to Iranian opposition groups.
There is only so much time left for the Bush Adminstration, and while it is not likely to start a whole effort to change Iran, it might well want to attack it and disable its nuclear programme.
The Iranian response across the Middle East will be harsh, and they have been very open about it.
A recent interview by an Iranian newspaper with General Jaafari, Commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards, quoted him as saying that the limited time frame open to the Bush administration would force Iran to "in a short period of time, give swift, decisive, and blunt responses so that they will have impact".
One imagines that the US military commanders in Iraq have analysed what swift, decisive and blunt from the Iranians might mean in their theatre of operations.
Your comments
I think the Iranian people should prepare themselves for a regime change in Iran.
Hooman
Dubai,UAE
Posted: July 03, 2008, 12:12
IRAN CAN NEVER GO NUKE AS IT MAY B DEVOID OF DELIVERY SYSTEM 4 LONG.
MIRZABASRAVI
KARACHI,PAKISTAN
Posted: July 03, 2008, 12:07
. Americans should know that they can not bomb every nation that differs with it. It should know its limitations. With increased use of force, Americans are making this planet increasingly unsafe. If they want to relocate America to Mars, nobody has an objection. Being a country boasting of liberty and Democracy, American actions can not be justified. If America solves the Palestine issue with its friend Israel, all the violence and need for going nuclear by the Arab states will vanish
Prof.Ravi
Al Khuwair,Oman
Posted: July 03, 2008, 11:15
What is wrong with Iran acquiring an atomic bomb, if Israel has the same weapon in dozens? Is it that Israel's bomb is defensive and Iran?s is offensive? Very strange reasoning. Does America have any right to change the regime of another country? If India tries to intervene in the regime change of Pakistan what would be the attitude of Mr. Bush? Will he support India?
RAFEEK
DUBAI,UAE
Posted: July 03, 2008, 10:52
All of this problem must be settled in a diplomatic way. there's no better way than this.
bong
manila,philippines
Posted: July 03, 2008, 09:41
Why cant the world just get along? The fall out and repercussions of these ego clashes is on Children and families who just want to live a happy life without any conflict
Charles
Dubai,UAE
Posted: July 03, 2008, 09:03
Iran being a member of UN has its own rights to be nuclear powered or not. America and Israel?s alliance while making hues and cries for a long time, should dismantle its nuclear arsenals and show the world that their intention is peace only, not a clandestine notion. Attack on Iran will be a homicidal action from the part of Bush, who is already guilty of homicide in Iraq due to his policies.
It will be a Himalayan blunder if Bush attacks Iran which will ignite the Middle East, and the impact of such a strike will be catastrophic not only to the Middle East but also to America, India, Pakistan, the Philippines and many other countries as millions of expat workers are contributing to the economy of those countries.
DR. SHEREEF
ABUDHABI,UAE
Posted: July 03, 2008, 08:53
Iran must wait for changes in US Administration in November. Iran must avoid tension in the Region. It has right to continue develop Its nuclear enrichment in the right path. No country doesn?t have the right to say or prevent Iran's Nuclear Program.
Jahabar
Abu Dhabi,UAE
Posted: July 03, 2008, 07:11
Your analysis of Iranian intentions about their nuclear program is almost irrelevant. Whether Iran posses one or a number of nuclear weapons will not change the military balance of power in the region significantly (nuclear weapons are almost never used in conflict). Only in terms of a physiological and defensive edge it might improve the Iranian position.
Ardeshirl
Chongqing,China
Posted: July 03, 2008, 06:20
Iran has worked within the framework of NPT. In fact, Iran has gone out of its way to comply with unreasonable demands of IAEA. As a result, all the sanctions by UNSC are illegal and unjustified. It is simply a blatant bullying of Iran and UNSC by the West.
The aggressors should note that if attacked, an overwhelming majority of the Iranians WILL UNITE to fight them. In addition, Iranians including those against the present government will join forces and retaliate very hard against the attackers. One can bet their last dollar on that.
Further, an unprovoked attack on Iran will be disastrous for the region, the Israelis, and the US.
Therefore, I think that the West should negotiate in good faith and without pre-conditions with Iran instead of saber rattling. JAVEED IRAN!
A. Zarnegar
Chicago, IL,USA
Posted: July 03, 2008, 04:09
Send us your comments
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Gulf News may edit comments for length and clarity but will not change the tone of the message. Comments will only be accepted if all fields (including name) are filled correctly and the message isn't abusive, defamatory or offensive. The Gulf News website will only print your first name along with your comment. Please state in the message if you wish to remain anonymous. All comments sent may be forwarded for use in the Gulf News newspaper.
|
