Globalaffairs

Issue 6 /December-January 2008
By Lázaro Rosa

We should wonder if the United States is now in a position to carry out a high scale attack against Iran. The answer is, in my opinion, that this situation should not take place. To begin with, Washington is still stuck in its political impasse in the Middle East, due to its lack of capacity to achieve a coherent strategy that helps the development of democracy in Iraq. Besides, more than five thousands of their own soldiers have died, and it is unable still to find a peaceful solution in a nation where the armed insurgence is still on a war footing. Moreover, because of the suicidal actions of this insurgence, the number of victims among the civil population and military invaders located in the country increases every day.

Without having a solution to the tragic Iraqi problem, the North American government would enter into an extremely delicate and complex situation with Iran if it decides to accomplish any interventionist action in this country, knowing full well that several consequences may come attached to it. In spite of all its military power, the USA is not infallible, and this is something that must always be taken into account.

Russia and China are in favour of a permanent diplomatic dialogue with Tehran and prefer to solve disagreements with this country by peaceful means. On the contrary, Washington insists on making immediate use of hard methods, and that is why it is planning air bombings against Iranian strategic buildings.

Richard Cheney, the Vice-President, along with his Commander-in-Chief, George Bush, would rather abandon diplomacy and implement instead some contention measures which would be backed up by the Pentagon’s use of force. Nevertheless, the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, prefers the US to follow the path of dialogue, but baring its teeth. In general, the global scene is getting darker every day due to tensions between those who are involved in hardly sanctioning Tehran and Iran’s refusal to abandon its uranium enrichment programme.

Contradictions in the White House

Washington contradicts itself in its position and in its international projection. On the one hand, it wants Iran to abandon its nuclear programme and it strongly condemns Tehran’s regime, considering it a threat to America’s regional interests. On the other hand, it refuses to support the resolution of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which tries to make the Middle East a nuclear armament-free zone.

This is an example of US foreign policy’s double standards. It is clear that the only country in the region which is in possession of the atomic bomb is Israel; however, Washington never condemns Tel Aviv because of this but gives him instead all of its support. We are talking, first of all, about its regional ally, and with the US it has always been the “do as I say, not as I do” axiom which has prevailed.

For the Iranian leader, Mahmud Ahmadineyad, the path that should be followed in order to solve conflicts in the Middle East passes through the withdrawal of foreign occupation troops in the region, especially of American soldiers which remain deployed in Iraq. Bush Administration, however, thinks otherwise and, according to the White House, political order in the zone can only be ensured by a long-term presence of its troops in the place.

Iran has concrete plans to attack Israel in case this country bombs its nuclear power stations with the approval of Bush Administration. This has been confirmed by General Mohamed Alavi, Deputy Commander of the Iranian Army in a public speech. These statements were, according to Washington, useless and provocative due to difficult disjunctives that Persian relations are going through with the Western world in these extremely delicate and tense moments.

While the US continues its search for supporters within the International Organizations, especially in the Security Council of the United Nations, for a third round of sanctions against Tehran, the government of Mahmud Ahmadineyad remains reluctant to cancel its uranium enrichment programme, defending the right of his country to develop its nuclear programme for peaceful purposes.

Empty diplomacy

The US and Iran do not have diplomatic relations since December 1979, when civil servants from the US embassy in Tehran where held as hostages for over a year by a group of Islamic militants. Nevertheless, there is another circumstance about Washington’s behaviour in the Middle East which is noteworthy: last September 6, Israeli aeroplanes penetrated Syria’s air space and shot their rockets against unknown objectives in an extremely secret operation. Not even the pilots knew what their mission was, being informed about it once they were flying.

In a recent press conference, several journalists asked Bush about these incidents, but the North American leader avoided any comment about the events. In other words, when something has to do with its Israeli ally, the White House turns a blind eye.

What should be asked now is if the United States had any moral or political justification to perpetrate its expensive, difficult and irreparable invasion of Iraq in 2003. None of the reasons argued by Washington in this respect have been credible, as the accusations made against Sadam Hussein about his plans to build atomic weapons were false.

The truth is that the North Americans had to protect their interests and control the substantial oil reserves on the region. And as Iraq has the second biggest oil fields in the world, it was an issue of great strategic relevance for President Bush and his Pentagon hawks to have a political ally in Baghdad and to get rid of an unpredictable enemy such as Sadam Hussein

The fact is that Iraq remains still an ungoverned zone where terrorist attacks and actions by a strongly armed insurgence lead to political instability. This scenario hinders the achievement of peace, which would bring along a positive climate for the development and good functioning of the surrounding countries.

In these moments, an aggression by the US to Iran, bordering neighbour to Baghdad, would delay for many years, even decades, any hope for the region to rebuild paths of co-existence based on mutual respect between their people. It would add fuel to the flames, reactivating suicidal and unjustified actions by international terrorists and extremist Islamists.

Iran will not stand by and do nothing; it will make use of its entire military power against Israel. Likewise, American companies will definitely suffer in this context of instability and disorder. Tehran will look for ways to give an asymmetric answer against USA’s oil interests in the whole of the Middle East, and it could decide to destroy the oil wells of neighbouring countries. This would certainly bring a devastating destabilization of both energy and fuel markets at global level.

Washington must not act impulsively and abandon dialogue with the Persian government. This country can be a hard nut to crack for Americans, much more than Sadam’s Iraq was. There are many interests at stake here.

Opposed interests

Russia and China need Tehran as well. The former to sell its new nuclear technology, which brings substantial profits; and the latter to obtain a sustained oil supply, needed to keep its unstoppable economic growth of an annual 10% and that has made the Asian country a global power.

Iran is a theocratic republic with seventy million inhabitants. Its Chief of State, Mahmud Ahmadineyad, is a conservative and ultranationalist politician who does not get tired of stating in his speeches his desires of destroying the nation of Israel. This attracts attention and worries of Western governments.

Tehran is carrying out an unprecedented military rearm based on its proper national production. An example of this has been a new missile able to hit targets two thousand kilometres away.

Last September 21, the Islamic nation staged a huge military parade with the President of the country sitting in the main stand. This parade commemorated the beginning of the first Gulf war, in which Iran fought Iraq from 1980 to 1988. During this parade, armour-plated vehicles carried inscriptions such as “death to Israel and death to the United States”.

At the same time, great military manoeuvres took place in land and sea, sending signs to their political enemies about their readiness to face any foreign aggression whatsoever. This was a clear message that reached the letterbox of the White House.

Conclusion

What is most surprising of this entire situation is that, in spite of its economic blockade and international isolation due to its disagreement with the US and with Occident in general, Iran has learned how to develop on its own a full national defence industry which would allow the country to answer an external attack.

In my opinion, this should not happen for the good of global relations. The current tension is serious and it may increase, but I believe that the possibility of a direct attack by the United States to the Theocratic Republic of the Ayatollahs remains far-off. Washington is still worried, crying for soldiers’ deaths in Iraq, and it is not yet in position to plan a new bellicose adventure against Persians.

Moreover, we must remember that presidential elections in the US are coming and it seems that the Republican Party, as a result of the situation in the Middle East, has lost popularity and electorate approval. The current composition of the American Senate, dominated by the Democrats, proves this.

In his recent visit to the United Nations, the Iranian President asked for permission to visit the reconstruction works in the area were the Twin Towers used to be. American politicians got alarmed and the New York Police denied permission to the nationalist leader.

Rivalry between Iran and the US has reached such a level that the American Senate voted to decide if the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution (an elite body of the Iranian army which Washington links to violent outbreaks in Iraq) should be labelled as a terrorist organization. By the way, the Democrat candidate, Senator Hillary Clinton, voted “yes” during the session.

Lázaro Rosa
Cuban exiled, Graduated in Education in the area of History and Social Sciences by the High Pedagogic Institute Félix Varela from Santa Clara, Cuba.

Sources of Information: AFP, EFE and IRNA.

Global Affairs is not liable for author’s opinion