|
IRAN
Badly recycled ambitions
BY ELSA CLARO—Granma International staff writer—
PLANS to intervene in Iran are not as up-to-date as
one might suppose. The neo-conservatives who have
plotted the course of and are currently moving the
political strings of the Bush administration have
had that proposition among many other foreign policy
blunders committed or in the making. This is
confirmed by valid sources within the United States
itself that have observed how the neo-con group
directives are in line with the interests and view
of Vice President Dick Cheney who, from at least
2001, has been promoting a military attack on that
Persian country.
The
pretexts being wielded are as plagued with fallacies
and tricks as those employed to justify the invasion
of Iraq and are aimed at a substantial change of the
regime to one that favors them, of course, like the
times when Shah Reza Palevi, for example, allowed
them to meddle in that nation’s oil. And as they
have not stopped to think whether they have any kind
of right to engineer undertakings that are contrary
to the will and benefit of others, they are carrying
them out.
As
is well known, senior U.S. leaders in power are
wielding it for their own benefit and are not
characterized with taking adequate precautions. They
affirmed that the war on Iraq would be child’s play
and it is more than evident four years later that
they are still far from victory. Based on that
alone, without counting earlier and well-known
failures, one could think that in this case they
will not assess the issue well and that is terribly
dangerous and damaging for those least at fault.
Retired officers and high-profile political
personalities in the United States have warned of
the grave error they would be making if those
threats were made material reflected profusely and
particularly by the British media (the BBC, The
Daily Telegraph, The Times, The
Guardian) in versions that highlight Israeli
participation in the anticipated attack, one of all
the options on the table reiterated by Cheney in
Australia. In real terms, it would seem that the
absent option is that of diplomacy.
“Iran is preparing for all possibilities, but is
stressing the importance of constructive
engagement,” affirmed Manuchehr Mottaki, the Iranian
foreign minister, who also stated: “We do not think
that the United States is in a position to provoke
another crisis and force the U.S. people and the
region to pay out more in taxes. The current
situation has cost it a lot.” In any event, he said
that his government is prepared for two
alternatives, the military one and the negotiated
one, but prefers dialogue, demonstrated by insisting
on invitations to Washington to enter into talks.
Some
analysts believe that the Iranians are
overestimating their forces, while they also fail to
understand how, as Mottaki has pointed out, the
United States has expended too much in money and
lives to allow it more outlay in both fields. It has
also been stated that the Democrat majority in
Congress would not accept giving free rein to
another war, when there are two underway and neither
of them have much of a future. Others contradicting
that possibility do not believe that the legislature
would venture into being branded as running scared
and would end up by approving another Bush
adventure.
With
or without Democratic support the hypothetical
aggression could take the form of a surgical strike.
Just destroying part of its nuclear installations
for civilian use and thus reducing the possibility
that that country could complete manufacturing
atomic weapons – which they presume is the Iranian
plan – while avoiding the heavy losses forecast if
they commit to land confrontations with the Iranian
army.
In
either of the two cases heightened prestige for
Tehran is predicted and an increase of the political
dividends it already enjoys within the Islamic
world. In general, if Bush decides to go ahead with
that campaign despite everything, it would seem that
he will not be able to effectively count on many of
his allies, for whom it would be impossible to
coherently explain another military undertaking to
their respective citizens.
Iran’s alleged offensive nuclear programs cannot be
used as a subterfuge, as there are nations with
weapons of this type that have never been threatened
or had any obstacles placed in their way, despite
them being developed on the margins of the
International Atomic Energy Agency and the
frameworks to avoid proliferation.
What
this is about again is to size up each country
according to ones convenience, ignoring the benefits
for the interested party, the region in which it is
located and evident risks to humanity. The exercise
of an untitled gendarme or of the empire. It’s all
the same.
|
