HOME	Your Most Trusted Source of Foreign News and Views About the United States

EDITORIAL

September 27, 2005

Dar Al-Hayat - Original Article (English)

The 'Supreme Leader' Watches Troops

Of all the scenarios the United States is carefully examining for dealing with the Iranian nuclear issue, the only viable one seems to be a strike against its nuclear plants. But this is a costly and difficult choice, with no guarantee that it could be finished and contained quickly and efficiently enough.

One of America's permanent "No's" is direct negotiations with Iran. Judging by previous experience, such a boycott can only end with war, as it is a boycott between a hegemonic country and a former proxy that rebelled against it. There is no way for such a situation to correct itself until the hegemonic state returns to its comforts zone. The United States has not recognized the changes that have occurred in Iran over the past quarter of a century, and despite its caution, Iran managed to open a new page of derision with the "Great Satan." having been labeled a charter member of the "Axis of Evil."

A Likely Target of Any U.S.-Led Attack on Iran: The Reactor at Bushehr [See Video Below]

While it mulls its plan of attack, which would certainly be of longer duration than its 2003 Iraq campaign, concern over the reaction of Iran's population means Washington is unlikely to consider occupation with American troops, something that was not as much of a concern in the case of Iraq. While the U.S. thinks, it costs nothing to push their European pawns, who rushed into the game without knowing it would lead nowhere, to negotiate with Tehran.

Iran's problem is that since its rebirth as the "Islamic Republic," it has failed to win acceptance. When it adopted a policy of "exporting the revolution" on the eve of Ayatollah Khomeini's victory, it was completely rejected. Even under the pragmatism of Rafsanjani and after the rise of Khatamism [rule by reformist President Khatami], it could not improve its situation and remained unwanted.

Iran's problem is that it is viewed as an overweening "Arab State," but it is actually quite different. The Persian State has not forgotten its humiliation when the entire world treated it as an outcast the day Saddam Hussein's jets and rockets began pounding its cities. The nuclear option has become its strategic response, but its intransigence may lead to the same fate.

Another of Iran's problems are the rivals it has accumulated during the 1980s, when it extended the tentacles of terrorism in more than one direction. When Iran tried to clean up its act, it didn't recoup many friends. Had it not been for the rise in oil prices, it would have been unable to build even the modest beneficial relations it has nurtured in recent years.

The issue of the right to control the nuclear fuel cycle for "peaceful purposes" would not have caused a crisis if the country concerned was Canada, Brazil or South Africa, for example, but in the case of Iran it signifies danger.

Israel's Global Influence in 1948 (right) in 2005 (left) [From Alittihad, U.A.E].

One of the most serious justifications for the Iraq War was that while the terrorism on 9/11 came from a marginal extremist group, the next act of terror is likely to come from countries with weapons of mass destruction.

For that reason, when the issue of a potential Iranian "bomb" arose, Western opposition to the United States subsided, even from France. But because they fear another war, the Europeans undertook to resolve the crisis diplomatically. Nevertheless, they failed to negotiate well or, a better explanation would be, they were quite naïve to believe that they could convince Iran to give up its project for mere economic promises. 

Just as with Saddam, there is no doubt that the George Bush Administration has already taken the decision concerning Iran. But the difference is that after years of sanctions and decay, Iraq was ready to fall. And even then, it required a load of fabrications, exaggerations and lies to "sell" the Iraq War to the American people.

Another big difference is that in the case of Iran, there is a dearth of information, with the exception of what Israel has tried to inject as enticement for the military option.

The final distinction is that now because of the daily carnage in Iraq, we all know the meaning of the word "aftermath." From now on, no matter how necessary a particular war seems to be, this will no doubt be fully taken into account. Nobody wants more Iraqs.

Then there is the Security Council option, and the hope that sanctions will somehow cause the Iranian regime to buckle. But are sanctions really enough to halt their nuclear project? It might be enough if one were awaiting the completion of a credible military option, but only after taking a number of steps, the most important of which would be reducing America's military presence in Iraq to what is "necessary," eradicating the danger of Hezbollah weapons in Lebanon, and of course, the further embellishment of Israel's image to make Washington appear like an even-handed country carrying out a mission in Iran on the world's behalf.

But some of these steps can't be completed quickly enough for them to succeed. Following Iran's deep infiltration of the "new Iraq," and the urgency in Israel to continue what began in Iraq: a drive to defeat all of Israel's strategic threats … additional devastation in the region seems inevitable.

VIDEO FROM THE MUSLIM WORLD: STUDENTS FORM HUMAN CHAIN AROUND REACTOR

Human Chain Around Nuclear Facilites

---