Tweet
WILL AMERICA WAGE A WAR AGAINST IRAN?
Azat Artsakh, Republic of Nagorno Karabakh
Oct 10 2005
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 U.S. 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 fundamentalist 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 neighbor. On the contrary,
the president of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliev does every possible thing to
protect his country's territory in case U.S. 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 abovementioned circumstances do not worry the Americans much. A
fundamentalist country like Iran which considers the U.S. 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 the
humanity, Russia and China will hardly vote for the interests of the
U.S., 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 U.S. 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 U.S. and the countries of
the European Union, as it could be expected, criticized the speech
of Mahmud Ahmadi-Nedjadi. U.S. 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 U.S. 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 produce nuclear power, calling the policy of
the West towards his country as "nuclear apartheid". The arguments of
the U.S. 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 U.S.
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 neighbor. 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 mejlis, 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.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Azat Artsakh, Republic of Nagorno Karabakh
Oct 10 2005
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 U.S. 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 fundamentalist 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 neighbor. On the contrary,
the president of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliev does every possible thing to
protect his country's territory in case U.S. 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 abovementioned circumstances do not worry the Americans much. A
fundamentalist country like Iran which considers the U.S. 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 the
humanity, Russia and China will hardly vote for the interests of the
U.S., 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 U.S. 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 U.S. and the countries of
the European Union, as it could be expected, criticized the speech
of Mahmud Ahmadi-Nedjadi. U.S. 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 U.S. 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 produce nuclear power, calling the policy of
the West towards his country as "nuclear apartheid". The arguments of
the U.S. 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 U.S.
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 neighbor. 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 mejlis, 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.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress