Posted on 04/16/2006 1:10:58 PM PDT by familyop
Iran's official declaration that it has successfully enriched uranium for peaceful purposes is a further indication that Tehran is not concerned by the United States threat of military action. The Iranian leadership remains confident of US limitations to deter it from acting against Iran. Has Tehran become too complacent?
Tehran has made a calculated decision to press on with its nuclear program. It feels certain that it can cope with the consequences. It has been fully aware of the Bush Administration's resolve to stop it becoming a nuclear power and, if possible, to cause regime change. But it has been able to take comfort from a number of favourable significant factors.
Despite all American attempts to weaken Iran's position in the region, the Iraq situation has increasingly worked to the contrary. Iraq has opened a theatre of conflict that has enormously benefited Iran. While the US is struggling to find an honourable way out of the conflict, the Iranians are well-positioned to help or frustrate American efforts.
The Sunni-dominated Iraqi insurgency and its sectarian affiliation with the Arab world have driven the Iraqi Shiite majority, despite its Arabness, to look increasingly to Shiite Iran as its ultimate regional backer.
The Bush Administration's recent decision to authorise the American ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, to open talk with the Iranian regime on the Iraqi situation underscores Washington's recognition of this fact.
In the event of an American attack on Iran over its nuclear program, Tehran has the ability to increase the Iraq conflict to engulf the whole region and make American losses unbearable. Tehran can activate a regional Shiite strategic entity, stretching from Iran to Lebanon, against the US and its allies.
Tehran could also stretch this entity to include Afghanistan, where the Shiites constitute about 15 per cent to 20 per cent of the population and in which the US and its allies operate in an increasingly fragile and hostile environment.
Further, contrary to all their agitation and criticism of Iran through the International Atomic Energy Agency and the UN Security Council, the US's European allies, as well as Russia and China, stand to lose a great deal in a military conflict with Iran.
While the European powers, especially Britain, France and Germany, which have been negotiating with Tehran for peaceful resolution of the nuclear row, have very lucrative trade deals with the country, Russia has benefited enormously from flourishing economic and military ties with Iran and building the country's nuclear reactors. Similarly, China has had growing commercial relations with Iran, including importing 11 per cent of its oil from the country.
Besides this, Moscow and Beijing would not find it in their interests to legitimise any American action that could widen a US hegemonic presence in Middle East. No wonder all these countries have persistently played down an American use of force as an option.
Iran has also made sure that its nuclear facilities are as secure and dispersed as possible. Some of them are not only buried deep under the ground, but also scattered widely to safeguard them against surgical strikes. Tehran has been conscious of the Israeli bombing of the Iraqi Osirak reactor in 1981 and must have done everything possible not to be vulnerable to similar action.
If Washington decides on a military option, it will have to entail a long campaign that could easily entangle it in another vicious and possibly unwinnable conflict in the region. In addition, Tehran has counted on the obvious: the use of its oil as a political weapon, and its military capability to block the Strait of Homuz, which connects the Persian Gulf to the Indian Ocean and through which 87 per cent of the region's oil is exported to the outside world, and to target the interests of the US and its allies anywhere in the region.
In all this, it can count on the backing of a great majority of the Iranian people, who have historically been very independent in spirit and have closed ranks in the face of an outside threat, irrespective of their political differences.
These are the considerations that have importantly underpinned Tehran's calculations. Whether they will buy it enough time to persuade the US and its allies that its acquisition of nuclear technology is for peaceful purposes remains to be seen. Whatever the outcome, Tehran has now certainly engaged in a high-stakes game.
Are we in it for the money or for the survival of our nation?
Come, you who would sell our USA to the dogs. Bring your usual obfuscations, insults and projections of accusations against the poster bringing news of your illegitimate interests.
Come, you who would sell our USA to the dogs. Bring your usual obfuscations, insults and projections of accusations against the poster bringing news of your illegitimate interests.
Say what?
Discussions about foreign relations economy-vs-security dilemmas have been known to get a little ugly. ;-)
That, or the West waves the white flag and goes along to get along.
Don't think the later will happen, so we'll have war.
Perhaps a cordoning off of the Iran, and a multinational defense team ringing its borders will prevent more tech from coming in and choke off their nascent nuke program.
I can see why Stinky might think America cannot act given articles like this and the DNC agitprop.
I think Iran might act differently if it were to become known that instead of troop pullbacks in Iraq the US was considering increasing forces in the region because of the threat Iran is posing to peace in the region. The other Muslim nations and the EU might pay attention to that.
As to the wisdom of Iran distributing it's nuclear research and manufacturing bases I'm sure that Israel and the US know where they are located and have the technology to make them useless.
Raghead propoganda written by a raghead. The Iranians couldn't defeat Saddam in 8 years. The US did it at partial strength in 23 days. Put that in your hookah and smoke it.
Before we destroy Iran's nuclear facilities we should destroy their oil fields and eliminate their capacity to produce revenue. While they are guarding their nukes we destroy their economy and the foundation of their nation.
Well, that's OUR oil you're talking about...
Why would the author assume that Kurds will align with Tehran ? Additionally, Iran does not border Syria.
The problem with most of these articles promoting delayed action is that they are assuming that Iran will give us the peaceful option. To date they have given absolutely NO indication that they would settle this peacefully without a nuclear program. Therefore, increased military actions are now probably only a question of time.
Thats right, we go on gas rationing like we did in WW2 until we develop more of our own reserves, and Iran goes broke and stays broke which will probably result in the collapse of their government. They can't finance international terrorism on carpet revenues nor can they finance a nuclear weapons program. I'd gladly make that sacrifice to put Iran in that trick bag.
Well, good luck there. Most Americans don't seem to realize we're at war, let alone tolerate any personal sacrifice..
Sad, but true.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.