According to the latest statements coming from the White House, the United States — and by extension, the trans-Atlantic alliance — seems determined to implement drastic measures against Iran if it violates the U.N. Security Council Resolution 1929, which imposes economic sanctions, because of their refusal to suspend their nuclear program. These measures may include the desired invasion that could not be implemented during the Carter administration.
It’s worth noting that on Jan. 21, 1980, during the State of the Union address, then-President Carter explained to the U.S. Congress that any type of “foreign” interference in the area of the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea would be considered as an aggression against the U.S. strategic interests and a national security threat. That’s where he outlined the pending effort to gain control over Iran, which had been so elusive after the fall of the Pahlavi dynasty.
Currently, the U.S. and the Western alliance troops are bulky and have high firepower in Iraq, the Persian Gulf countries and Afghanistan. Iran is the only one missing if they want to gain almost total control of the area.
The sanctions would be imposed on 41 companies, thereby affecting Iran’s commercial and financial flow, which is based mostly around oil — the foundation of Iran’s economy. They would also freeze Iranian funds in European banks and hope that their economy collapses.
It is hoped that the revolutionary Islamic regime collapses as a result of Resolution 1929. It’s outrageous to use multilateralism through the U.N. to overthrow a political regime with which the traditional powers of the political supremacy have failed to start a dialogue on equal terms.
The leaders of the nations that are part of the Security Council owe an explanation to their constituencies in case the sanctions result in social and economic tragedies in the Islamic nation, or in a conflagration that will determine in many nations — even in South America — the security doctrines and in some cases, the economic losses.
More serious still are the preparations for an invasion that seems increasingly forced by the characteristics of the current global economic and political context.
If you use Barack Obama’s peace-and-harmony speeches as a base, his government is being pressured by the neoconservative blocks of power. On the other side, in a long-term perspective, if Barack Obama is to be reelected, he has to have a larger impact on America’s population with a bigger accomplishment during his administration.
Due to the continuity of the economic crisis these days, neither employment nor economic recovery look like the places where Barack Obama can earn some ground and achieve political assets, at least in the next two years. Actions speak louder than words, and in both areas the world capitalist crisis is against the measures of his agenda on the domestic level. Thus, this elusive accomplishment — for which people are attracted to vote for politicians in high political offices — comes from external actions and in this case, is designed to stamp American supremacy on the planet, which is something that is always a popularity aid for a politician in the United States.
The collapse of the regime of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, which has been the major unresolved issue in every administration — whether they are Democratic or Republican — since 1979, would fulfill the function of expected achievement to consolidate its domestic leadership.
The implications of a devastation of Iran due to a confrontation with Israel or the United States is a great unknown. Apparently, from the information that was recovered, those implications wouldn’t be more devastating than those which have occurred in Iraq. Studies developed by the Pentagon and available online don’t indicate otherwise.
After seeing the havoc, an invasion of Iran is more viable than it has been with Iraq and Afghanistan. The central thesis of this rests on the fact that Iran has a political process of opposition which is strong, and it is a highly organized country that has large human capabilities.
In Search of Consensus for the Invasion
The G-8 statement, which was recently signed in a meeting in Canada, makes a strong condemnation to terrorism and nuclear proliferation. Recent resolutions from the United Nations urge Iran to comply with nuclear inspection protocols and advise the suspension of all nuclear activities.
Iran has been defiant with these sanctions that freeze a substantial proportion of their income in foreign exchange and foreign trade.
Invading Iran to destabilize the current clerical regime ruling Iran — and ultimately overthrow it — has been the aspiration of the U.S.-led Western alliance.
There is no other possible interpretation of both the display and unknown volume of U.S. naval military forces in the Arabian Sea.
Amid the current global financial and economic crisis, it is indispensable for the West to have another strategic foothold to control the energy resources in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea, which are both rich in oil.
The current crisis requires maximum security and a predictable context in the energy system, and it seems that the explosion of the oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico is accelerating that plan to attack Iran militarily.
At the same time, facing the midterm elections in November and considering the declining popularity ratings of President Obama, the White House has opted for an operation on Iran which will certainly find followers in the groups managing the media and finances, who are key to election processes in the West.
There are detractors to this military operation to destabilize the current regime in Iran. Mainly India, Brazil, Turkey and most of the Islamic countries spread across the world have expressed their disappointment. As always, Russia and China have something to say to measure the implications of a further destabilization in the areas adjacent to Iran as a result of an invasion.
India, for example, after Indonesia, is the most populous country with an Islamic culture. In various shades, major Indian analysts, writing in the prestigious and long-lived Economic and Political Weekly, have warned of the political and financial implications of militarily invading Iran to destabilize the regime, and they have demanded that the Indian government adopt a position which is more decisively against the invasion.
To the central Asian countries like Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan — all of them Islamic and loaded with energy resources — a military invasion to Iran would open a wound not easily healed. In Pakistan, there would be destabilization, but one that would contribute to the war in Afghanistan.
It is important to sift through the strategic interests of Russia and China in the area. So far, from reading what is available, it seems their position is between the lines. There is a silence that becomes even more suspicious with the trail of smoke and glow that the World Cup left behind.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.