The War between Washington and Tehran: A War of Words

It’s like a TV series called “Boring” being inflicted upon viewers, a show of the sort we see from time to time during the escalation of the “war of words” between Iran and the West, the latter led by the United States of America.

First we should acknowledge that the actors in this show perform their roles masterfully. This is a series, by the way, whose goal is not to entertain or persuade its viewers; rather, it is primarily designed for the profit and interests of its performers and those involved in its production.

So here you have Washington, she of the starring role! In her last appearance, she announced that she will not permit Iran to block the Strait of Hormuz, the strategic maritime corridor through which a third of the world’s oil trade flows, should Iran seek to do so. Washington also announced that the new aircraft carrier Carl Vinson arrived in the Arabian Sea last Monday to replace the carrier John C. Stennis, which just last week was warned by Iran against returning to the Gulf following its departure at the end of this past December.

Meanwhile, France, Britain and Germany — playing the roles of “extras” — all condemned Iran’s decision to begin enriching uranium beyond 20 percent at the fortified underground facility in Fordo, regarding Iran’s move to open this new facility as a violation of Security Council resolutions and of the IAEA.

For its part, Russia, who is bidding to share the starring role in this show, warned of an imminent American military attack on Iran. In a discussion with the newspaper Kommersant on Jan. 13, the secretary of the Security Council of Russia, Nikolai Patrushev, said that there is a genuine danger of an American military strike against Iran. Patrushev expressed belief that the conflict with Iran is likely to escalate militarily, with continued Israeli pressure upon America to take this step.

Iran is keen to play the role of challenger to the “hero” of this repetitious series in the [Persian] Gulf region, and also takes on the role of the “oppressed,” persecuted by an unjust and immoral international system (under haughty and authoritarian American leadership) seeking to strip Iran of its right to a “peaceful” nuclear program. Then Iran threatens to close the Strait of Hormuz in an attempt to broadcast this “conflict” to the largest possible viewership and thereby secure profits for everyone involved in the production of the show.

It is clear that the statements and counter-statements we have witnessed being traded between America and Iran will remain sequestered in the arena of mere speech, rather than being brought by one side or the other into a different arena where threats are actually carried out. This is in light of several factors, but chiefly inappropriate timing and the absence of a legitimate motive for war. Much can be traced back to U.S. President Barack Obama’s efforts to improve his image and increase his popularity at home and to garner the support of the Zionist lobby and the sympathy of Israel, an influential ally, in the upcoming presidential elections. To this end, Obama is trying to effect an appearance of being ready and willing to declare war against Iran in order to please Israel.

These threats also follow the American “military” withdrawal from Iraq, which took place under widespread Arab and international accusations against the U.S. of harmful intervention in the internal affairs of the region with the unacceptable intent to cause disorder and unrest. Accordingly, Washington may not be ready for war at the present time; moreover, it may be simply uninterested in waging an “actual” war against Tehran — a war that would have severe consequences and limited upside, especially considering how much Washington can reap from a prolonged “war of words” with Tehran.

On the Iranian side, Tehran is suffering from a difficult economic situation and is trying to divert the attention of her citizens by fabricating foreign crises involving parties already resented by the Iranian people, such as the United States. This effort is being heightened in light of the upcoming [legislative] elections in Iran this March, in which the current ruling powers are by no means guaranteed a victory.

Tehran also appears to realize that it has become a key player in the resolution of a number of thorny issues raised by the transformations and turmoil witnessed throughout the region, seeing as Iran is relatively stable in comparison to the rest of the region. Still, Iran is aware that it is incapable of confronting the United States and its allies in a war it is destined to lose, whether sooner or later.

The observer of this show may notice the absence of a chief party — namely, Israel, who perhaps has only a backstage role at this point, having seen that the actors are already playing the roles it was hoping they would play, and without much effort or burden on Israel’s part.

Furthermore, deviations from the “conflict” script show how it is fabricated for purposes that the viewers may not perceive. On Jan. 6, for example, the U.S. Navy liberated 13 Iranian sailors held by Somali pirates off the coast of Oman, a move Tehran praised as a “positive humanitarian gesture.” The actors take care not to transcend certain limits in their rhetoric and to avoid permitting escalation to the point of declaring war. This can be interpreted as an attempt to achieve the greatest possible gains for everyone, and at the lowest possible cost.