War in Iraq as a precursor to war in Iran

Subscribe

MOSCOW, (RIA Novosti political commentator Pyotr Romanov) -- When the United States was preparing to occupy Iraq, a popular joke appeared in Russia that went as follows: an American lady asks a friend, "I just never seem to remember how this country is spelled, Iraq or Iran?"

I believe that today a majority of U.S. citizens know only too well where their soldiers are dying and where they can be sent fairly soon. The war in Iraq has become a kind of a precursor to a war in Iran. The similarity lies not so much in the countries' geographical proximity or resembling names, but rather in the similar approach to solving all difficult political problems demonstrated by the White House under George W. Bush, who, as is well known, has chosen the doctrine of pre-emptive strikes against any suspicious or potential adversary.

In the case of Iraq, suspicions of it possessing weapons of mass destruction were enough for invasion. Now the United States calls for attacking Tehran, though unable to prove that it poses a real threat to the world. The most competent expert in the nuclear field, the IAEA, has so far been unable to formulate its clear-cut position.

The psychological stages of preparing the strike are also similar: both parties use belligerent rhetoric. In the past, Saddam Hussein boasted his muscles in front of the cameras like Arnold Schwarzenegger. Now Iranian President Makhmoud Ahmadinejad does not miss a chance to pique Washington, shows off Iran's military might in the Strait of Hormuz, promises to destroy Israel and boasts of having succeeded at uranium enrichment. Most nuclear and missile experts say that the bulk of what the Iranian president says is bluff mainly believed by Iranians themselves. The United States continues following the old scheme: trying to persuade the international community that it faces the mankind's worst enemy, calling for UN sanctions and for solidarity among its NATO allies and UN Security Council members.

Theoretically, there is a chance to avoid hostilities, but it is getting ever smaller. Remarkably, all parties agree that to persuade Iran to act discreetly it is necessary that there should be firm solidarity between the powers that are engaged in the talks with the Islamic Republic. This is where contradictions begin. Washington has only one understanding of solidarity: all major nations should accept its position. In this context, a statement recently made in the Spanish La Vanguardia newspaper by General Anthony Zinni, former commander of the Middle East Central Command, is eloquent enough. He said that if the international community did not agree on Iran and Iran's moves received support from Russia and China, the situation would aggravate and the possibility of a military operation would increase greatly.

There are reasons to believe that if a military operation is launched, it will follow the scheme of the Iraqi invasion in the part that the Iranian leader will also be toppled. Then, however, Americans will be in for hard times. They know how to win battles, but seem to have forgotten how to win wars. Just as they do not know what to do with the Iraqi people, Washington may face a similar challenge: what should it do with the occupied Iran? There is a Russian joke that goes: "Father, I've caught a bear!" - "Then bring him here." - "But it won't let me go." Similarly, Iraq does not seem to let go of Americans.

Nevertheless, there are some differences in the Iraqi and Iranian stories. This time, having learned the hard way, the White House will do its best to persuade the United Nations and its European allies that there is no other alternative but armed intervention of Iran. Great efforts are already being taken. All the more so, as many Western politicians, to say nothing of Moscow and Beijing, have had enough of Iraq and do not want to hear of any new military undertaking. As in the case of Iraq, the first move towards invasion should be sanctions against Tehran endorsed by the UN Security Council. Moscow has repeatedly said through its foreign minister that such sanctions are useless. Together with Beijing, it continues insisting on further talks. No doubt Washington is perfectly aware that "leaky" sanctions will not solve the problem. Sanctions are needed to show which side is right. If sanctions are introduced, Washington will have a free hand to launch a military operation.

All this is easily guessed from the recent statement made by Condoleezza Rice, who said that the UN Security Council had something the IAEA lacked: the ability to use Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter to force a UN member state to comply with the will of the international community. The only thing she did not mention was that the chapter in question envisages, among other measures, the use of military force against the "abjurer".

Apparently, the United States has already set the timer ticking. It remains to be seen when the time will run out.

Iran joins nuclear club

Newsfeed
0
To participate in the discussion
log in or register
loader
Chats
Заголовок открываемого материала