Let the prediction be totally wrong
THE MOMENT of decision is close at hand for the US whether to launch military action against Iran in the confrontation resulting from Tehran's refusal to suspend its nuclear programme. That is what European experts would have us following Washington's imposition tough sanctions against Iran last week after the US failed to push through the UN Security Council a third resolution announcing additional UN sanctions against that country.
However, the apt assertion would be that it was never a question for the Bush administration "whether" to launch military action against Iran but "when," and that the nuclear dispute has offered the hawks in Washington the best opportunity to push the confrontation with Tehran towards armed conflict.
As US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently declared, Iran definitely stands in the way of the US implementing its vision of the Middle East. Such an affirmation is unlikely to gain international sympathy for the US since the world — particularly the Middle East itself — has seen and is continuing to see in Iraq the best example of the US vision for the region.
In fact, the Bush administration's behaviour after the Sept.11, 2001 attacks has given the world little reason to sympathise with the US. Indeed, the world was shocked and grieved over the death of nearly 3,000 people, the international community remains solidly opposed to such actions wherever they occur as a challenge to humanity. They violate the very basic foundations of what the civilised world believes in.
The post-9/11 US behaviour was and is as if the attacks in New York and Washington offered the perfect pretext for the US to unleash its military and political clout against any country and people that stood in the way of its interests.
It is in this context that the US-Iran "confrontation" should be seen. The dispute over whether Iran seeking nuclear weapons and charges that Tehran is actively supporting the anti-US insurgency in Iraq are only part of the broader picture.
In all fairness, Washington has declared that it is not seeking armed conflict with Iran and favours diplomacy to solve the dispute and the new sactions are aimed at averting military action. We also know that that is the favoured approach of people like Rice, Defence Secretary Robert Gates and a few others in the administration. However, the hawkish camp is definitely gaining in its push for US military action against Iran, and the Tehran regime's defiant rhetoric has already paved the way for it.
Norman Podhoretz, a pre-eminent conservative foreign policy intellectual and associate of the Republican frontrunner for presidency, Rudy Giuliani and, equally importantly, a winner of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, America’s highest honour, aptly puts it:
"I would say it would take five minutes. You’d wake up one morning and the strikes would have been ordered and carried out during the night."
We fervently hope Podhoretz would prove to be totally wrong.
However, the apt assertion would be that it was never a question for the Bush administration "whether" to launch military action against Iran but "when," and that the nuclear dispute has offered the hawks in Washington the best opportunity to push the confrontation with Tehran towards armed conflict.
As US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently declared, Iran definitely stands in the way of the US implementing its vision of the Middle East. Such an affirmation is unlikely to gain international sympathy for the US since the world — particularly the Middle East itself — has seen and is continuing to see in Iraq the best example of the US vision for the region.
In fact, the Bush administration's behaviour after the Sept.11, 2001 attacks has given the world little reason to sympathise with the US. Indeed, the world was shocked and grieved over the death of nearly 3,000 people, the international community remains solidly opposed to such actions wherever they occur as a challenge to humanity. They violate the very basic foundations of what the civilised world believes in.
The post-9/11 US behaviour was and is as if the attacks in New York and Washington offered the perfect pretext for the US to unleash its military and political clout against any country and people that stood in the way of its interests.
It is in this context that the US-Iran "confrontation" should be seen. The dispute over whether Iran seeking nuclear weapons and charges that Tehran is actively supporting the anti-US insurgency in Iraq are only part of the broader picture.
In all fairness, Washington has declared that it is not seeking armed conflict with Iran and favours diplomacy to solve the dispute and the new sactions are aimed at averting military action. We also know that that is the favoured approach of people like Rice, Defence Secretary Robert Gates and a few others in the administration. However, the hawkish camp is definitely gaining in its push for US military action against Iran, and the Tehran regime's defiant rhetoric has already paved the way for it.
Norman Podhoretz, a pre-eminent conservative foreign policy intellectual and associate of the Republican frontrunner for presidency, Rudy Giuliani and, equally importantly, a winner of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, America’s highest honour, aptly puts it:
"I would say it would take five minutes. You’d wake up one morning and the strikes would have been ordered and carried out during the night."
We fervently hope Podhoretz would prove to be totally wrong.
posted by Vivekanand PV at 7:58 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home