Iran's Crises Unfolded  
IranCrises
 
Thursday 23 November 2017
HOME
FARSI
NEWS
ANALYSIS
INTERVIEW
POLITICS
SOCIAL
STATEMENTS
ECONOMY
SEARCH

Analysis

* Preventing the Iranian Nuclear Crisis from Escalating  Pierre Goldschmidt

* An Open letter to Mrs Hillary Clinton - signed by 96 sinatories  Ali Behrooz

* Iran's Failed 'Litmus Test'  News Report

* A Sensible Path on Iran  News Report

* A Freshman’s Solution  Ali Behrooz

* Iran – a tough nut for the American election candidates  Korosh Erfani

* Obama shaken, rattled, and rolled  Dick Polman

* The Ayatollahs’ Choice?  Ali Behrooz

* ‘With enemies like this…’  Ali Behrooz

* Mitigating Iranian Mischief  David Ignatius

* Playing at CINC  Michelle Oddis

* The Conceit of Hindsight  Richard Dawkins

* The lesser of two evils  Ali Behrooz

* Gertrude Himmelfarb - Queen bee of American neoconservatives -PROFILE:  Gertrude Himmelfarb

* Analysis: Iran's political flux mirrored in US  News Report

* Lebanon and the Lebanese need a lot more than just a new president  News Report

* Iran seen to need 3-8 yrs to produce bomb  Jon Boyle

* Invasion would be a disaster  Michael Evans

* The Warmongers!  Ali Behrooz

* It Doesn't Get Any Worse Than That, Ray"  William A. Cook

* Chaotic, Disarrayed and Appeasing  Ali Behrooz

* Still a messiah?  Isabel Hilton

* The fallout from an attack on Iran would be devastating  News Report

* Intellectually Progressive  Ali Behrooz

* Islamists, USA and Terrorists – Foes or Friends?  Ali Behrooz

* No Sanctuary for Rashid Ghazi  Ali Behrooz

* 'The driving force of global terror'  News Report

* Getting serious about Syria  News Report

* Mideast lessons from Northern Ireland  News Report

* Defusing the Israeli-Syrian PR war  News Report

* The Democrats After November  Mike Davis

* Mid-Point In The Middle East?  Tariq Ali

* Nato's Islamists  Cihan tuğal

* France’s foreign policy  Bernard Cassen

* Interview: Bank Pressures Hit Iranian Business Harder than Sanctions  Lee Hudson Teslik

* Interview: Gingrich: Bipartisanship, and Possibly His Candidacy, Needed to Right U.S. Foreign Policy  Robert McMaho

* Turks are reconstructing Northern Iraq  Serpil Yilmaz

* Two men on the wrong mission  Robert Fox

* General Sees Iran s Hand in Iraq Fight  Robert Burns

* Bush's Dilemma: Iran vs. Israel  Patrick J. Buchanan

* Iran may be the greatest crisis of modern times  John Pilger

* Intelligence Indications And Warnings Abound On Bush Iran Military Strike  Wayne Madsen

* As peace summit ends, war begins  News Report

* Solution in Sight  Noam Chomsky


Iran – a tough nut for the American election candidates
[ Korosh Erfani]
[Source: Iran's Crises – English (ICE)]


 

There is only a few months left for the Bush Administration to decide how it will eventually deal with the Iranian Regime. If Bush does not accomplish the Neo-conservative military “solution” for what they call the “Iranian threat”, it would be quite hard to believe that this “solution” would be carried out by the new administration.

Under these circumstances, it is interesting to see how each candidate will treat the Iranian case. How and in which way are they similar or different?

 

Iran and the Three Candidates

 

The Iranian issue became especially vital since the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen recently presented Iran as the top challenge for the US over the next five years, calling the United States government to have a dialogue with Iran. This suggestion by Mullen, after Admiral William Fallon's departure from Central Command due to  his opposition to a military action against Iran(1), shows the difficulty for the neo-conservatives within the Bush Administration to bring the US into a new war, after those of Afghanistan and Iraq, both disastrous and dreadful.

McCain, as a Republican, thinks that the only way to make the Iranian Regime surrender is more and more pressure economically, politically, financially and why not, militarily. He said that worse than bombing Iran is the Iranians getting nuclear weapons. But McCain said several times that it will be difficult to convince the American public about the necessity of attacking Iran. And this, because of the loss of credibility of the American Intelligence services regarding Iranian and Iraqi issues.

Hilary Clinton, as a democratic candidate thinks that some negotiation with Iran can be useful. But she wants this dialogue to begin at low diplomatic levels and achieving higher levels only if Iran accepts to cede some points on its nuclear activities and maybe on other issues.

Barack Obama does not think that any pre-conditions are necessary to start the negotiations with Iran, whatever its level. Obama thinks all topics can be discussed in these negations as long as there is some progress on the nuclear issues and the security of Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

The Intervening Forces

 

But apart from this brief presentation of viewpoints of the candidates, we should take into consideration the reality that other forces- political, economical and lobbyism- can and will actually influence the future Presidents’ decisions.

First, the Arms industry which consists of 4% of the GDP of the American economy with more than 528.7 billions dollars of expenditures in the market in 2006. On the other hand, we should not underestimate the importance of those who think that an Iran recognized and out of isolation can only be a trouble maker for American domination in the Middle-East. In addition, the reality of the social and economical situation in the United States would be an important factor in rationalizing the strategic decision regarding Iran. Who can predict the consequences of such a war and the high price the Americans will have to pay for an amplified new war?

But the point is that there is also an external force which can greatly influence any rational American decision and bring the US into chaos which would be disastrous for both the Americans and the Iranians.

This external force is Israel.  

 

The Role of Israel

 

We know that the common view of the three candidates concerning Iran is the “security of Israel.” The firm commitment by the three candidates is a warranty for Israel to take any military action against Iran while being backed by the US. Israel, will have the free hand to decide about both countries future relations, despite it being the least involved in a likely long conflict between these two countries.

An Israeli attack on Iran will be aimed at the nuclear installations of the country and maybe some other targets related to the missile activities; Iran would surely react by targeting Israel, directly or indirectly, which will be followed by an American reaction, the response of Iran to this latter reaction will intensify the conflict throughout the Middle-East.

A total and deeply destructive war will be started and the only country that will theoretically be well protected is Israel itself, thanks to, on one hand, its own high technological level of military defense and on the other hand through the support of the American presence in this region.

However we should not forget that the Iranian Regime, as an authoritarian and antidemocratic system, cannot be quiet and will cause a lot of serious problems to the region and world peace. That’s why, at the end, the best way for having a peaceful Middle-East and reaching a more acceptable situation for the region’s peoples would be to try to replace the Iranian regime with a democratic system. The Iranian people are ready to act, but international recognition and support can enrich their struggle for democracy in Iran.

 


 





[Posted comments]

No press releases currently available



Iran's Crises  1998 - 2007   ©