- An article in the New York Times by David E. Sanger
and Eric Schmitt states: "The Obama administration is accelerating
the deployment of new defenses against possible Iranian missile attacks
in the Persian Gulf." It continues that this move "appears to
be part of a coordinated administration strategy to increase pressure on
Iran." Since there is about a zero chance that Iran would dare to
launch a first strike on the US or its Arab allies, the US would only need
to strengthen its missile defenses in order to deal with an Iranian counterattack
after the US had first bombed Iran. This is a very dangerous development.
It will likely cause Iran, in expectation of a possible attack, to increase
its defenses. The US will then claim that Iran is threatening its neighbors
and increase its military force even more. The mutual increases in military
forces will mean a spiraling arms race.
-
- This is obviously a recipe for war unless one side backs
down. Undoubtedly the Iranians are far weaker and the regime would be
destroyed if there were war. Probably, Obama hopes that American military
pressure will force the Islamic Republic to accede to American demands,
which probably include not only requiring the scaling back of Iran's nuclear
program but also its abandonment of Hezbollah and Hamas. However, in order
to survive it probably is essential for the Islamic regime to stand firm.
If it showed weakness, the regime's internal enemies would be even more
aggressive.
-
- By showing firmness to a foreign enemy, however, the
Islamic regime would likely increase national unity, since all internal
opponents could be painted as allies of the US and Israel. Moreover, by
standing up to the powerful United States, the Islamic Regime would likely
increase its prestige among the anti-American (anti-imperialist) political
activists in the Middle East (the Arab Street) and the world. In short,
it seems likely that the Islamic regime would gamble that taking a hard-line
would provide a better chance for regime survival than caving in to US
demands. Their hope would be that the US would not risk the possibility
of disrupting the flow of oil, which would cause incalculable difficulties
for the world economy which is already in a precarious condition.
-
- The Israel Lobby, media Right, and the Republican hawks
would likely pillory Obama for allegedly being weak in the face of aggression.
While Obama probably doesn't want war with Iran, he would be affected
by political considerations. With the economy in the doldrums and the
American people angry, Obama and his political advisers would see significant
political benefits in taking a hard-line stance toward Iran. Such a move
would enable the president to co-opt the criticism of the rightwing and
pro-Israel war hawks and, as a leader against an allegedly dangerous foe,
regain the support of the overwhelming majority of the American people.
The US would issue ultimatums to Iran to reduce its allegedly aggressive
defenses, providing Iran with the choice of surrender or war. Any little
incident would spark war and with US land and naval forces almost surrounding
Iran, the chances of such an incident would be very high.
-
- .Transparent Cabal Website:
-
- http://home.comcast.net/~transparentcabal/
-
- Amazon listing of The Transparent Cabal:
-
- http://tiny.cc/zNV06
|
