Iran and the United States: an easy game with multiple-result

The situation in Iran every day or becoming more confusing, unpredictable and, to a certain extent, frightening. The official prerequisite "tightening the springs' tension, not once voiced representatives of the United States, is the reluctance of the Iranian administration to complete the work as part of its" nuclear program. " About the root causes and the likely case scenarios the outlook expressed recognizable political analyst Andrei Manoilo.

The situation with Iran — one of the major "pain points" of international life that now attracted the attention of the entire world community. And the essence of the cerebral matter of interest to all, is in the future — will lead to a further deterioration of relations between Iran and the United States to the outbreak of armed conflict or the latest war, which may be even more ambitious than the recent operation of the U.S. and its NATO allies in Libya .

Outside the conflict with Iran develops well-known and repeatedly tried and tested scenario, the basic steps which are likely to be next.

1. Both parties to the conflict constantly expressed very bellicose statements in the address each other and their policies.

For example, the U.S. has repeatedly argued for the need to engage the source of the "world of evil" in Tehran, representing a danger to the existence of Western civilization, and scare the world of Iran's nuclear program that has, allegedly, military temper. Iran, in turn, more vigorously declares its own readiness to repel at least some external danger, to take bold steps and brought all the victims to protect their country's right to blockade the Strait of Hormuz, through which passes the main transit route for Middle Eastern and North African oil.

And it's not a resounding statement: the threat to block the Strait of Hormuz is completely real, for that Iran does not even need to lure significant military force, rather kill one or two tankers. As a result of burning spilled oil will make the area impracticable for shipping for quite some time.

2. Washington once again plays the card with the introduction of new sanctions against Iran by providing intensive lobbying by the UN and the international community as a whole. This creates a reason for the consolidation of its own allies in some anti-Iranian alliance that the economic at any moment can be a soldier. The latest example of the introduction of such reception — the recent war in Libya.

3. Israel is finding itself in the spotlight once again decides to test profitably use the existing situation and the fact that the concrete from him, from his pre-emptive strike on Iran may depend on the real beginning of the armed conflict. With all of this Israel emphasizes that the appearance of even a shadow of danger Israel is able to fend for itself and be sure to strike first, without regard to rules of the game established between the "impurity" of this "ballet" — U.S. and Iran.

Meanwhile Iran is given the opportunity to realize that the barriers and balancers, temporarily holding the United States from the immediate start of direct military aggression (which certainly knows the control of Iran), Israel have no value and are not a limiting factor, because Israel in this conflict is not embedded in South American foreign policy and plays an independent party. With all of this in relation to the United States implemented the strategy of "mild blackmail": the essence of it is that Israel has refused to give assurances to President Barack Obama that he will warn Washington for earlier strike on Iran's nuclear infrastructure.

In the words of English weekly Sunday Telegraph, «This increased fear over the fact that Israel has no plans to help other operation. Obama was refused when claimed by Israel of secret warranties as to what an attack on Iran would not be undertaken without preliminary notification white houses. It says that Israel will not reach permission from Washington to Tehran regarding their actions. "

To prove this legend was made and controlled leak in the media disk imaging of hidden intelligence: the same as the English edition notes that "according to sources previously placed in British intelligence, Israel could storm the Iran closer to Christmas or a brand new year."

But all this has been repeated many times in the past. Briefly it looked like this: Washington suddenly started demonstration brutal behavior against Iran, in response to Iranian politicians give in to provocations and issued expected from them "necessary" statement, Israel hysterics on "surrounded by enemies" with the extension of these requirements to the world as if he knew the exact date of the arrival of "doomsday" that "fog of" and frightened the Iranian nuclear threat Europe obediently approve new sanctions. Usually, that's all it subsides. The exception to the rule was the "Green Revolution" apparently conducted in a test mode and does not take seriously its directors even in the West.

But then the question arises: why is the situation with Iran has to develop in a different way? And how real is the threat from rolling US-Iranian confrontation in the military phase specifically at the current stage of development of the conflict situation?

Be sure that the present strained relations between the U.S. and Iran has some features that are increasing the risks of direct military confrontation. One of them is that the United States entered into yet another very complicated for its own foreign policy phase that precedes the election of a new president. It is clear that South American politics has a pronounced cyclical and riskier, brutal foreign policy decisions, including military, specifically accepted by the U.S. administration on the eve of the next elections.

The purpose of this — winning the popular vote. Specifically, since the war began in Iraq and Afghanistan. Here Iran — a very comfortable target for the outpouring of popular anger and passing on this wave of President Barack Obama's second term. And it is very possible given the fact that more than half of the voters are very very intimidated by the Iranian nuclear threat and believe its real, and the second half of the electorate has long been asked to punish a "rogue state" by the very fact of its existence undermines the international credibility of the United States.

In fairness it must be emphasized that it is in this period, not only Iran, and other ideological opponents of the U.S. feel uncomfortable because the grounds are at least some of them can be selected by the American administration to draw another election "performance" — in the form of war, invasion or coup.

In this pre-election time repeatedly increases the risk of making the wrong political decisions or unexpected destabilizing effect caused by the accidental coincidence of events. As a deterrent to cause these criteria should be considered incomplete military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, distracting significant energy and resources the United States, the lack of the final result in the operation to regime change in Syria, which is now practically the only ally of Iran in the Middle East, and capable of sensitive Biff in the "underbelly" of expeditionary forces in the event of military action against Iran.

Another meaning the principal factor in the development of the situation in Iran is the degree of development of its nuclear programs from which, although slowly, but moving to a specific goal. High-quality indicator of this movement are successfully carried o
ut by Iran January 2, 2012 the latest tests carrier rocket "Edar" with a range of 200 km. Argues that the missiles of this type are capable of hitting targets on the ground of Israel and U.S. bases in the Middle East. And, according to the views of British Foreign Office, the missiles can carry nuclear warheads. Coupled with the fact tests of these boosters should not be regarded as a truly severe danger: it is still very "raw", unreliable products that have low accuracy and virtually zero protection against modern air defense systems.

In the conditions of a real war of thousands of such missiles will fly one, which fall somewhere on a very significant distance from the goal. For the creation of perfect and reliable booster Iranians need something from them now not — modern technologies and quite a long time. So the Iranian nuclear threat should be considered likely, as the myth that the U.S. and the UN scare Europe's own satellite, but not as the number one threat to the world.

Another feature of the current relations between Iran and the U.S., the base of which is the economic factor is costly for America to own the content of all significant groups of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, aiming to strike at Iran. This applies particularly to the content of troops in Afghanistan, where U.S. and NATO are kept under control only minor footholds around major military bases (which have strategic importance for the military control of the entire region, not limited to the territory of Afghanistan), leaving the rest of the area of the local government and the Taliban from nuisance attacks which coalition forces have completely successful …. pay off.

But in this case the appropriate fairy tale that "if the hammer is cocked, the gun should be fired", ie, in this situation, these groups must be used for its intended purpose. In the unlikely event that you need to leave these states, because over time they will start as common and organized national liberation movement that NATO forces can not just let it go. Coupled with the fact the problem of the opposition in Syria, which is still holding the regime of Bashar al-Assad, indicate that the time for action against Iran, the U.S. has not come yet.

Americans still have not completed the operation by reformatting the Near East, which in the event of a ground operation against Iran will become strategic for the Yankees, but very fragile rear. Iran — part of the Islamic world, which does not remain aloof from the conflict. Despite the fact that the Arab countries, in the main, supported by the U.S., and their position on the war against Iran might not be such specific. In particular, in this case Iran will repeat the experience of Iraq and a blow to Israel which it will certainly respond.

In this context it becomes clear logic creators color revolutions in the Middle East and North Africa: swept away by the "Arab Spring" regimes in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, and is under the gun regime in Syria would be done simultaneously priklnnymi to the U.S. in the case of speech in Israel against Iran.

As a result of this — in the rear of the U.S. and NATO coalition has formed a "second front" of the united Arab military necessity. Over the short term, this would need reincarnated in the national idea that would connect the fragmented and inconsistent in the Arab world and the new caliphate would be an insurmountable obstacle to the United States in the use of the principle of "divide and rule" in the Arab world.

So Makar, a chain of colored revolutions in the Arab States and energetic zeal to carry out such an action in Syria are obviously popular "cleansing rears" to a large military operation in the region, the purpose for which the Western coalition can only be Iran.

It should be emphasized that operation "clean-up rears" to a certain extent now applies to Russia. It's no secret that the organization of the protest movement "For honest elections" seen the handwriting filmmakers of color revolutions, which are observed in all of its attributes — from the symbols ("white ribbons") and ending with the level of organization of rallies and demonstrations, requiring large investments of money. And it is not the case in the new U.S. ambassador to Moscow has been appointed Michael Anthony McFaul, a professional creator and director of the "Orange Revolution" in Ukraine and the "Rose Revolution" in Georgia.

The snow-white symbols of today's "orange" movement in Russia, too, probably his invention: quite know what to specifically identify new Russian opposition leaders they have chosen a color revolution. In their opinion, pure white — the color of purity, whiteness, including — Cooperation with the current government, the color of the "true revolutionary fighters." This is despite the fact that in the world of snow-white color has always been associated with the color of the counter-revolution, and in politics — with right-wing conservatives.

If the present scenario of the "white revolution" in Russia finances the Washington, they do so, first, with one goal: if our home will be busy with her neuvvyazkami, it will be for some time not to Iran. So far, the Yankees should be enough for the beginning and end of the ground operation.

If the ultimate goal of directors of the "Arab Spring" is not Syria, and Iran, or even China, which depends on Iran's oil exports, then the fate of Syria has long been solved. And as if Assad did not resist, the situation will not change. In a strategic composition, played out in the region, Syria is only an intermediate, stage, on which the development of the operation (by submission of Iran and the overlap oil arteries of China) as a whole.

Because color revolution in Syria will take place, no matter what it may cost victims: money — for its organizers and human — for the Syrian people and of the military and political allies that Washington will be thrown into a hotbed of new armed conflict. But at the end of reformatting Syria will take time, and this is exactly the same time that Iran has in order to thwart the emerging invasion or, very little, to thoroughly prepare for it.

In the conflict with Iran, the U.S. may be repeating the well-known scheme, which the Americans quite superbly worked in the military operation in Libya: in order not to look aggressors in its pure form (it could afford for themselves Republicans, but can not afford Barack Obama, who has chosen to own recovery policy is actually quite lost, "the attractiveness of the form of American democracy"), Washington skillfully pushed the 2-giperambitsioznyh and very ambitious politicians — Cameron and Sarkozy (2-"insane," as they are often called in European politics) — the outbreak of hostilities by shifting their responsibility for this step.

Then load the correct calculation, when the result of the first 4 months of the military forces of the Franco-British coalition expressed its complete failure and were on the verge of military collapse, Washington was "compelled" to come to the aid of their military and political allies, which the United States is, of course, could not throw in a difficult position.

So Makarov, its intervention in the conflict the United States have invested very successfully in the form of a "moral obligation" to the European allies, having made a "noble act." Vtochnosti same scenario is unfolding now in Syria, where armed opposition to the Western media (in fact, the rebels) are already on the verge order to draw the inner conflict of the European countries, and then call upon the United States urgently to save from destruction and those and others.

Like this post? Please share to your friends: