After all of the ill-fated wars that led the West in the Middle East over the last decade, appeared on the horizon very naizloveschie signs that we are drawn into a new conflict, which promises even more nightmarish consequences. Hard as it is to believe, to justify an attack on Iran put forward all the same discredited arguments that have previously been used in order to prove the necessity of the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan — and specifically the presence of weapons of mass destruction, aiding terrorism and religious fundamentalism.
Discussion of war with Iran and its nuclear program there has been going on so long ago, that will inevitably be tempted to find them empty threats. Statements concerning Iran, which came from the governments of the U.S. and Israel in recent weeks, and already able to charge at least some task became even more controversial. Maybe what we hear is just a bluff, some manifestation of psychological warfare? Maybe Iran's proposal to launch a new round of negotiations, or visit the IAEA inspectors to the Islamic republic this week will reach a certain breakthrough in the diplomatic resolution of the conflict?
Meanwhile, the atmosphere becomes more threatening. U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta (Leon Panetta) gave clearly understand all Israel "with a little bit of a big probability" stormed Iran in the period between April and June of today, although Barack Obama argues that the Israeli administration has not yet taken a decision on this issue. Senior bureaucrats of the U.S. administration told reporters on the Guardian last week that, in their opinion, have control of the United States have no choice: they will either have to knock on Iran, or keep track of how Israel will do it later myself.
Meanwhile, the furtive war, unleashed by Washington and Tel Aviv against Iran, is already underway. We litsezreem and murder of Iranian scientists, and cyber attacks against nuclear facilities and missile bases. England and France have forced the EU to tighten trade sanctions against Iran, and after oil exports are the cornerstone of the economy of the Islamic Republic. In addition, the West increases the grouping of troops stationed in the Persian Gulf.
At least some of these actions can be fully considered as an act of aggression against Iran. It can cause retaliation by Tehran, which will be applied as a pretext for direct military intervention — such Makar, the escalation of the conflict becomes inevitable. But instead to try to prevent unsafe movement on the path that leads to a full-scale regional war, regardless of whether Western countries take intervention in Syria, which is an ally of Iran, or not, the media and the political classes in most of the West's own are busy trying to convince the public to accept war as a given, as a deplorable consequence of Iran's intransigence.
Reports that British officials are waiting for the government Cameron's role in U.S. operations against Iran have caused only a dull murmur. During the parliamentary debate, which took place in the Sun, only six votes were cast in favor of the decision to abandon the dangerous blow to Tehran. Yesterday, the Times newspaper said that Iran "is any hesitation trying to develop nuclear tool"Though neither the U.S. nor IAEA found the no proof of this.
Even when the South American and British favorites urged Israel to show restraint, not so long ago did William Hague (William Hague) and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey (Martin Dempsey), the question concerns only the timing for the start of the conflict. According to them, the introduction of military force to date, it would be very "hasty" and neobmyslennoy action.
If Israel or the United States otvazhutsya poruha on Iran, this impact will be not only an act of criminal aggression, and stupid, destructive, even a stupid thing to do. As the Michael Clark (Michael Clarke), Joint Director of the Royal Military Institute, a similar operation will be totally illegal, "In international law, there are no rules, allowing to start a similar pre-emptive war."
Apart from this, the operation will spark that inevitably break out in the region of a large fire, with unpredictable consequences for the world. From Iran entirely possible to wait for what he is, directly or indirectly, to strike back at Israel, the U.S. and its allies also block the Strait of Hormuz, blocking oil supplies that make up one fifth of world exports energoelementov. So Makar, the conflict will leave a trail of terrible of human deaths, destroyed infrastructure, and economic chaos.
While the pretext for the invasion of Iraq was the presence in Baghdad of weapons of mass destruction, which, as it later turned out, was not, now the United States did not even say that Iran trying to make an atomic bomb. "Are they trying to build a nuclear weapon? No "- right Panetta said last month. As they say, the Israeli intelligence holds the same view. She believes that, in contrast to the Israel, which has nuclear weapons for several years, the 10-s, the Iranian administration did not accept solutions to become a nuclear power.
The question is followed by this: whether Tehran, which has always insisted on his own reluctance to create a nuclear weapon, the ability to acquire such weapons create. So, Iran, surrounded on all sides by military bases and U.S. occupation troops, the countries that own nuclear weapon, like Israel and Pakistan as autocratic states of the Persian Gulf, calling the Yankees "to cut off the snake's head," threaten military intervention only because in the future it may purchase potential which the aggressors have long since turned into a reality.
The emergence of a Iran similar abilities will not "existential threat," said Israeli policy, although, of course, and is able to deprive Israel of strategic advantages. As not long ago put Kronig Matthew (Matthew Kroenig), until the summer of last year served as a special adviser to the Minister of Defense, the presence on the world map of a nuclear Iran to "immediately restrict the freedom of action of the United States in the Middle East." This application allows you to get to the essence of the question — it appears that freedom of action in the Middle East is the prerogative of the U.S. and its allies, and not sovereign countries of the region.
If the Western powers and Israel is really concerned about the danger of a nuclear arms race in the region, they could support their weight the idea of negotiations on a nuclear-free Near East, the idea that like most Israelis.
One thing is clear: neither sanctions nor war will not be able to force Tehran to abandon nuclear programs from implementation. This is recognized by the South American and Israeli politics. The military operation, of course, is able to postpone the deadline for its implementation, also lead to some positive changes in the country. Together with those, Iranian favorites will be a powerful incentive in order to make that decision, which to this day is not accepted, and to make an atomic bomb.
Certainly, in the interests of the Obama warned the Israeli attack on Iran and the conflict that inevitably draws in the U.S., at least, to hinder this right before the end of the presidential election. But segodnyaschy policy, the basis of which lie saber weapon, the tightening of sanctions and undercover operations, fully can result in the case of the outbreak of war. After two or three months, "quite likely" is the appear
ance of a military confrontation in the Strait of Hormuz. According to Clark, "Western policy towards Iran is like a traffic accident, as shown in slow motion."
Yet there is one factor that leads us inexorably to war. The louder the South American and Israeli policies they say about the danger posed by Iran's nuclear programs from and about military action to combat it, the more they risk losing credibility if you do not do anything in this direction. An attack on Iran, which could lead to disastrous consequences, is not inevitable finale to the current situation, but the danger of such developments is increasing every day or.