Posted on Tue, Jan. 30, 2007
Iran and U.S.: Between the logic of sanctions and the logic of war
By Pyotr Goncharov

RIA Novosti

(MCT)

MOSCOW - "The Middle East isn't a region to be dominated by Iran. The

isn't a body of water to be controlled by Iran. That's why we've seen

United States station two carrier battle groups in the region," Nicholas
Burns, U.S. undersecretary of state for political affairs, said in an
address to the Dubai-based Gulf Research Center, an influential
think-tank, when commenting on the decision of President George W. Bush

send a second U.S. aircraft carrier strike group to the Persian Gulf.

He emphasized that the United States is striving for stability in the
region and unimpeded oil and gas deliveries in the interests of all

countries.

French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said on the LCI television
channel that the international community's demands that Iran stop its
dangerous activities in the nuclear sphere were based on the logic of
sanctions rather than the logic of war.

However, the situation around Iran has apparently turned toward the

of war, contrary to the will of the international community, if there is
such a thing.

A new U.S. carrier battle group has been dispatched to the Gulf.

The USS John C. Stennis, with a crew of 3,200 and around 80 fixed-wing
aircraft, including F/A-18 Hornet and Superhornet fighter-bombers, eight
support ships and four nuclear submarines are heading for the Gulf,

a similar group led by the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower has been deployed
since December 2006.

The United States is also sending Patriot anti-missile systems to the
region.

The above is Washington's reply to the question: What will happen if

drives the United States into a corner? Or was it the other way round?

It was believed that if Iran refused to stop its nuclear program, the
United States as its main adversary would ensure the adoption of
international sanctions and later start a military operation against

The scenarios of their engagement were described as catastrophic, with
Iran erasing the oil and gas infrastructure in the Gulf, blockading the
Strait of Hormuz by sinking several oil tankers in it, and starting a

against Iraq, pulling the United States deeper into the quagmire. The
inevitable conclusion was that a U.S. military operation against Iran
would be suicidal, and Washington would never approve it.

So, the "what will happen if?" question has been answered. Now the world
wants to know if Washington will be able to avoid a war against Iran.

Posted on Tue, Jan. 30, 2007
Iran and U.S.: Between the logic of sanctions and the logic of war
By Pyotr Goncharov

RIA Novosti

(MCT)

MOSCOW - "The Middle East isn't a region to be dominated by Iran. The Gulf
isn't a body of water to be controlled by Iran. That's why we've seen the
United States station two carrier battle groups in the region," Nicholas
Burns, U.S. undersecretary of state for political affairs, said in an
address to the Dubai-based Gulf Research Center, an influential
think-tank, when commenting on the decision of President George W. Bush to
send a second U.S. aircraft carrier strike group to the Persian Gulf.

He emphasized that the United States is striving for stability in the
region and unimpeded oil and gas deliveries in the interests of all other
countries.

French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said on the LCI television
channel that the international community's demands that Iran stop its
dangerous activities in the nuclear sphere were based on the logic of
sanctions rather than the logic of war.

However, the situation around Iran has apparently turned toward the logic
of war, contrary to the will of the international community, if there is
such a thing.

A new U.S. carrier battle group has been dispatched to the Gulf.

The USS John C. Stennis, with a crew of 3,200 and around 80 fixed-wing
aircraft, including F/A-18 Hornet and Superhornet fighter-bombers, eight
support ships and four nuclear submarines are heading for the Gulf, where
a similar group led by the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower has been deployed
since December 2006.

The United States is also sending Patriot anti-missile systems to the
region.

The above is Washington's reply to the question: What will happen if Iran
drives the United States into a corner? Or was it the other way round?

It was believed that if Iran refused to stop its nuclear program, the
United States as its main adversary would ensure the adoption of
international sanctions and later start a military operation against Iran.
The scenarios of their engagement were described as catastrophic, with
Iran erasing the oil and gas infrastructure in the Gulf, blockading the
Strait of Hormuz by sinking several oil tankers in it, and starting a war
against Iraq, pulling the United States deeper into the quagmire. The
inevitable conclusion was that a U.S. military operation against Iran
would be suicidal, and Washington would never approve it.

So, the "what will happen if?" question has been answered. Now the world
wants to know if Washington will be able to avoid a war against Iran.

Tehran is not going to abandon its nuclear program. Moreover, it has said
several times that a uranium enrichment system comprising 3,000
centrifuges will be put into operation by the Iranian new year, which is
marked on March 21. From that, there is only one step toward building a
nuclear bomb, given the political will, as Washington likes to point out.

If Iran reaches the industrial level of uranium enrichment, Washington
will either have to swallow the humiliation, or will start a military
operation against Iran. Russian expert Alexei Arbatov said the United
States usually has to choose between two evils, one greater than the
other. In this case, the greater evil will be the creation of a nuclear
bomb in Iran. Therefore, if Washington refuses to speak directly with
Tehran, it will most likely choose war.

In fact, the United States has already started preparations.

The Dubai-based Gulf Research Center, where Nick Burns made the above
statement, has published a special report saying that Iran's nuclear
ambitions will inevitably provoke a regional confrontation. Tehran must be
aware that if the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) is forced to choose
between allowing Iran to build a nuclear bomb and letting the United
States deliver a strike against Iran, it will choose the latter.

The Gulf Research Center is a think-tank of the defense departments of the
GCC oil-producing member states (Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates,
Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman and Qatar). Jordan and Egypt have likewise approved
Bush's new strategy in the Middle East.

In short, Washington has rallied sufficient support in the region.

The global media are writing that the plan of a potential U.S. strike at
Iran has been worked out in detail, with the strike to be delivered by the
end of April.

Pentagon chief Robert Gates, who advocated a "diplomatic engagement" with
Iran several years ago, has said Tehran should know that the United
States, although "tied down in Iraq," remains a dangerous adversary.

He denied that his recent decision to deploy Patriot missiles and a second
aircraft carrier strike group in the Persian Gulf was meant as a threat to
Iran. "We need some leverage, it seems to me, before we (diplomatically)
engage with the Iranians," he added.

Is the second carrier group the "leverage" Gates was referring to?

---

ABOUT THE WRITER

Pyotr Goncharov is a political commentator for the Russian News and
Information Agency Novosti; Web site: http://en.rian.ru/. The Washington
Bureau of RIA Novosti can be reached by phone at (202) 328-3238, fax (202)
328-0137, or e-mail: novosti@comcast.net.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and may not
necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.

---

© 2007, RIA Novosti

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/news/editorial/16579047.htm