| Topic: |
Science > Prophecies-Of-Nostradamus |
| User: |
"=?utf-8?B?VGhlIExhc3QgMjQ3NyBkYXlz4oSiIOKZpQ==?=" |
| Date: |
09 Mar 2006 09:12:23 PM |
| Object: |
World War III NEWS, Friday, March 10th, 2006 AD........ |
http://www.zaman.com/?bl=3Dinterviews&alt=3D&hn=3D30599
INTERVIEWS 03.10.2006 Friday - ISTANBUL 05:09
[INTERVIEW]
'Attack on Iran Strengthens its Regime'
by Ali Cimen
Published: Tuesday, March 07, 2006
zaman.com
Iran, which has been undergoing turbulent relations with the West since
Ahmedinecad was chosen as president, has now become the main item of
the agendas of the world=E2=80=99s super powers due to its highly suspect
nuclear program. Though Iranian officials constantly give assurances
that they only hope to benefit from nuclear energy, the US, Israel and
others share the fear that Iran might misuse the rods, part of the
process of producing nuclear energy, and use them to build nuclear
weapons in the future. The famous question of recent days: Will America
attack Iran? That is the main theme of the brain storming centers of
leading countries in the power game. We asked the very same question to
Iranian born scholars and experts who live in the west. A leading
international relations expert and strategist, Mr. Meir Javedanfar, who
studied in England and currently lives London and Tel Aviv as the
president of Meepas, and is extremely well-known for his insightful
analysis on the Middle East, and Prof. Mehdi Noorbaksh, an assistant
professor at the Center for International Studies at the University of
St. Thomas. His areas of specialization are Comparative Politics and
International Relations with an emphasis on Globalization, Oil and
Energy, Conflict and Conflict Resolution, and Middle Eastern Politics.
Along with them, Professor R. K. Ramazani, the Edward Stettinius Chair
who also served as the chairman of the Woodrow Wilson Department of
Government and Foreign Affairs at the University of Virginia, commented
briefly in response to our questions. Ramazani, who has penned ten
books on the Middle East, in addition contributed numerous chapters and
journal articles, and has been a consultant to the White House, the
Department of State, the Defense Department and the Treasury
Department, in addition to many private foundations and companies.
What do you think the Iranian presidency is trying to do with these
tension-escalating-statements coming one after another?
Javedanfar: I believe that President Ahmadinejad=E2=80=99s statements are n=
ot
made due to sheer ignorance. They are well planned and well timed to
meet the following goals: 1. One of the main reasons is internal.
Ahmadinejad recently suffered internal defeats in the Majlis; where
three of his candidates for the position of oil minister were rejected
one after another in front of him. Although his fourth candidate has
recently been accepted, after the rejection of his second candidate,
Ahmadinejad found the defeat so painful that he got up on the Majlis
podium and angrily declared =E2=80=9CThis has never been done to another
President of the Islamic Republic. No other president has ever been
subject to such negative propaganda and treatment.=E2=80=9D Such statements
are hardly made by a president who feels confident about his position.
Therefore in a bid to stamp his authority, Ahmadinejad has decided to
pick on the easiest victim, Israel, with whom Iran has no economic or
political relations. The fact that the Islamic Republic=E2=80=99s leader
Ayatollah Khamenei came out to support him after he attacked Israel is
testament that this method works favorably for Ahmadinejad. Now that he
has the backing of the ultimate source of power in Iran, Ahmadinejad
intends to use it to implement his policy with more authority and
confidence. This also means that every time Ahmadinejad has internal
problems; he will attack Israel again, using it as a tool. This is
forecast to happen again in the next month, as Ahmadinejad=E2=80=99s budget,
which has been presented to the Majlis, is expected to be rejected by
Majlis members due to its unsuitability. This will be a major defeat
for him which will leave him looking weak. This will prompt him to
create another foreign crisis. 2. The second major reason behind
Ahmadinejad=E2=80=99s attacks against Israel is related to the nuclear talks
between Iran and the EU-3 countries (Germany, UK and France). Since his
election, Ahmadinejad has taken an uncompromising stance in the nuclear
talks with the EU. His unwillingness to change Iran=E2=80=99s nuclear
position was confirmed again during the same, =E2=80=9CThe Holocaust is a
myth=E2=80=9D speech, when he declared that he will not =E2=80=9Ccede one i=
nch of
Iran=E2=80=99s nuclear rights to foreign powers=E2=80=9D. In other words, I=
ran will
continue to insist on carrying out conversion and enrichment of uranium
on its soil. The EU can=E2=80=99t and won=E2=80=99t continue to go to the
negotiation table to be told the same thing by Tehran. Therefore, in
the face of Ahmadinejad=E2=80=99s unwillingness to compromise, it is very
possible that there will be a breakdown in the talks with the EU, and
we can see this today as Iran finds itself on the verge of being
referred to the UN Security Council. Ahmadinejad realizes this, and in
a bid to prepare the ground to shift blame when talks breakdown,
Ahmadinejad is pushing the Europeans, especially Germany to defend
Israel, and what better subject than the Holocaust, which Germany is
still incredibly sensitive about. And as a result, when the talks
breakdown, Ahmadinejad will be in a position to blame the Europeans and
their defense of the =E2=80=9CZionist entity=E2=80=9D and the =E2=80=9CHolo=
caust myth=E2=80=9D
as the main cause for the collapse of the negotiations. 3. Ahmadinejad
is a man who likes to play to his audience. The =E2=80=9CHolocaust is a
myth=E2=80=9D speech coincided with the visit of HAMAS leader Khaled Mashaal
to Tehran. The verbal assault was Ahmadinejad=E2=80=99s way of showing his
commitment to HAMAS and its rejectionist stance. Unfortunately for
Israel, such support from the president of a powerful Middle East
country is likely to add to HAMAS=E2=80=99s motivations for not renewing its
ceasefire.
Noorbaksh: Ahmadinejad=E2=80=99s confrontational foreign policy emanates fr=
om
two sources. First, the new president is na=C3=AFve and does not have a
deep understanding of international politics. Second, he comes from a
background shaped mostly by his involvement in the war against Iraq in
the 1980s. He saw in that war injustice, insecurity and defeat and
blames the United States for support of the brutal regime of Saddam
Hussein in Baghdad. He is offended by Washington=E2=80=99s siding with
Baghdad in the war and its indifference to the plight of thousands in
Iran and Iraq who were exposed to Saddam=E2=80=99s weapons of mass
destruction including chemical warheads during the war. The war
mentality has been carried out by him and his group of friends who are
currently accompanying him in government. Ahmadinejad=E2=80=99s remarks
against Israel are aimed at competing with al-Qaeda in the Middle East
for the support from radical orientations in the region. This support,
if achieved, can help the new president stabilize his power position
among the hard-line conservatives within the country. Al-Zarqawi, and
his strategy of killing the Shiite in Iraq, has become a new impetus
for this president to galvanize support in the Arab Middle East around
anti-American slogans for the sake of controlling Muslim radical
rhetoric and movements.
Taking into consideration the US position and its restraints in Iraq,
do you see an American military operation against Iran possible? Can it
handle this on its own or with the support of the EU and Israel? What
role could Turkey play in such an operation?
Javedanfar: US action against Iran is certainly a possibility, although
one that is not recommendable. The US has the military might, in the
air, land and sea to do this alone. The US has bases in Iraq,
Afghanistan, Bahrain and Qatar which is only 500 kilometers away from
the Bushehr nuclear sites. It must also be added that the runways of
the US airbase in Qatar have just been extended for B-52 landings. This
should ring some serious alarm bells for Iran=E2=80=99s military planners.
Therefore, logistically, the US can carryout a sustained military
operation against Iran=E2=80=99s nuclear facilities. Turkey would certainly
be able to play a part in the operations. The US airbase in Incirlik
would be able to provide support to the attacking forces. Intelligence
bases on Turkish bases on Iran=E2=80=99s borders would also assist the US. =
As
for Israel, in my opinion Israel=E2=80=99s first choice will be to stay well
away from an attack, if it can, both militarily and politically. Iran
is not Iraq. Iran, with allies such as HAMAS, Islamic jihad and
Hezbollah sitting on Israel=E2=80=99s borders, Israel would prefer not to
provoke them. Iran is also equipped with the Shahab-3 missile, which
can reach Israel, and cause serious damage.
Also logistically speaking, Israel does not have sufficient aerial
capability for a sustained aerial attack against Iran=E2=80=99s bases.
However what will help the US enormously is political support from the
EU and Turkey in the case of such an attack. Bush=E2=80=99s unilateral acti=
on
in Iraq has left the US politically isolated in the region. To attack
another Middle Eastern country again, the US will need a broader
consensus this time. Ultimately if the talks fail, the EU may
discreetly give the green light to Washington. However, I believe that
it will be unlikely for Turkey to do that. Prime Minister Erdogan
rejected a $30 billion loan from the US for assistance to topple
Saddam, who was literally a =E2=80=9Cdead man walking.=E2=80=9D Therefore i=
t will
even be more unlikely that he will support actions against Turkey=E2=80=99s
much more powerful neighbor Iran, who not only has a stronger army, but
also is a major energy supplier (gas) to the Turkish economy.
Noorbaksh: Attacking Iran=E2=80=99s nuclear sites is definitely
counterproductive. The West must deal with the issue of fuel cycle
rights and uranium enrichment in Iran with the utmost prudence. These
issues are bigger than simply Ahmadinejad=E2=80=99s government. Most Irania=
ns
think that it is the legal right of Iran as a signatory of the NPT to
develop scientific projects in this area, regardless of how critical
they are of the current government. Any contemplation of attacking
Iran=E2=80=99s nuclear facilities will have dire consequences for Iran, the
reform movement inside this country, and the whole region. Any attack
by Israel would also be considered an attack by the United States,
because both nations are security partners in the Middle East. Overall,
the nations of this region do not separate between Israel and the
United States when it comes to political, security and military issues
in this part of the world. The =E2=80=9Ccarrot and stick=E2=80=9D strategy =
and
serious negotiations with Iran through a third party, such as the
Russians and Chinese, provide a very useful approach. Extreme measures
against Iran would further destabilize the Middle East region and would
have the potential to disrupt the flow of oil from different parts of
the Persian Gulf area at this critical juncture in the history of
energy supply. There are conservative hard-line members of parliament
in Iran who have suggested confrontation with the United States in the
Strait of Hormuz.
If we put the military option aside, what could be the best strategy
that should be followed against Iran? Do you think an economic embargo
works?
Javedanfar: The best strategy would be to offer better economic
incentives to Iran. The EU=E2=80=99s economic promises to Iran turned out to
be not very substantial, as many of the items requested by Iran
contained US technology, which due to the embargo, the EU was not able
to supply. I don=E2=80=99t believe that sanctions will work. Iran has just
had a bumper financial year; it earned $40 from oil alone. Iran also
has porous borders, which means that smuggling from places such as
Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Shiite areas of Iraq are very possible.
Sanctions against Iran will also hurt western economies, as they rely
heavily on Iranian oil (Iran is OPEC=E2=80=99s second biggest oil producer).
Putting economic factors aside, culturally speaking, any sanctions
against Iran will make the Iranian people more determined to support
the nuclear program. History has shown time and time again that despite
internal political differences, in times of foreign hostility, Iranian
people unite. This was shown during the British embargo on Iran during
the rule of Mosadeq in the 1950s. The economic sanctions imposed by the
British and the US did not break the Iranian people, despite all
expectations of the West. The only way the West managed to change the
situation was by financing a coup against Mosadeq. Economic sanctions
against Iran will be a mistake, by punishing the Iranian people; the
West will also become their victimizer. If punishments are needed, the
best form of sanctions would be one which targets the business
interests of the leadership. It is well known that Ayatollah Rafsanjani
deals with conglomerates such as Daewoo, Hyundai, Statoil of Norway,
Airbus and numerous other investments stretching all the way to Canada.
Other sections of the regime, such as the Revolutionary Guards
(Pasdaran) have huge business interests in the Emirates. If those are
targeted by sanctions, they will have a much better chance of
convincing the regime, as the leadership will pay from its own pocket,
and not from the pocket of Iran=E2=80=99s innocent citizens.
Noorbaksh: The best sanction on Iran is the sanction on Iranian oil
exports. The Iranian non-oil export revenue is close to eight billion
dollars a year. This amount is very small compared to the revenue of
the oil export from the country. The Iranian economy is absolutely
dependent on oil revenue. Without oil money, the Iranian government=E2=80=
=99s
ventures will be hard hit. The middle class and intelligentsia are the
engines of change and opposition to the government in Iran today.
Punishing this group, as poorly-devised sanctions will inevitably do,
is not in the interest of change and democratization in the country.
Cutting off Iranian oil from the global market is also not a wise thing
to do. Both the industrial and developing nations need 2.5 million
barrels of oil, five percent of the world=E2=80=99s needs, which is exported
from Iran daily. One million of this amount may be compensated, but the
intense global oil market will suffer the consequences of this
shortfall. There is doubt that Saudi Arabia would pick up this one
million barrel deficit, because the royal family might not want to
jeopardize its relations with Iran especially after siding with the
rest of the world in opposition to Iran=E2=80=99s nuclear program. Standard=
&
Poor=E2=80=99s sees dire consequences if sanctions are imposed on the Irani=
an
oil exports; sending prices, near record level, and even higher.
Consequently, that will badly damage global economic growth.
Israel is believed to have at least 200 nuclear weapons or capacity to
be able to produce this amount, and has not yet signed the NPT. Israeli
statesmen, too, sometimes use the same threatening jargon as Iranians.
But we see the international pressure focused only on Iran that tries
hard to persuade the world that its nuclear agenda is bound only to
energy production and nothing more. Could you view this approach as a
double standard as seen by the majority of Muslim World?
Javedanfar: Israel, unlike Ahmadinejad has never called for the total
elimination of Arab countries. Nor has Israel called Muslim history a
=E2=80=9Cmyth=E2=80=9D and a lie, something which Dr Ahmadinejad did to Jew=
ish
people in his remarks denying the Holocaust. Meanwhile many Muslim
countries, especially Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Persian Gulf Countries,
back the claim that Iran=E2=80=99s nuclear program may not be as innocent as
it should be. This is why many Arab countries are not providing Iran
with their full support. However, one can certainly understand why Arab
and Muslim countries view Israel=E2=80=99s supposed nuclear capability as a
double standard, as Israel is not even a signatory of the NPT. This is
certainly understandable and has logic to it. I believe the best way to
solve such perceptions of double standards is to free the Middle East
of all weapons of mass destruction. We also need to convince countries
not to call for the elimination of others; as such threats are one of
the biggest motivators for the possession of doomsday weapons. We need
to create motivations to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, not to
acquire them.
America=E2=80=99s probable military operation will aim only at eliminating
the nuclear capacity of Iran or might there be different expectations
in the minds of war strategiests?
Javedanfar: I strongly believe that in the case of an attack, US
planners would focus on the destruction of Iran=E2=80=99s nuclear
installations and possibly an attack against some of Iran=E2=80=99s missiles
and aerial bases in order to neutralize Iran=E2=80=99s capability to respon=
d=2E
Any other attack would be counter productive and a waste of US
resources. I do not see the US attacking political sites such as the
homes of politicians, as it is a well known fact that many of Iran=E2=80=99s
top politicians are very well protected.
There are some comments that America wants to play (is playing) the
ethnical group card in Iran as it did in Iraq. Do you agree with this
view? If so, could Kurds have an important role in Iran, too?
Javedanfar: It is very possible that the US is manipulating Iran=E2=80=99s
ethnic minorities, especially Iranian Arabs in the Khuzestan region of
Iran. The US can use its influence and infrastructure in Iraq to lend
political and military support to them. The Kurds will also be a
candidate for this task as the US forces in Iraq, and their close
relations with Barzani especially (not Talabani as he has excellent
relations with Iran) may allow them to support Kurdish independence
aspirations in Iran. The Kurds could have an important role to play, as
there are a number of Kurdish movements with established resources in
Iran. I the long run, however, any Kurdish or Arab aspirations and
plans for independence in Iran may be futile, as the Iranian government
and people (in Iran and abroad including myself in Israel) are united
against any plans for the division of Iran. In short I believe any
foreign plans to split Iran will be one of the biggest mistakes the
west could make, as it would incur the wrath of millions of Iran=E2=80=99s
citizens. The West needs Iran=E2=80=99s citizens on its side, not against i=
t=2E
Some are afraid that America=E2=80=99s probable operation against Iran could
be the trigger of World War III. Do you agree?
Javedanfar: I do not believe that a US attack against Iran would lead
to WW III. For that to happen we need to see many countries becoming
involved in the conflict. Even if Iran is attacked, I do not see great
number of countries becoming involved in attacking the West. Iran may
have the support of numerous groups, such as Hezbollah or Islamic
Jihad; however, it does not have the support of countries that would be
prepared to go to war on its behalf.
=E2=80=98US operation can not destroy the Iranian regime=E2=80=99
Professor R. K. Ramazani:
From the Iranian perspective, Ahmadinejad is trying to resist Western
pressures with his statements. A US or Israeli military strike is not
likely to succeed, nor would the EU go along with an invasion. Turkey
should act the same prudent way it behaved in the case of the American
invasion of Iraq. When it comes to what should be done; the best
strategy for the US would be to bite the bullet, recognize the Iranian
regime and talk to it respectfully and directly. And right now even,
some Americans see the Bush administration's approach to the nuclear
issue as hypocritical. Strategy planners might hope that military
action would also destroy the regime, but that is a pipe dream because
it would only strengthen nationwide support for the regime. Kurds could
have an important role in Iran, too? I really don't think so, but any
Kurdish uprising would surely be crushed. Some may be afraid of World
War III, but I don't agree because the cost of a world war would
outweigh the benefits.=20
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
WORLD WAR III NEWS, FRIDAY, MARCH 17th, 2006 AD...............
World War III **NEWS** Friday, June 9th, 2006 AD...............
WORLD WAR III NEWS, FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 10TH, 2006 AD
World War III NEWS, Friday, May 5th, 2006 AD....Iran military plays down threat to strike Israel
World War III **NEWZ** Friday, August 4th, 2006
World War III NEWS, Friday, April 21st, 2006 AD..........
WORLD WAR III **NEWZ** Friday, August 18th, 2006....
WORLD WAR III NEWS, MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13TH, 2006...US WILL HIT IRAN IF TALKS FAIL
| World War III News, Monday, April 6th, 2006 AD.......Bolton: World must confront Iran
WORLD WAR III NEWS, SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 12TH, 2006 AD
Somebody here said something about March 20th, 2006 as a possible start for the next World War ?!?!
World War III NEWS, Saturday, April 29th, 2006 AD....Iran hurls defiance as UN braces itself for a nuclear showdown
World War III **NEWS** Wednesday, June 28th, 2006 AD....Israeli Planes Attack Bridge in Gaza
World War III **NEWZ** August 1st, 2006 __ Syria, Iran on high state of readiness for war with the jews
WORLD WAR III NEWS, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8th, 2006, AD
|
|
|
