Many politicians and analysts are at present sure that the September 11, 2001 terrorist act opened a new page in the practices of international relations. The U.S has gone on a warpath, declaring priorities of its own security above those of the preservation of the universal political culture that had taken shape in the wake of World War II. The epoch of fair negotiations and compromise agreements is going down into history.
Militarization of the U.S. foreign policies has long been gone from caring about its security. The brightest example is the situation in Iraq, whose regime could have been blamed for the lack of democracy but in no case – for the connivance to terrorism or the ownership of mass destruction weapons. Washington fabricated the pretext for the invasion of that country from A to Z.
The advent of a new power epoch of the U.S. policies has been caused by the fact that following the disappearance of strategic adversary; the U.S. military industrial groups felt they had their hands free. The new epoch had to be commemorated with a demonstrative show of an act. This act was perpetuated on September 11, 2001, and that page in the history book was turned.
One of the main results of the U.S. foreign policies since then has been its power pressure that affected the activities of the UN Security Council. The U.S. was quite successful at twisting the arms of the members of the Security Council, imposing on them its own perception of events. The example of the Iranian nuclear programme is a graphic illustration of this.
The Council is now about ready to approve the derision on economic sanctions against Iran that is unwilling to give up its plans of development of nuclear power industry. The situation appears to be as follows:
- Iran is on its way to the creation of its own cycle of production of fuel for nuclear power stations. This is not prohibited by the Nuclear Arms Non-Proliferation Treaty of which Iran is a soignée;
- Iran declares that it is not willing to use the uranium enrichment cycle for the production of weapons-grade plutonium and is all but ready to let IAEA inspectors access to its nuclear power installations;
- The U.S. declares sit does not trust Iran that given it has installed the nuclear fuel cycle – in its mind would by all means make a nuclear bomb. The United States demands that Iran stop of kinds of activities in the direction of creation of peaceful nuclear facilities;
- Iran refuses to meet the U.S. demands, insisting on its right to have peaceful nuclear power industry;
- The United States seeks the punishment of Iran forcing the UN Security Council to impose economic sanctions against it. The Council is almost ready to give in, so that such sanctions are going to be imposed;
The picture is quite unusual given that the United States have no objections at all when it comes to the issue of developing nuclear industries in many nations of “the third world”, never opposing devising of nuclear arms in the nations that are now in an explosive state of standoff – India and Pakistan. What is the rationale behind it all?
Washington’s hysterical behaviour is as shade to hide Israel’s interests of preserving its role of the only Middle Eastern nation with a monopoly on nuclear arms. The 200 warheads it owns which have been produced in violation of all agreements and regions of non-proliferation are its guarantee of survival in the world of animosity that surrounds it. It needs special attention to discuss the issue of this animosity and the firmness of these guarantees. What we are talking about now is the regional balance of force.
What we should come from should be the fact that Iran that feels it is the principal adversary of Israel in the Muslim world has a secret agenda of achieving the nuclear parity with this adversary, depriving it of its decisive advantage. There’s nothing good about that. Such parity would not lead to strengthening security, because if it has a nuclear bomb, the extremely indoctrinated Teheran regime could seriously aggravate the international situation. Chances of a regional nuclear conflict would them become a reality.
That’s the crux of the problem about which no one s willing to talk, because the United States and Israel do their best to avoid facing the formulation of this issue, while the UN Security Council and its associates are taking their lead from them. Why do Washington and Tel-Aviv try to hush up the gist of the problem? Just because if it become the issue of a serious discussion there would inevitably begin to develop a version of the creation in the Middle East of a regional nuclear-free zone. As such a version may go, Israel could count on the official allied guarantee of U.S. military assistance in the event of a military aggression and destroys its bombs, while Iran is free to purchase its nuclear fuel elements it needs from Russia. And everyone’s happy!
But no! This is not the way to put a question! This way it could mean that a step to the settlement of the Middle East problem is made on the principles of equity of right. Which is unthought-of for the United States and Israel. Otherwise radical trade-offs that can only bring about peace should become unavoidable for Israel, which would have to withdraw from the territories it is now occupying into the borders stipulated by the United Nations, and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.
Currently the strategic intentions of the U.S.-Israeli tandem exclude such trade-offs. Tel-Aviv and Washington are both striving to achieve a different goal that of strengthening as much as possible the capture and occupation of the Palestine territories in order to create conditions of domineering over Arabs. That is why the iron wheels of the Israeli army rolled over Lebanon’s south splitting the blood of peaceful residents. This vicious approach intentionally entangled by the Middle Eastern rope of cobwebs is the basis of the entire U.S.-Israeli policies in this region. And exactly because this approach is unrightful, the number of its opponents in the Muslim world is multiplying. Simultaneously, the new history that began following September 11, 2001 is drawing the bottom line to the equal and tiring diplomatic struggle aimed at the search of mutually admissible outcomes. The high and mightiest of the world are no longer willing to tire themselves by taking, inclining more and more towards making a lodgement of their rights by violence and weapons.
But they are not always successful in doing that in the complicated present-day world.
The strikes of the American “fist of iron” on the global landscape proved to be less successful than the U.S. hoped them to be. Due to many reasons the bald-faced militarism that began to speak about itself following the vents of September 11, 2001 has failed to score sensational new victories, while it was not nourished to be a failure.
Those who staked for the suppression of players resisting the U.S. policies of forced democratisation should take urgent measures. There is not a single nation in the world where this U.S. strategy has been evidently successful. Instead there are evident failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, with pending failures in Georgia and Ukraine. The aftermath of sovereignisation of Kosovo would be especially painful for the United States. This criminal cripple would strive to reach expansion under the banners of the establishment of Great Albania, never willing to observe the rules of regional communal life. A new bloodbath would shatter the Balkans, but this time around Washington will have to be responsible for the doings of its bastard offspring.
So what could be done to save this kind of policies that is cracking in all seams?
Different versions of saving the bankrupt use-of-force policies can be invented, but the United States is putting all of its strength into the game of muscles around Iran.
Thus modelling of the U.S. logic in terms of its conduct in the near future should be done with an eye at the Iran issue. This logic is as follows:
1) Iran is a milestone test for the Bush administration. Should the goals the administration declares not be achieved the failure would disclose the inadequacy of the entire U.S. foreign policy. What can be done then?
2) Persuading Iran to give up work on peaceful nuclear energy program will not be of help. The regime of ayatollahs is not going to compromise.
3) Economic sanctions could be imposed on Iran that would aggravate the situation in that country, but not destabilise the regime, though it would continue pursuing its policies
4) the aggravation of the domestic situation would force the ayatollah regime to resort to aggravation of relations with its adversary, which would require an atmosphere of mobilisation in that country so that it respond to the economic blockade by countermeasures, namely:
- blocking the Ormuz sound , thus closing the main Middle East oil arteries;
- intensifying its activities in the Shiite community in Iraq with an eye at unleashing a religious civil war in that country:
- beginning to massively use the “shakhid corps” for acts of terror against U.S. citizens and offices around the world. That would spur the war of terror, making Iran Terrorist No.1.
As a result, in about 12 months following the imposition of economic sanctions Iran would produce the impression of a “rogue vulture state” that can only be brought to order by resorting to a military operation.
But a land operation is out of the question, as it would only lead to large-scale warfare and large-scale losses.
Air bombing would also be no help. No matter how many bombs are dropped, they would not guarantee that underground nuclear laboratories and the hated ayatollah regime are destroyed.
So what is the way out? There’s only one way to deal with such a dangerous regional aggressor, the seedbed of inhumanity and terrorism - the use of nuclear arms against it. It thus is admissible. It’s all about low-charge cartridges.
Aha, here’s this lash to bring the fidels to order! A series of strikes by small nuclear charges can destroy the Iranian army, its control centres, government offices, creating panic among Iranians throwing the nation into chaos. The situation that would thus be created would make it possible to continue intervention by land force complete with an imported government in a back sack.
So the way to a victory in the current situation is using small-power nuclear charges against Iran.
This is exactly the conclusion the modelling of the logics of the present-day U.S. leaders brings one to. Don’t you think it’s real? But why then the arsenals of these charges have been accumulated? Why should American generals and politicians regularly mention the possibility of using them in certain “special” circumstances, primarily in the war on terrorism?
The author of this article was far from playing with sci-fi scenarios. No, this is only my opinion that if we all not put an end to the theatre of the absurd play the United States is now acting around Iran, Iranians would first face economic sanctions and should they try to show teeth, they would be attacked by nuclear arms. And this could happen in 2007. Another page in the world’s history book would thus be opened. God save us all from that!
But you could ask: well, what about radioactive pollution? It’s all very simple! Just recollect Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The sufferers were not Americans. Americans would not suffer in Iran again. And given that the charges are small and the pollution is of just a local scale, nothing terrible is going to happen. The invaders would circle the polluted regions with barbed wire, never appearing there. That’s all there’s to it.
And what about the infected aborigines …Well… you know… It’s all about collateral damage, the usual thing, you know.
