• am
  • ru
  • en
print version
01.03.2007

US-Iran: possible developments

   

Gagik Harutyunyan 

The long lasting US-Iran confrontation is entering a new stage, and the expected development, according to expert community, may even cause changes of word order.

As it is known, the American party consistently blames Iran for rendering direct help to the terrorists operating in Iraq. Such an information policy outlines the image of the US main enemy, Iran, and the responsibility of America’s failures in Iraq seems to transfer to that country1. Information-spiritual pressure on Iran is also expressed by spreading a lot of information and analyses in mass media on the US intention to strike an air strike over Iran. However, “Iran’s issue” is not only of information character.

Armenia’s official and non-official information today, and, what is more impotent, the logic of political developments have come to prove that all the present and future projects of the US on the Middle East suppose at least overthrowing of Iran’s theocratic regime and, if possible, even that country’s division by ethnic-religious features. The issue of US-Iran military confrontation has became more argent since 2003, after the occupation of Iraq. In particular, in the beginning of 2006, as well as today, the possible US attacks expected in spring, are actively discussed in mass media and analytical journals.

The similarities mainly refer to general political situations and the terms of the possible war: the situation in Iraq in 2006 doesn’t principally differ from the one of today, and the similarity of terms is mainly conditioned by technical-weather-forecast conditions. In that region spring is the most advantageous period of time for applying air force and cruise missiles. However, in 2006, the republican administration of the US, taking into account the factor of the Congress election in autumn 2006, and being afraid that because of the possible failure of Iranian campaign they will lose the elections, decided not to take a risk. Instead of “big war”, the White House, together with his close ally Israel, unleashed a punishing war against the organization of Hezbollah, which is politically identified with Iran. They based on the fact that victorious and quick military operations would raise the US-Israel image and would show off the efficiency of America’s Middle-Eastern policy. However, the continuous military operations with not unequivocal results were perceived by the international community as another failure of the Americans. As a result, in the elections of the both chambers of the US congress, the democrats won a majority.

Not that successful military operations against Hezbollah made some analyzers think that that war was still of “intermediate” character and, and “big war” in the Middle East , which would clear up the situation answering the question “who is who in the Middle East”, is still to come. One may suppose that if Israel unequivocally (US) won Hezbollah (Iran) in that “intermediate” war, it would probably be enough for the United States to “preserve its face”, which would probably reduce the possibility of the “big war”.

At the same time, the situation in 2007 considerably differs from the one of previous years. The US Republican administration is not constrained by internal political issues, and the year of 2007 is very convenient for undertaking wide scale operations. According to the US political tradition, the president in the last year of his terms of office, that’s to say in 2008, doesn’t make “irreversible” steps, which would constrain the newly elected administration (independent of the fact whether they are Republicans of Democrats) to carry out its own programs. Moreover, there is an impression that the only opportunity for the Republicans to succeed in presidential elections is the victorious war in the Middle East2. At the same time, it is not only the matter of victory of this or that party. It is the matter of higher political level, as the future of America’s hegemony seems to be decided in the Middle East. At that, the developments in that region do not inspire optimism to the Americans.

Today, ever more then before, the threats issued by Iran have become more serious. Succeeding in the “intermediate” war, that country has strengthened its influence in the Middle East and is directly carrying out its nuclear program. It may change not only regional, but also the global military-political picture. Let’s notice, that it is already considered to be “regional super power” by some political scientists.

In its turn, from the standpoint of America’s interests, the processes in that country give way to duel interpretation. Striking Iraq and especially the Arabic country with the government of quite willful characteristics, the US seems to have solved a number of military issues. However new problems were given birth to. The well known developments connected with Iraqi Kurdistan spoiled the relations of the US and Israel with Turkey, which was in the past considered to be the main strategic partner of that country.

Iraq’s partition has caused another, maybe more important problem. Shia’s taking the office has considerably increased Iran’s influence in that country. That’s to say, it is not time to predict which scenario is more favorable for the US and Israel: Iraq ruled by Sunnis and confronting Iran or the one divided into parts but under Iran’s obvious influence and having de facto Shian self-governing?

Thus, the American strategy in the Middle East, in the basis of which is particularly stirring up confrontation among different ethnic, regional groups and organizations (for example, Hamas and FATH)3, may be considered to be of duel character. It is obvious that in some issues the Americans have achieved undeniable success. Today in the region are waged interethnic and interregional wars (which are, by unknown reasons, called civil). It goes without saying that such wars discompose the Middle East, eliminate human, political and economic resources, by this making this region of geographical and geo-economic importance more controllable by the US. However, the above mentioned developments cause important problems, the settlement of which need quite a good deal of resources.

Let’s also notice that together with disintegration, in the region are carried out processes of crystallization. In particular, after the war of 2006, in the Islamic world one could notice a tendency of gathering together and formation of Iran as a power center.

The processes in the Middle East were also negatively, not in favor of the US, responded by such geopolitical actors as China and Russia. It is noteworthy that these states are perceived to be adversaries not only by separate individuals but also on the level of the US Defense Ministry like at the period of the Cold War, not excluding military confrontations with them in the future. Such announcements are grounded by practical steps, one of which is the allocation of antimissile systems close to Russia’s eastern boundaries, which coincides with the mutipolar Cold War logic.

In the context of all these, the most important and indisputable issue is whether the US has enough resources to win the war. In the geopolitical “big game” the main cards of the US are its ability to carry out complex policy and perhaps its technological-military absolute supremacy4. It is noteworthy that in the military field the US has made a decisive step lately. In particular, a decision was made to send extra 21.500 soldiers to Iraq and to transfer “John Stenis” aircraft-carrier with more then 70 aircrafts and 5 warships accompanying it to Persian Gulf. At last, President Bush turned to the Congress with an offer to give an unprecedented big sum (for about $760 billion) for military needs.

There were also made some administrative appointments worth special attention. As it is known, the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan were staged by the Central Command (CC) of the US armed forces. Not long ago in the post of CC commander was appointed Admiral William Fallon, who has quite aggressive moods to Iran. He substituted General John Abizaid of Lebanese origin. Let’s also point out that the appointment of the new US Defense Minister Robert Gates is often interpreted as substituting “falcon” Rumsfeld with someone who is for carrying negotiations with Iran. Before his new appointment, Gates was CIA director and thus was completely aware of all the events in the Middle East. The US military system, as it is known, works almost uninterrupted, and Rumsfeld’s task was Pentagon’s political guidance. The task of Gates, professionally aware of all the eastern “nuances”, may become making better use of the American military machine in compliance with Middle Eastern realities.

The information stated above has come to prove that the US armed forces are in high alertness to begin military operations against Iran. The same may be said about Iran, which is continuously carrying out military trainings not without new defense technologies5. A number of versions and scenarios are possible to follow the present situation.

  1. The US is perusing the military principle that “threatening is more effective than its realization” and intends to make the Iranian authorities make certain concessions by my means of military-political and information-psychological pressure. It will allow the US to preserve its rating and at lest solve some regional issues.
  2. Iran doesn’t make any concessions, and the US administration, basing on internal political (pressure by Democratic Party), foreign policy (possible acute response by the international community) or mere military (efficiency of Iran’s anti-air defense, the opportunity of counterattacking the asymmetric blow, as well as by means of nuclear weapon) considerations, Iran doesn’t turn to military confrontation. It may be perceived as weakness by the side of the US not only in the Middle East, but also partial loss of the US supremacy in the global plane.
  3. US will strike a short-term air blow over Iran without presenting an ultimatum. These operations do not aim at overthrowing the government or initiating civil clashes in the country, but realize tactical scheme of exterminating certain nuclear objects. Such a scenario will allow the US to leave the region to some extent “preserving its face” and protect its reputation.
  4. US realizes “Yugoslavian version”, when air strikes are not limited by time and continue until Iran accepts an ultimatum. Permanent air strikes, accompanied by special operations, may cause internal clashes and, as a result, braking up of Iran by the Iraqi scenario. Such a development will make a chaotic situation in the region, the results of which may tell on the processes going on not only in the region, but also in the global geopolitical plane.

1 It is well known that Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda have lost information attraction of their “image of enemy”, and today the terrorists operating in Iraq belong to quite different organizations increasing in number day by day. So, the image of “enemy” in Iraq is not embodied, which is quite a serious deficiency in the information field. In this context, making the “image of Iraqi enemy” of Iran by the US from the standpoint of information-psychological standpoint, is well grounded and advantageous.

2 The Iraqi war of 2003 was unleashed the previous year of the US elections considerably favoring G. Bush’ reelection.

3 That conception is called by the name of the American orientalist-political scientist Bernard Luis.

4 The level of this state’s arming technique and strategic idea multiply exceeds the showings of not only separate states but also their generalized impact.

5 That country not only imports arms (like Russian TOP systems), it also produces new military technique: for example, Iran has begun producing pilot aircrafts undetectable for radars.


Return
Another materials of author