• am
  • ru
  • en
print version
20.04.2006

Iran; challenge to the power state

   

Gagik Ter-Harutyunyan 

For the last few weeks there was an abrupt rise of a number of publications on Iran in informational field. It is conditioned not only by multilevel debates concerning to this country’s nuclear program and well known announcements of Ahmadinejad, but also by the following developments:

  • Still in 2004-2005 the military experts repeatedly noted that in case of military actions against Iran, the meteorological conditions in spring are more favorable for using the Air Forces and cruise missiles (let’s remember that the US attacked Iraq at the end of April and beginning of May in 2003).
  • The negotiations of Condoleezza Rice in London and her unexpected visit to Iraq together with Great Britain’s Foreign Minister Jack Strown could be perceived as reaching final agreement before launching military actions against Iran.
  • Iran carried large-scale naval trainings in the Persian Gulf where the new models of military technique-missiles with imperceptible radars, high-speed torpedoes, etc. were used and widely represented to public. The trainings were interpreted as mobilization of Iranian military forces before the expected attack of the US as well as manifestation of political will and demonstration of Iranian capabilities in protection of any aggression.

The comparison of these conditions made a ground for some analysts to suppose that the military actions between Iran and the US may begin in this spring. We will still return to concrete terms of beginning military campaign, but, in any case, it is worth certifying։ The ideology adopted by Iran, home and foreign policy implemented by it constitute a real threat for the United States. It seems that today there are all the conditions and motives necessary for military confrontation between these two countries. We will briefly list some of them:

  1. It is paradoxical, but Iran and the US have many things in common. Both of them are somehow theocratic and ideologised powers. At the same time they are on different ideological poles. And if Iran is an Islamic theocratic state, then the US president Bush is an aggressive evangelist and in his speeches he often pointes out that he is lead by divine intend. Both of the countries use such a terminology to protect national interests. It is worth mentioning that the approaches of today’s American neoconservativs are considerably peculiar to a few Islamic political powers (conservatism in system of values and inner problems, provident but determined actions veiled by revolutionary ideas).
  2. Iran has chosen the third way of development -not socialism and not capitalism, which is in reality an attempt to combine and use the positive elements of these two systems in the Shiah context. Today China and Byelorussia develop in such a way (it is worth mentioning that in the new “black lists” formulated in the US, Byelorussia “adjoins” with the countries condemned in terrorism). In such a way Iran’s political system not only contrasts with the US Anglo-Saxon liberalism, but also is a kind of alternative model of development both for the Islamic world and the other countries.
  3. Iran (by the way together with China and Byelorussia) has a great extent of sovereignty. In this it is opposed to the US, which, according to firm conviction of the American establishment, is the only sovereign state and perceives sovereignty of the state to some degree as a fiction.
  4. Iran has recently been taking all the necessary steps to become a full member of the Shanghai Organization (SCO) where it still has the status of observer. In this way Iran aims at integrating with the military-political power which has enough potential to become the alternative for the United States in the foreseeable future. Let’s notice that in case of Iran’s joining with SCO, this organization will somehow gain full geopolitical configuration. That is why Iran’s actions on this level are conceived by the US as a threat and it, in mutual consent with their geo-preventive strategy, aspires to do everything to prevent such unification.
  5. Iran has rich resources of hydrocarbon energy carriers and is in the second place in the world with its gas reserves (and what is more, they are not exported) it is also ahead among the first four with its oil resources. Today the energy factor is among the most important ones in geo-economic approaches of the US (and not only), and in this aspect Iran is also a target.
  6. After the occupation of Iraq, Iran remained the only state of the region posing a real threat for America’s strategic ally-Israel. This factor often acquires a decisive significance in military-political calculations of the US.
  7. Iran actively resists the US operations in the region, thereby upsetting the grandiose project called “Great middle east”. In particular, according to experts, political and armed resistance of the US put up in Iraq, associates just with Iran, the policy and role of which in the region diametrically differs from the ones of the US. Little by little an idea is formulated in military circles that the problem of Iraq is not possible to settle so far as Iran is nearby holding the same position.

All these circumstances (the list of which may rise) predetermine cruel confrontation between all the spheres (diplomatic, informational, economic, etc.) between Iran and the US. We won’t be mistaken if we say that it’s a long time since this war has been waged. As for the possible military phase, many commentators point out that the armed conflict is not likely to be restricted to local bombing of Iran’s nuclear objects: the US first of all aims at changing Iran’s political system that’s why the war must have an extensive character. In case of possible military operations, the US and Iran authorities are likely to use all their might (to the point of nuclear weapons) with all the inevitable consequences to follow and not without after-affects first of all for Armenia.

As for certain terms for the war to begin, then we have a ground to suppose that the war is not very likely to begin this spring. From the tactical point of view it is conditioned by the following factors.

  • In autumn will be held the US elections of congress. Meanwhile the position of the Republican Party (in the context of Iranian problem, budgeted deficit, etc.) is far from being firm. In such conditions the Bush administration (whose rating is getting lower and lower) will hardly make a step followed by uncertain consequences.
  • The condition of the US president’s European ally, Tony Blair, is not his best as well (his rating has reached the lowest record of 30%). According to some experts, in case the US is supported by Great Britain to wage a war, the prime minister may be removed from the office. Meantime British aerodromes have dominant role in possible attack on Iran, and the Americans, according to military experts, will hardly undertake anything without getting British backing.

Of course there are more serious factors as well. In 2003 the Iranian military campaign preceded the September 11 tragedy (the peak of pro-Americanism) and successful military blitzkrieg in Afghanistan. The situation today quite differs from the one in the past: the brand “America” has stepped into worse period of time and the Iranian issue is still far from being resolved. However it is well known that sometimes fairly unfavorable factors stimulate some seemingly disadvantageous actions, on irrational level, in spite of deterring them.


Return
Another materials of author