stephanie
02-18-2007, 12:40 AM
SNIP:
Amir Taheri
Has war between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran become inevitable?
These days, the question is at the center of discussions in diplomatic circles across the globe. A good part of the talk on the sidelines of the annual International Security Conference, held in Munich, Germany, last week was precisely about that.
The same question will be at the center of talks between Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his Syrian counterpart Bashar Assad who is due in Tehran today to coordinate his strategies with Iran.
Judged by the visuals of the case, a military conflict seems possible.
Like a pair of angry cats contesting the same space, Iran and the United States have been frowning and making warlike gestures, over who should set the agenda for the Middle East, for a quarter of a century.
At some point, the two cats must jump at one another.
In a sense, the two have been at war since 1979 when Khomeinist militants raided the US Embassy in Tehran and seized its diplomat’s hostage.
Since then, pro-Iran militants have killed almost 1,000 Americans across the globe, including in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Lebanon and, more recently, Iraq. The Americans killed almost as many Iranians with the accidental downing of an Iranian jetliner and the destruction of Revolutionary Guard positions along the Gulf in 1987.
Through the 1990s, the two managed to avoid conflict, by ignoring one another. That changed after 9/11 when the US decided to reshape the Middle East with “regime change” in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Calling the Islamic republic part of an “Axis of Evil”, President George W. Bush made it clear there would be no room for Khomeinism in his new Middle East.
That prompted Tehran to prepare for a showdown that Ahamdinejad seems to welcome.
Iran intensified the arming of Hezbollah, renewed contacts with Shiite militants in Arab states, and increased its military budget by 21 percent. It also resumed uranium enrichment, putting its controversial nuclear program into high gear, and provoking a diplomatic tussle with US and its allies.
In Afghanistan, Iran reactivated Gulbuddin Hekmatyar’s Hizb Islami militia, shipped arms to the Is’haqzai Pushtun tribe, and helped Hazara Shiites raise an army of 12,000. Iran also opened its borders to fleeing Taleban and Al-Qaeda militants. According to Arab intelligence sources, some 30 senior “Arab Afghans” are in Iran.
To exert pressure on another US ally, Iran has shipped arms to Balochi rebels in Pakistan, including Marri tribesmen led by Nawab Khair-Baksh.
Next, Tehran established contact with Palestinian radicals, notably Hamas, feting its leaders in Tehran and providing aid worth $250 million. Last week’s capture of Iranian military advisers in Gaza shows that Tehran was also involved in training Palestinian fighters.
Last summer, Tehran fought a proxy war against Washington in Lebanon with Israel, the United States’ regional ally, dueling with Hezbollah, Iran’s cat’s-paw in the Arab world. A month before the war, Iran had signed a defense treaty with Syria, turning into a client state.
Hezbollah’s perceived “victory” encouraged Iran to seek extending its glacis to Lebanon, by trying to topple the pro-Arab government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.
Since last year, however, Iraq has become the principal battleground in the indirect war between Iran and the US.
Iranian strategists assume that, if the Americans run away, Iraq will be divided into three mini-states: Kurdish, Sunni, and Shiite. Invoking the 19th century Treaty of Erzerum, which gives Iran certain rights in Iraq’s Shiite areas, Tehran hopes to play “big brother” to a future ministate in southern Iraq. The list of US accusations against Tehran includes:
the rest at..
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=92268&d=17&m=2&y=2007
Amir Taheri
Has war between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran become inevitable?
These days, the question is at the center of discussions in diplomatic circles across the globe. A good part of the talk on the sidelines of the annual International Security Conference, held in Munich, Germany, last week was precisely about that.
The same question will be at the center of talks between Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his Syrian counterpart Bashar Assad who is due in Tehran today to coordinate his strategies with Iran.
Judged by the visuals of the case, a military conflict seems possible.
Like a pair of angry cats contesting the same space, Iran and the United States have been frowning and making warlike gestures, over who should set the agenda for the Middle East, for a quarter of a century.
At some point, the two cats must jump at one another.
In a sense, the two have been at war since 1979 when Khomeinist militants raided the US Embassy in Tehran and seized its diplomat’s hostage.
Since then, pro-Iran militants have killed almost 1,000 Americans across the globe, including in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Lebanon and, more recently, Iraq. The Americans killed almost as many Iranians with the accidental downing of an Iranian jetliner and the destruction of Revolutionary Guard positions along the Gulf in 1987.
Through the 1990s, the two managed to avoid conflict, by ignoring one another. That changed after 9/11 when the US decided to reshape the Middle East with “regime change” in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Calling the Islamic republic part of an “Axis of Evil”, President George W. Bush made it clear there would be no room for Khomeinism in his new Middle East.
That prompted Tehran to prepare for a showdown that Ahamdinejad seems to welcome.
Iran intensified the arming of Hezbollah, renewed contacts with Shiite militants in Arab states, and increased its military budget by 21 percent. It also resumed uranium enrichment, putting its controversial nuclear program into high gear, and provoking a diplomatic tussle with US and its allies.
In Afghanistan, Iran reactivated Gulbuddin Hekmatyar’s Hizb Islami militia, shipped arms to the Is’haqzai Pushtun tribe, and helped Hazara Shiites raise an army of 12,000. Iran also opened its borders to fleeing Taleban and Al-Qaeda militants. According to Arab intelligence sources, some 30 senior “Arab Afghans” are in Iran.
To exert pressure on another US ally, Iran has shipped arms to Balochi rebels in Pakistan, including Marri tribesmen led by Nawab Khair-Baksh.
Next, Tehran established contact with Palestinian radicals, notably Hamas, feting its leaders in Tehran and providing aid worth $250 million. Last week’s capture of Iranian military advisers in Gaza shows that Tehran was also involved in training Palestinian fighters.
Last summer, Tehran fought a proxy war against Washington in Lebanon with Israel, the United States’ regional ally, dueling with Hezbollah, Iran’s cat’s-paw in the Arab world. A month before the war, Iran had signed a defense treaty with Syria, turning into a client state.
Hezbollah’s perceived “victory” encouraged Iran to seek extending its glacis to Lebanon, by trying to topple the pro-Arab government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.
Since last year, however, Iraq has become the principal battleground in the indirect war between Iran and the US.
Iranian strategists assume that, if the Americans run away, Iraq will be divided into three mini-states: Kurdish, Sunni, and Shiite. Invoking the 19th century Treaty of Erzerum, which gives Iran certain rights in Iraq’s Shiite areas, Tehran hopes to play “big brother” to a future ministate in southern Iraq. The list of US accusations against Tehran includes:
the rest at..
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=92268&d=17&m=2&y=2007