U.S.
Ambassador Nikki Haley’s grandiose performance in front of the UN
on December 15 should send shivers down the spines of those who
remember Colin Powell’s equally disturbing performance in the
months leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. This is just the
beginning of the a new media campaign against Iran with regime change
as the end goal.
by
Darius Shahtahmasebi
Part
2 - Pursuing Iran through indirect means
We have
often witnessed a one-sided media coverage of the Iranian government,
which has constantly demonized Iran as an aggressive player in the
region, hell-bent on destroying America’s stalwart ally, Israel.
However — given that the U.S. failed to convincingly substantiate
similar accusations against Iraq but invaded the country anyway in
2003, plunging the region into a humanitarian catastrophe —
Washington’s credibility on the world stage has been questioned and
its ability to develop international support for a strike on Iran has
demonstrably failed from George W. Bush right through the Obama
administration.
The U.S.
cannot realistically launch a direct strike on Iran without a decent
pretext, given that Iran has some significant allies in Russia and
China. Instead, it has launched a number of covert strategies with
the aim of containing Iranian influence and weakening Iran’s direct
allies.
According
to an email published by WikiLeaks from the archives of former
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the U.S. sought to intervene in
Syria as a means of containing Iranian influence. The email states:
The
best way to help Israel deal with Iran’s growing nuclear capability
is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad.
… For Israeli leaders, the real threat from a nuclear-armed Iran is
not the prospect of an insane Iranian leader launching an unprovoked
Iranian nuclear attack on Israel that would lead to the annihilation
of both countries. What Israeli military leaders really worry about —
but cannot talk about — is losing their nuclear monopoly.
An
Iranian nuclear weapons capability would not only end that nuclear
monopoly but could also prompt other adversaries, like Saudi Arabia
and Egypt, to go nuclear as well. The result would be a precarious
nuclear balance in which Israel could not respond to provocations
with conventional military strikes on Syria and Lebanon, as it can
today.
Source,
links:
Comments
Post a Comment