Tweet
IS THERE A REAL DANGER OF US INVASION TO IRAN?
Azg/arm
21 Jan 05
A famous publicist, Seymour Hersh, published an article in The New
Yorker recently titled "The Coming Wars" where he claimed that the US
intelligenceis carrying out secret operations in the territory of
Iran. American special agents have penetrated the eastern regions of
the country in summer of 2004, the author claims.
The Pentagon confronted the article vigorously and the White House
stated that the article contains a number of "inaccuracies". President
George W. Bush's interview to NBC followed."I hope we can solve it
diplomatically, but I will never take any option off the table," Bush
said, "if it continues to stonewall the international community about
the existence of its nuclear weapons program."
Iranian defense minister, Ali Shamkhani, challenged Bush's statement
immediately saying: "The military potential of our country will not
allow any state to attack Iran". The minister called Bush's statements
the result of the psychological war waged against the people of Iran.
There is a difference between elaborating nuclear programs for
peaceful aims and using the nuclear power to make a weapon. Sergey
Lavrov, foreign minister of Russia, soon after Bush's statement
confirmed Iran's peaceful plans of nuclear power usage. But Washington
is interested with Iran's plansthe least. What concerns the States
most of all is Iran's self-confidence and the popularity of religious
administration. The last fact gives no way to outsiders to topple the
Islamic administration from inside, and Washington can do nothing but
threatening Iran with invasion.
By removing the Islamic regime of Iran, the US will put the Middle
East at Israel's service. The American's should not forget that Iran
has a population 3 times as many as Iraq and a far greater territory.
In today's situation, when the US has to keep tight control over Kabul
and Iyad Allawu in Iraq, it's hardly possible that Bush will venture
toinvade Iran, even though that is the only way to fit the region to a
desired model.
Removing the possibility of direct danger for Iran, we may assume that
Washington is more concerned with the Iraqi elections of January 30
and Bush's striving to secure "fair" election by restraining the
pro-Iranian Shiites in order to keep Shiites back from looking ways
out if the country appears on the edge of falling into parts and the
Shiites of Iran, 60 percent of its population, from trying to
influence the elections and the last, keep Iran back from the
processes in Northern Iraq that lead to creation of the Kurdish state
and meanwhile turn the Kurds into the basis of reconstructed Iraq.
Before the Iraqi war, the US was yearning to see Iran isolated,
economically deteriorated and deprived of region's support. After the
war, America launched its tactics of threats in order to limit Iran's
chances to intervene in the regional processes and to instill the
irreversibility of regime change in the Iranians' conscience.
By Hakob Chakrian
Azg/arm
21 Jan 05
A famous publicist, Seymour Hersh, published an article in The New
Yorker recently titled "The Coming Wars" where he claimed that the US
intelligenceis carrying out secret operations in the territory of
Iran. American special agents have penetrated the eastern regions of
the country in summer of 2004, the author claims.
The Pentagon confronted the article vigorously and the White House
stated that the article contains a number of "inaccuracies". President
George W. Bush's interview to NBC followed."I hope we can solve it
diplomatically, but I will never take any option off the table," Bush
said, "if it continues to stonewall the international community about
the existence of its nuclear weapons program."
Iranian defense minister, Ali Shamkhani, challenged Bush's statement
immediately saying: "The military potential of our country will not
allow any state to attack Iran". The minister called Bush's statements
the result of the psychological war waged against the people of Iran.
There is a difference between elaborating nuclear programs for
peaceful aims and using the nuclear power to make a weapon. Sergey
Lavrov, foreign minister of Russia, soon after Bush's statement
confirmed Iran's peaceful plans of nuclear power usage. But Washington
is interested with Iran's plansthe least. What concerns the States
most of all is Iran's self-confidence and the popularity of religious
administration. The last fact gives no way to outsiders to topple the
Islamic administration from inside, and Washington can do nothing but
threatening Iran with invasion.
By removing the Islamic regime of Iran, the US will put the Middle
East at Israel's service. The American's should not forget that Iran
has a population 3 times as many as Iraq and a far greater territory.
In today's situation, when the US has to keep tight control over Kabul
and Iyad Allawu in Iraq, it's hardly possible that Bush will venture
toinvade Iran, even though that is the only way to fit the region to a
desired model.
Removing the possibility of direct danger for Iran, we may assume that
Washington is more concerned with the Iraqi elections of January 30
and Bush's striving to secure "fair" election by restraining the
pro-Iranian Shiites in order to keep Shiites back from looking ways
out if the country appears on the edge of falling into parts and the
Shiites of Iran, 60 percent of its population, from trying to
influence the elections and the last, keep Iran back from the
processes in Northern Iraq that lead to creation of the Kurdish state
and meanwhile turn the Kurds into the basis of reconstructed Iraq.
Before the Iraqi war, the US was yearning to see Iran isolated,
economically deteriorated and deprived of region's support. After the
war, America launched its tactics of threats in order to limit Iran's
chances to intervene in the regional processes and to instill the
irreversibility of regime change in the Iranians' conscience.
By Hakob Chakrian