Tweet
Igor Muradyan
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/comments24801.html
Published: 13:16:52 - 13/01/2012
A closer look into the situation in the Persian Gulf would reveal that
it is quite hard indeed but talking on the approximation of the
disaster would be significantly exaggerated. The U.S. and Iran, that
is two major parties of the confrontation, are well aware of the
limits of the crisis that cannot be passed, and it is the most
important thing to understand, talking about the likelihood of
hostilities.
It is completely clear that the U.S. is not interested in war, and
even those political scientists in the U.S. who urge to toughen the
policies regarding Iran, also understand that the war is impossible
and unnecessary. If the U.S. had intentions to launch military
actions, it would not have worked out and realized the economic
blockade of Iran, it would not try to make the economic leaders of the
world to apply sanctions against Iran.
The U.S. understood that the current nature and content of the
sanctions is quite effective and it can force Iran to make
concessions. The U.S. and its partners are concerned about the
possibility of blocking the Strait of Hormuz by Iran and drilling in
the Persian Gulf, and certainly, they will not allow this through the
demonstration of strength in the region. However, Israel and its
friends in the world will try to convince Americans to use force
against Iran, more precisely to destroy the facilities of the nuclear
program.
Now the entire political and propaganda potential of Israel and the
pro-Israeli structures everywhere possible are involved in the
solution of this issue. It is possible to understand Israel, as it
would like absolute security guarantees but Israel's security in this
case means a global catastrophe.
In this connection, it is interesting to follow Russia's behavior, and
it would be good to understand the answer to the question. `Do
Russians want a war?' However, in order to answer this question, it is
necessary to find out first who the Russians are, including
identification of the origin of the acting Russian president D.
Medvedev. In addition, this is not a matter of folklore.
At the same time, the impression is created that in a certain phase.
Iran, anyway, committed a big internal political mistake, and it is
worth explaining this point which could help deal with the situation
in the South Caucasus. About 10 years ago, Britain and Iran restored
diplomatic relations, and attempts were made to make these relations a
priority. Britain saw its role as a `general' mediator between Iran
and the Western community, able to bring the situation to a positive
outcome.
At the beginning of the 2000s, Great Britain had no hope to increase
its influence in Turkey, Arab states, South Asia and its relations
with Iran would facilitate British business to control considerable
flows of finance and raw materials. Tehran also understood the meaning
of partnership with Great Britain for curbing pressure by the U.S. and
provocations by Israel and its friends in the U.S. It is worth saying
that the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Great Britain Robin Cook and
Jack Straw consistently pursued a policy of `advocacy' of Iran within
the framework of `global discussion'. London influenced very aptly the
U.S. position in the direction of Iran during the Clinton and Bush
administrations, in particular the British played a great role during
the critical moment of autumn 2001 - spring 2003 when the U.S. looked
at various options for rocket and bomb attacks on Iran's nuclear
program targets.
Apparently, however, great mistakes have been committed in the Iranian
administration, or certain inadequate behavior motives and all the
efforts of two countries went wrong. A full collapse happened in the
Iranian-British relations, from which the U.S. benefited which has war
intentions with Iran.
A serious force dropped in the arena of the American policy which
countered the efforts of Israel and, perhaps, the British policy is
the only force able to counteract the political attacks of Israel. In
this sense, Iran lost and no one can deny this.
At the same time, other events and processes happened which are still
not clear. Great Britain is catastrophically losing political and
economic positions in Europe and in the world. The open anti-European
position of London reached its peak. The British were forced to enter
the military alliance with France and much more else. Moreover, it all
reaches the separation of Scotland. In such a situation, it is
unlikely that the UK has the desire to limit the aggressive ambitions
of certain circles in the U.S. and Israel.
It would be good if London was just indifferent, but it is hardly
possible. The operative-investigative possibilities of the UK in Iran
do not yield to the U.S. and Israeli opportunities. It was wrong of
Iranians to ruin relations, especially cut ties with Great Britain,
which was a bad style of bad policy.
The question occurs whether it is worth expecting that the role of the
`general mediator' will be assumed by France which strives for a new
role in the world and regional policies. Anyway, Russia should not
expect this role. Americans, as well as Iranians, do not trust Russia.
It was necessary to supply S-300 to Iran in time, instead of offending
it by the refusal and sale of these weapons to Azerbaijan.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/comments24801.html
Published: 13:16:52 - 13/01/2012
A closer look into the situation in the Persian Gulf would reveal that
it is quite hard indeed but talking on the approximation of the
disaster would be significantly exaggerated. The U.S. and Iran, that
is two major parties of the confrontation, are well aware of the
limits of the crisis that cannot be passed, and it is the most
important thing to understand, talking about the likelihood of
hostilities.
It is completely clear that the U.S. is not interested in war, and
even those political scientists in the U.S. who urge to toughen the
policies regarding Iran, also understand that the war is impossible
and unnecessary. If the U.S. had intentions to launch military
actions, it would not have worked out and realized the economic
blockade of Iran, it would not try to make the economic leaders of the
world to apply sanctions against Iran.
The U.S. understood that the current nature and content of the
sanctions is quite effective and it can force Iran to make
concessions. The U.S. and its partners are concerned about the
possibility of blocking the Strait of Hormuz by Iran and drilling in
the Persian Gulf, and certainly, they will not allow this through the
demonstration of strength in the region. However, Israel and its
friends in the world will try to convince Americans to use force
against Iran, more precisely to destroy the facilities of the nuclear
program.
Now the entire political and propaganda potential of Israel and the
pro-Israeli structures everywhere possible are involved in the
solution of this issue. It is possible to understand Israel, as it
would like absolute security guarantees but Israel's security in this
case means a global catastrophe.
In this connection, it is interesting to follow Russia's behavior, and
it would be good to understand the answer to the question. `Do
Russians want a war?' However, in order to answer this question, it is
necessary to find out first who the Russians are, including
identification of the origin of the acting Russian president D.
Medvedev. In addition, this is not a matter of folklore.
At the same time, the impression is created that in a certain phase.
Iran, anyway, committed a big internal political mistake, and it is
worth explaining this point which could help deal with the situation
in the South Caucasus. About 10 years ago, Britain and Iran restored
diplomatic relations, and attempts were made to make these relations a
priority. Britain saw its role as a `general' mediator between Iran
and the Western community, able to bring the situation to a positive
outcome.
At the beginning of the 2000s, Great Britain had no hope to increase
its influence in Turkey, Arab states, South Asia and its relations
with Iran would facilitate British business to control considerable
flows of finance and raw materials. Tehran also understood the meaning
of partnership with Great Britain for curbing pressure by the U.S. and
provocations by Israel and its friends in the U.S. It is worth saying
that the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Great Britain Robin Cook and
Jack Straw consistently pursued a policy of `advocacy' of Iran within
the framework of `global discussion'. London influenced very aptly the
U.S. position in the direction of Iran during the Clinton and Bush
administrations, in particular the British played a great role during
the critical moment of autumn 2001 - spring 2003 when the U.S. looked
at various options for rocket and bomb attacks on Iran's nuclear
program targets.
Apparently, however, great mistakes have been committed in the Iranian
administration, or certain inadequate behavior motives and all the
efforts of two countries went wrong. A full collapse happened in the
Iranian-British relations, from which the U.S. benefited which has war
intentions with Iran.
A serious force dropped in the arena of the American policy which
countered the efforts of Israel and, perhaps, the British policy is
the only force able to counteract the political attacks of Israel. In
this sense, Iran lost and no one can deny this.
At the same time, other events and processes happened which are still
not clear. Great Britain is catastrophically losing political and
economic positions in Europe and in the world. The open anti-European
position of London reached its peak. The British were forced to enter
the military alliance with France and much more else. Moreover, it all
reaches the separation of Scotland. In such a situation, it is
unlikely that the UK has the desire to limit the aggressive ambitions
of certain circles in the U.S. and Israel.
It would be good if London was just indifferent, but it is hardly
possible. The operative-investigative possibilities of the UK in Iran
do not yield to the U.S. and Israeli opportunities. It was wrong of
Iranians to ruin relations, especially cut ties with Great Britain,
which was a bad style of bad policy.
The question occurs whether it is worth expecting that the role of the
`general mediator' will be assumed by France which strives for a new
role in the world and regional policies. Anyway, Russia should not
expect this role. Americans, as well as Iranians, do not trust Russia.
It was necessary to supply S-300 to Iran in time, instead of offending
it by the refusal and sale of these weapons to Azerbaijan.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress