Editor's Note
Editor's Note
War, a Challenge for the White House, not an Option
The United States' tiresome and repetitive projects in dealing with Iran and Iran's regional influence have all failed with no exception. Today's world's evalnation about America's passive policies against Iran's willpower, courage and intelligence as merely desperate and confused. Many American theorists believe that Trump, the American President, is stuck in a dead-end way of his own making and is short of an initiative to cope with the policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran and is unable to control the Islamic Republic of Iran's approaches in foreign policy. Despite all the financial, military and political capacities, the United States of America is at a loss to impede the advancement of the Islamic Republic of Iran's regional policies. Pentagon, the system of American diplomacy and Department of Treasury are all constantly and increasingly plotting to occupy Iran with internal equations in order to hinder Tehran to play a role in the region and the neighboring countries; however, all their efforts have been in vain and can't stop Iran to launch its support projects in Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and Yemen. From the point of view of the White House critics, Iran is openly following its anti-American policies, but the controversial American President's high-handed methods are not effective enough to deter Iran. Even with the most radical cabinet, the most extensive threats and the most serious sanctions (maximum pressure), the White House hasn't been able to find effective punitive policies against Iran. It is now perfectly obvious that the American authorities are neither able to control and manage Iran, nor have the potential to punish this country. Bill Kristol, the American political analyst and columnist in The New York Times newspaper explains the White House's desperation in dealing with Iran in an article and warns the American authorities not to engage in a military conflict with Iran: "America's failure in showing proper reaction to Iran's policies enhances the image of a weak Washington; on the other hand, reacting to Iran's policies can only trigger a war with devastating consequences for America. Lack of reaction can be interpreted as weakness and a military attack can go out of control and get America into a disastrous trouble." He then adds that, "This is a dilemma brought about by Trump's own actions. However, this is not Trump's only problem and another complication is that by withdrawing from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (which was an achievement of years of effort and active diplomacy of the important countries of the world) in order to humiliate Iranian people, he put himself on a slippery slope to alienation. Trump's radical policies against Iran have more than anything isolate America."
American politicians and theorists are increasingly coming to this belief that America's foreign policy during Trump's presidency has retrograded and declined from better to worse leading to this country's isolation. USA Today newspaper has criticized Trump's foreign policy and claimed that according to a survey, 54 percent of Americans believe that Trump's policies have damaged America's global prestige. Trump's wrong strategies and approaches in dealing with Iran have upset the American society and made them terrified of another war. As it is, American people and media aren't less worried about an unwanted war with Iran than Iranian people. Though American people are thousands of miles away from the conflict zone, this war can turn into a horrible nightmare for them. American media and public opinion seriously try to dissuade military commanders and political officials from pursuing such a conflict. The military men who have a more realistic view of the equations are not interested in war with Tehran. The repetition of the following statements in American media shows the depth of anxiety in the American society about US-Iran war:
_War with Iran is leads to catastrophe.
_Washington shouldn't act as Saudi Arabia's mercenary and wage war against Iran on behalf of Riyadh.
_What is more dangerous than looking weak is going to war with Iran.
_The Saudis intend to have American military men killed in a war with Iran.
_Saudi Arabia wants to fight with Iran till the American last drop of blood.
The critics point out the radical movements' constant support and encouragement to persuade Trump to go to war with Iran and warn that any action leading to war with Iran is much more dangerous than the United States looking weak. They prefer to look weak and easily damaged than to start a war with Iran because such an error of judgment will lead to Iran attacking the Zionist Regime, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirate, Bahrain and even American troops based in Iraq or Afghanistan.
The American people, elite groups and theorists' presuppositions about the dangers of war with Iran can be clearly felt by reading between the lines of their statements in the media:
Exact assessment of the Islamic Republic of Iran's defensive and military capacities in comparison with other countries of the region; in their view, Iran has the technique and technology of targeting American troops based in Iraq, Afghanistan or any other region in the free waters to the radius of 2000 km, and is able to defend its sources. Iranian shoot-down of the American drone, detaining the British oil-tanker, and Iran's resilience in protecting its allies in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen have both demonstrated Iranian nation, government and leadership's willpower to realize national and revolutionary ideals and Iran's military doctrine. According to political analysts in America, the same defensive and military doctrine has brought about Iran's victory in all regional equations. The United States and its allies always stand at the losing side of these equations.
American public opinion holds that if a direct conflict were to develop between Iran and America, the United States would definitely get defeated even if Iran wouldn't win the war. Because victory or defeat in any kind of war highly depends on the goals. Sometimes, one of the sides is severely damaged both physically and spiritually but has achieved its goals and wouldn't be regarded as defeated in war. Iraq and Syria are good examples in this regard; they both paid great cost in their war against the ISIS but emerged victorious in the end. Likewise, the country that has waged a war and seriously damaged the opponent may in the end be regarded as defeated because of its failure in achieving the goals. For instance, Saudi Arabia which is the most powerful Arabic country, the world's top oil exporter and an ally to the US and United Kingdom waged a war against Ansar Allah to oust them from Sana'a and eliminate Iran's spiritual influence in Yemen. Riyadh openly invaded Yemen, used the most advanced American and European weapons to suppress the Yemenis who supported Ansar Allah and repeatedly claimed victory in this two-week war; however, it is now considered a loser in this asymmetric warfare and is desperately looking for an escape route to get out of this war without losing face.
In a military conflict between Iran and US, Iran may lose many of the buildings, bridges and hospitals due to damages, but Iranian people's willpower to defend the interests and independence of their motherland would be intact. Both the eight-year old war with Iraq and America's defeat in transforming Syria's regime (an ally to Iran) proved this claim. Needless to say, if a military conflict were to develop, America's critical interests would be endangered, too and many of the American military men and technicians working on American battle ships would drown to the depths of waters. In this war, the aircraft carriers would be the best military targets; the strategic security of Washington's allies in West Asia would be destroyed as well.
American people presuppose that the United States of America would be the losing part in a probable military conflict with Iran and therefore regard taking such a huge risk utter insanity and believe that the perilous situation of fighting with Iran is far more dangerous than the United States looking weak in front of Iran.
The public opinion in the US holds that this Iran-US conflict is more influenced by Saudi Arabia and Zionist regime officials' provocations who can't deal with the fact that they were defeated by Iran in regional equations than Iran's breaching of the world's laws and values or Iran's being a threat to America's strategic interests; Saudi Arabia and the Zionist regime are unable to deal with the aftershocks of a war with Iran and want to somehow take their revenge on the Islamic Republic of Iran at the same time. The American elite groups believe that Washington shouldn't enter a war on behalf of Riyadh and act as the Saudi Arabia's mercenary. The American military officials also emphasize that under current circumstances, fighting with Iran is in contradiction with US military strategy and is more Saudi Arabia's desire than American military commanders and Pentagon officials. They sarcastically say that the Saudis intend to have American military men killed in a war with Iran and Saudi Arabia wants to fight with Iran till the American last drop of blood. These statements prove the fact that the option of a military conflict with Iran has no basis among (at least the majority) of American people and military men.
The European countries have also a similar interpretation of war with Iran and have therefore seriously announced their opposition to the radical ideas of the fundamentalist group in the White House. William Drozdiak, the foreign policy analyst in the center on the United States and Europe at The Brookings Institution said, "France, Germany and England are seriously against America's threats against Iran and the intention to wage a war." He added, "European officials have condemned the idea of changing Iran's regime. The disagreement between Trump and European leaders about the kind of interaction with Iran has now turned into an open struggle. Though the European leaders lack enough power to fulfill their commitments, they are wary of the results of war between the two countries. They are more worried about America's inability to realize its goals against Iran than about the human casualties of the war. Jon Alterman the director in Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington criticized the US approach towards Iran and said, "I think that the world is really worried about Iran issue and is trying to find ways to modify America's behavior."
The US goals in a probable war against Iran
The important questions raised here are that whether American officials follow a specific goal by imposing economic pressures on Iran or attacking this country, and whether the White House can realize these goals in any way. However, Trump and his team of radical thinkers must answer. American authorities and officials announce some goals in this regard, but are highly doubtful of achieving even a small part of them. These goals are critical to Iranians, too and can't possibly give them up. The most important goals that Iranian people, government and leadership would defend to the last breath are as follows:
Forcing the Islamic Republic of Iran to return to nuclear negotiating table; Brian Hook was against a nuclear deal without Iran stopping its nuclear program and asked other countries of the world to join the US in putting pressure on Iran and compel it to accept new agreements.
Putting an end to the Islamic Republic of Iran's missile program; American officials believe that Iran is the biggest ballistic missile power in the Middle East and therefore they need to put an end to this program of ballistic missiles which can carries nuclear warheads.
Eliminating the Islamic Republic of Iran's financial sources to prevent Iran from playing a role in regional equations; Brian Hook, Us special representative for Iran has repeatedly emphasized the fact that America's goal is to cut off Iranian oil imports till it gets to none and Iran would be left with no sources to pursue its adventures abroad.
Eliminating Iran's allies such as Hezbollah, Ansar Allah, Hashd al-Shaabi (Popular Mobilization Forces) and … that are the continuation of Iran's Basij Forces of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in surrounding countries; if the can achieve this goal, they can protect the security of the Zionist Regime better.
Realization of these goals means complete destruction of Iran's independence and revolutionary identity. These are the very non-negotiable issues for Iranian nation. Should the United States look for such an adventure, it would definitely bitterly regret it. The American decision-makers should be advised to listen to the voice of reason and ask themselves whether Iran –the country that have gone through many hardships during the last four years in order to increase its regional power and has weathered the storm of sanctions to prove its emerging power- would give in to the American irrational demands at such a time and under such circumstances or not. Previously, American governments used to emphasize the option of military attack to frighten the nations and suppress them just by the Damocles sword of a probable war and then enjoy the probable spoils of a hypothetical and probable war without having to pay the costs of a real war. The Pentagon was responsible for announcing a coming war and making the embarrassing defeat of the other party look serious and then providing the White House with all the advantages of foreign policy. Thus, the military option has always been the White House's effective weapon to advance the exterritorial goals of the United States of America. However, now the Iranian revolutionary people's willpower, resilience and resistance have blunted this sharp weapon and annulled this hypothesis that the US has always been the winner of every war.
Today, the military option is more costly for the US than Iran, and war is a big challenge America is facing. The American president lacks effective means to force Iran to give in to his demands while he is still in power. Imposing pressure and economic sanctions have proved to be obviously fruitless policies. The transformations of the past decades in Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq and Iran showed that the US, despite its huge military organization, has no option but obey the nations' willpower. If Trump takes the risk of using the military option against Iran despite all the internal and foreign disagreements, he will inevitably fall down to his knees in front of the Iranian revolutionary courageous people.
Visits: 790
