Er árás á Íran á döfinni?

Nú fer að halla enn frekar undan fæti hjá Írönum. Burtséð frá því, hvort sjóliðarnir hafi farið nokkra metra inn fyrir íranska lögsögu eða ekki, þá eru þessi viðbrögð greinilega gerð til að ögra Bretum og Bandaríkjamönnum. Það var greinilega enginn ásetningur hjá Bretunum og því engin ástæða til að halda þeim eins og stórfelldum glæpamönnum.

Nýlega villtust svissneskir hermenn inn í Liechtenstein og leiddi það ekki til neinna vandræða.

En Íranir ætla greinilega að storka Vesturveldinum eins og þeir geta. Það veit ekki á gott.

Þeir gætu jafnvel verið að missa helstu bandamenn sína, Sýrlendinga, í hendur Saudi-Araba, foringja súnní-þjóða íslams. Í Sýrlandi ræður klíka, sem í raun tilheyrir hvorki súnní né sjía, heldur ákveðnum "sértrúarsöfnuði" Assad-klíkan hefur frá því gamli Assad komst til valda hallast að Íran, frekar en súnní-löndunum, og var eitt fárra íslamskra ríkja, sem studdi Íran í stríðinu gegn Írak. En bandalag sjía og Sýrlendinga (sem hefur Hizballah innanborðs) virðist standa veikt skv. nýlegum fréttum um að Sýrlendingar séu að leita málamiðlana, bæði við USA og Saudi.

 

En jæja, ýmsar fréttir í arabaheiminum greina frá því, að fjölmargir búist við árás USA á Íran mjög fljótlega, eins og sjá má hjá Memri.  Þar segir m.a.:

The following are examples of discussion of the subject in the Arab press: 
 
 
Bahraini Daily Al-Watan: Evidence That War is At the Gates
 
In an article headlined "Al-Watan Monitors the Signs of War at the Gates in the Gulf," the Bahraini daily wrote: "The occupancy rate in some Bahrain hotels has reached 90%, and in the near future it is expected that the rate will increase further due to the increase in U.S. military activity in the country... This is in light of the hardening of the international position towards Iran's nuclear dossier, and the increase of information on the possibility of a military attack against Iran.
 
"Al-Watan has learned that American military circles have advised some investors with U.S. citizenship in Bahrain to finish up their business dealings quickly and take their money out of the region because of the security tension, hinting at 'a war against Iran.' At the same time, the number of [military] correspondents and American correspondents coming to Bahrain and to the Gulf region is increasing. This is in the framework of the policy of U.S. President George Bush, according to which the American media has to know the truth regarding the security situation in the region [in general] and in Iraq in particular...
 
"Anyone who has been monitoring U.S. policy since the beginning of the year has noticed a state of alert and military mobilization of the American forces, particularly after Washington announced that Tehran is involved in the violent activities in Baghdad. Likewise, the commander of the U.S. Fifth Fleet, which is stationed in Manama, said that his country was planning to concentrate the largest naval force since Kuwait's 1990-91 war of liberation, and announced that three U.S. aircraft carriers and several submarines, whose number has not been revealed to date, have entered the Gulf waters.
 
"Also, U.S. military sources have said that in the near future, Patriot missile launchers will be placed in Bahrain, after three [other] Gulf countries have placed them on their soil, taking into account [the possibility of] an unexpected military incident in the near future...
 
 "On the local level, [Bahraini] General Khaled Al-'Absi, secretary-general of the general administration of civil defense, revealed that the warning siren system had been upgraded, as have the systems for detection of chemical, biological, and radioactive materials." (1)
   
 
Egyptian Daily in Special Supplement: "War Expected"
 
In its "Firing Line" section, the Egyptian opposition daily Al-Masri Al-Yawm published a series titled "The Next Gulf War - A Crushing American Blow and a Thundering Iranian Response." The preface to the first article in the series reads: "The Firing Line [section] is the appropriate place to deal with the [Iranian] issue by means of monitoring and analysis. Since the [existing] crisis is a warning of expected war, or of [a war] that will necessarily come, there was a need for [an investigation] into the [Iran] issue, to be published in several parts..."
 
The first part in the series was dedicated to a review of "steps taken by the U.S. administration in preparation for an attack against Iran." The beginning of the article stated: "Before presenting the expected scenario of the American strike, and before we go into its details, logical order requires first a quick review of the nature of the preparations towards readying the arena for the operations..."
 
This part contains a review of U.S. military preparations in the Gulf, such as "the deployment of a new generation of Patriot missiles beyond the borders of the U.S., for the first time since their manufacture, and their placement in the [U.S.] bases in the Gulf region and in Iraq; the aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis joining the aircraft carrier USS Dwight [D.] Eisenhower in the waters of the Gulf," alongside decisions such as "increasing the number of U.S. troops in Iraq" and "changes in the senior U.S. command, including Bush's personally choosing the admiral of the U.S. Navy."
 
This article also noted political activities by the U.S. administration, including "the U.S.'s [desperate] effort to reinforce security in Iraq"; "the [U.S.'s] surprising show of interest in the Palestinian issue"; "the green light given to the Ethiopian government to attack the Union of Islamic Courts"; "the attack being conducted against the Pakistani government"; "the recent agreement with North Korea"; "the activation of a propaganda machine in order to prime public opinion against Iran, alongside the resolutions condemning [Iran] in the U.N. Security Council and the ongoing escalation of these resolutions"; "the deepening of the disputes between Sunnis and Shi'ites, in order to isolate Iran"; and "the increase in the economic sanctions against Iran."(2)
    
 
Editor of Syrian Government Paper: It's Iran's Turn
 
The editor of the Syrian government daily Teshreen, 'Issam Al-Dari, wrote in a February 28, 2007 article: "Yesterday it was Afghanistan's turn. Today it's Iraq's turn, and tomorrow it will be Iran's turn, if the American reports and data are correct. Thus, the American terrorist mentality leads the world from one destructive war to even more destructive aggression...
 
"For a long time, information leaked from Washington has pointed to the plans that the White House, U.S. State Department, and the Pentagon have finished preparing, all of which, nearly without exception, deal with military strikes against Iran. [Only] the versions are different: One speaks of attacking the nuclear facilities, a second of a broader attack that will include sites [belonging to] the military and the leadership, while a third speaks of a U.S. military operation that extends to the replacement of the Iranian regime...
 
"In short, it appears that the atmosphere today is to some extent like that which preceded the American-British aggression against Iraq, and that the target this time is Iran."(3)
    
 
Kuwaiti Columnist: U.S.-Iran War Certain
 
In an article headlined "The Certainty of the U.S.-Iran War" in the London daily Al-Hayat, Kuwaiti columnist Muhammad Al-Rumihi wrote: "It appears that the West, for reasons known to only a few, is determined to enter into the 'mother of all wars' - that is, the war against Iran. This is for several reasons, among them:
 
"1) Iran's obtaining nuclear weapons within a relatively short time will give it control in a region that is economically vital to the West - [a situation] that Western interests cannot accept. Likewise, this situation [i.e. Iran's nuclear armament] launches a nuclear [arms] race in the region, which threatens regional and even world peace.
 
"2) Iran's expansion in the Arab region, particularly in Lebanon and Palestine, and also the propagation of an atmosphere of unquiet in countries with Shi'ite minorities, are tempting Iran to disseminate its agenda - i.e. opposition to Western interests - towards new horizons, even by unconventional means. What is happening in Iraq is only an example, that might recur when Iran's growing influence spreads [even further]...
 
"Ideas of this kind find broad echoes among analysts in the West, and it is conceivable that they will serve as a justification for an Iranian-Western (and primarily an Iranian-American) clash aimed at stopping Iran's appetite for spreading spiritually, ideologically, and economically through the region, and at saving what can be saved in Afghanistan and Iraq...
 
"Some Iranians are not interested in [understanding] the preparation [of U.S. public opinion for war] and the planning against the actual or imaginary Iranian project... They rush to throw down a challenge, or to demand or hasten conflict - which suits [the intentions] of these Western hawks by giving them new opportunities to rake in greater international support against Iran. In fact, this is what is happening with the worsening of the tone of the international resolutions against Iran at the Security Council and the relevant international agencies..."(4)
    
 
Four Reasons Why the U.S. Won't Strike Iran
 
In an article titled "There Won't Be a Military Attack On Iran" in the London daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, Abd Al-Mun'im Sa'id, director of the Al-Ahram Center for Strategic Studies in Cairo, rejected the possibility of a strike against Iran, and gave four reasons for doing so: 
 
"I disagree with those who are saying that the U.S. will deal a military blow to Iran's nuclear facilities so as to eliminate its nuclear capabilities and to prevent it from reaching the stage of nuclear armament.
 
"[Those who are saying] that the U.S. will do this in the near future [point out] historical reasons connected to the U.S, strategic reasons unique to the Middle East, and tactical reasons concerning [the U.S.'s] situation in Iraq. Nevertheless, logical considerations [lead us to conclude] that the U.S.[will not attack Iran] - not because of lack of motives or paucity of targets, but because it does not have sufficient capability to carry out the mission.
 
"1) A country like the U.S. cannot execute a large-scale operation with military involvement without great popular support - and there is no such support, not in the two houses of Congress nor in U.S. public opinion, a very low percentage of which supports the current U.S. administration. 
 
"2) All military experts in the U.S. know that the idea of a 'surgical' air strike has no grounding in the reality of military operations, and happens only in the imagination of neophyte experts. The air forces cannot win a battle of this scale when ultimately they do not have sufficient support from ground forces. Furthermore, there is a great risk in an air strike, [in that it] would cause Iran to speed up its nuclear weapons production, and then the outcome will be the polar opposite of what the U.S. wants.
 
"3) Iran has many cards [to play when] responding to a U.S. strike. While it is not a country with great strategic depth, it has the capability to deploy its military and revolutionary branches to the oil wells throughout the Gulf. Likewise, it has the capability to cause the U.S. great losses in Iraq, if Iran's allies among the Shiites turn their backs on their American friends.
 
"4) A strike against Iran would certainly not serve the goal [of stability in Iraq and in the Middle East that would make possible a respectable U.S. withdrawal]; it will deepen the U.S.'s battle in Iraq and in the region for years to come."(5)
  
 
Endnotes:  
(1) Al-Watan (Bahrain), March 1, 2007.
(2) Al-Masri Al-Yawm (Egypt), March 9, 2007.
(3) Teshreen (Syria), February 28, 2007.
(4) Al-Hayat (London), February 28, 2007.
(5) Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), January 31, 2007. 
 

Bretar falast eftir stuðningi öryggisráðsins í deilunni við Írani