"North Caucasus"
The key of the U.S. decision on war with Iran is in Israel – expert

BAKU, January 16 - Novosti-Azerbaijan, Roman Temnikov. The key of making decision by the U.S. to initiate war with Iran is in Israel, said in an exclusive interview with Agency of international information "Novosti-Azerbaijan" well-known Russian political analyst Nikolay Dimlevich in continuing discussions with the Azeri political scientist Rauf Radjabov, developed on the site

- How is the opinion voiced by Radjabov that "to stop Iran's nuclear program without full-scale ground operation is impossible" correct? What do you think?

- Opinion of respected by me Rauf Radjabov that "to stop Iran's nuclear program without full-scale ground operation is impossible," has a right to exist as a working version.
Nor, as my own. And here's why.

In my opinion, one of the strategic directions set forth in the new U.S. military strategy is the crucial transition from quantitative indicators in the waging by the U.S. Armed Forces (AF), military conflicts into the qualitative component.

And Afghanistan, however cynically it may sound, is a "testing ground" (where we know there were mistakes of the Pentagon with innocent human life, including in Pakistan) to implement new approaches in the context of U.S. national interests in the world in the form of warfare in the XXI-st century.

And here a complex of tasks is solved, the military-political as well as the economic ones. In particular, in the XXI-st century, in the opinion of Americans, mostly technique, rather than citizens will fight and suffer casualties (at that, the participation of American troops is reducing several times over).

Moreover, all the latest developments of the American military-industrial complex are currently being "tested in battle conditions," and this is the best advertisement for the American market in order to extract excessive profits of financial and industrial capital in the future.

However cynically it sounds, but of any business must be profitable for Americans, the basic and simple slogan of capitalism must act always and everywhere! Based on this, I stand by my opinion: the ground operation is not assumed. In addition to conducting special operations, it will be made by the opposition in the country, the "fifth column", which, however Iran and its allies do not like it, as well as in any other country, including in Russia.

But we can not ignore the statements of top military officials of the U.S., I'm not talking longer about candidates for U.S. president from the Republicans, who are ready to fight with Iran even tomorrow. In particular, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the U.S. Armed Forces Martin Dempsey, who recently declared that "if the Iranians decide to block the Strait, the U.S. will be ready to crush them."

As the general assured, the United States can destroy all of Iran's nuclear program, which became a stumbling block in relations between Tehran and Western countries. "The American military strike can wipe out Iran's nuclear program – he said he an interview with TV CBS. - I want the Islamic Republic's leadership understands that. "

Meanwhile, the U.S. and Europe are developing an emergency plan in case of Iran’s blocking the Strait of Hormuz, through which up to 40% of world oil supplies are made by sea. In the event of termination of oil supplies in the Strait of Hormuz and the retention of tension in the region for some time, the International Energy Agency is planning to release strategic reserves of 14 million barrels a day.

- What is your opinion about a possible nuclear war against Iran?

- No one, neither the U.S. nor any other country is not going to unleash a full-scale global nuclear war against Iran, all it’s left in the past, in the XX-th century. Nuclear warfare involves the use of these weapons, at least by one of the parties – either by the U.S. or by Iran. Tehran does not yet have them, and Washington will not unleash a war (especially nuclear) without the consent of Tel Aviv.

The fact that the use of nuclear weapons by Washington against Tehran is impractical for geopolitical and economic interests of both the U.S. and Israel. The U.S. and their main ally Israel at that solve the whole complex of their problems in the case of a regional conflict with Iran, in which, without doubt, military forces of some Arab countries (think about Libya) led by Saudi Arabia will be involved.

It is clear that both Washington and Tel Aviv have a few scenarios of not only drawing air strikes against targets of MIC of Iran, but also destruction or irreparable damage to the entire management system of the country.

The U.S. and Israel have different options of further developments in Iran after the outbreak of hostilities in the region.

- Which countries can support the U.S. and Israel in the event of military action against Iran?

- It must be borne in mind the active meetings all over the world of White House and the U.S. State Department officials. As a consequence, recently Japan, which has agreed to reduce the import of Iranian oil, announced about its support and approved the sanctions imposed by the U.S. against Tehran.

This was announced by Finance Minister of Japan Jun Azumi after the meeting with his U.S. counterpart Timothy Geithner, and the president of the country's largest corporation JX Nippon Oil Yasushi Kimura announced on Thursday that they are negotiating with Saudi Arabia about the alternative oil supplies.
For information, there is about 10% of all oil imports into Japan on Iran's share.

China, taking advantage of the situation, started bargaining with Iran, of course, to its own advantage. Of course, I agree with the reviewer that the main consumers of Iranian oil, China and India, will not agree with the oil embargo of Tehran to their detriment.

However, the U.S. administration has already entered one Chinese and one Singaporean companies in a "black list", so that the economic reprisals from Washington are not an empty phrase.

The EU seems to be in solidarity with the United States, but with some delay of the imposition of sanctions, which also may affect the internal economic and political situation in Iran. If Turkey's position remains neutral, I remind that Istanbul has never been an ally of Tehran, but in Georgia, a range of mini-hospital to 25 beds each is deployed with the active financing from the U.S. Ports and rebuilt airports are ready to receive U.S. military equipment not for the parade. Yes, the recent visit of the senior U.S. military in Baku suggests that he was talking with leaders of Azerbaijan not only for the prolongation of the Gabala radar station in Russia's interests.

Only Syria and the part of Shiite Iraq are true friends of Iran.

So, concerning Syria. I announce the recent statement of the Emir of Qatar Hamad bin Khalifa, who urged Arab countries to send troops to Syria (there is a conflict between Sunni Arabs and Shiites).According to Qatari Emir, it is necessary to stop the confrontation between the government of Bashar al-Assad and the opposition by force. So Syria is not only a link in the chain of the "next color revolution," but also a preparatory step for the U.S. mission in Iran.

- Will the missile and bomb strikes on Iran lead only to the delay in creation in this country of nuclear weapons for a year or two?

- This assumption of Radjabov and Israeli military experts is only possible if the United States, in coordination with Israel will not take other action after air operations.

A number of experts and analysts say, and in some sense they are right, that Americans like to repeat: it was in the XX-th century, but it is not the fact that it will continue in the XXI-st century. And facts suggest just it.

I’ll take this to remind to my esteemed counterpart: how a series of colored revolutions in the Maghreb countries was prepared and carried out in 2011, (although the process in some countries is not yet complete, it refers to Egypt and Lebanon), and how they prepared for holding them in Syria, and after the military action in Iran.

Yes, they are all similar only on formal grounds. In substance, they ("revolutions?!") have different and significant distinctions.

For example, if in Libya, except for the “official” European members (France, Britain, Italy and the U.S.), there were some Arab countries, as well as fighters from the "Al-Qaeda" and bands of mercenaries, in Syria, along with mercenaries the demands of the Emir of Qatar for the Arab States of the military intervention are heard already, and while the Europeans distance themselves from their direct participation ostensibly formally.

Iran is a different scenario. I recall that one of its preparatory stages have been during the presidential election in form of protests in Tehran of young people, organized (with some involvement of the West) with the use of IT-technologies. Iranian authorities have suppressed the protests, but it was shown for the the world (on the Internet and the western TV), that the Iranian society is not so monolithic.

"The most vulnerable targets are Iran's communication (communication centers, TV and radio stations, passes, tunnels, ports, railway parts and so on) and livelihoods (power plants, water facilities, food stores, medical facilities etc.). Their destruction or damage will inevitably lead to social tensions, "- said political analyst Maroof Chubarov, one of the leading experts from Russia, who in the past has a great experience of operational and strategic operational planning for use of mobile forces in theaters of operations, including the Middle East and Central Asia.

- How vulnerable is Israel in the face of an Iranian nuclear threat?

- What I agree with Radjabov, it concerns his analysis of the role and participation of Israel in the coming conflict. And here the question is not only in the vulnerability of Israel's defense, here the question is about guarantees (or lack of them) from Washington to Tel Aviv on Tehran's retaliatory actions. That’s why this problem is concerned by the military of both countries.

So, Leon Panetta said that one must act with great caution, he warned Israel against attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, saying that such a decision could cause a response of Tehran against U.S. forces in the region.

"Here we have with Israel common interests, and the best way for us will be mutual cooperation", - considers the head of U.S. military.

This mutual cooperation is the grim necessity, as the Iranian Armed Forces are enough combat-ready for a retaliatory missile attacks across Israel. It is understood by all parties of a potential conflict, and that it is still in the stage of waiting only shows that while the U.S. military and political leadership (and Barack Obama needs very much this next, but with a 100% guarantee victorious war, as it gives the second term in office) is ready, the "king suite", the most powerful in the United States Jewish political, financial and economic lobby, together with the political leadership of Israel, is not.

At present, it can be stated that the key of the U.S. decision on war with Iran is in Israel.

Новости Азербайджан

Add the comment:

Copyright © 2010 Nikolay DIMLEVICH, Expert of the Strategic Culture Foundation, Moscow.