Despite repetitively claiming that diplomacy is the first course for dealing with Iran's nuclear program, Washington never ruled out using the military option against the Islamic republic to force it halt its nuclear activities.
And recently, Seymour Hersh, an investigative writer with high-level Pentagon and intelligence contacts, aroused concerns that the Bush administration is drawing up plans to use nuclear weapons against Tehran to knock down its nuclear program.
U.S., backed by the European Union and Israel, claims that Iran is secretly preparing to produce a nuclear bomb, charges that had been repeatedly denied by Tehran, which asserts that its nuclear activities solely focus on peaceful purposes.
In contrast to the run-up to the Iraq war, there are no disagreements within western intelligence about Iran’s nuclear activities, although the UN atomic watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, never found evidence to prove claims that Iran’s nuclear program is used as a guise to produce nuclear weapons.
An editorial on Pravda, a former newspaper of the Soviet Union's Communist Party, suggests that Washington could 'stage another 9/11-like event' to justify the continued presence of its military bases in Iraq, challenging calls from the U.S. public to pull out troops from Iraq, and shift the angry Americans’ attention from the country’s economic crisis.
The editorial also speculates that the United States is finalizing plans to launch a military strike against Iran this year, saying that Washington had always sought to control the Middle East region as well as its oil wealth.
The only two countries that stood as an obstacle in Washington’s way of implementing this agenda were Iraq and Iran.
With Iraq, now devastated by war and ethnic tensions, Washington can guarantee it will remain impotent for the next decade. Iran now is the only obstacle in the way of this master plan.
Given the major decline in the Bush administration’s approval rating, and the pressure the American President is facing from his public, what could be more opportune for Bush than to stage another 9/11-like event, which will be followed by a “retaliation war”, this time against Iran? The editorial adds, however, it argues that another 9/11 attacks might not be necessary for Washington to justify another war in the region this time again Iran.
While their support for Iraq war is majorly dropping, more than half of Americans support launching war against Iran, according to recently conducted surveys.
But Americans are rejecting the situation and the Bush policies in Iraq, they don’t reject the war itself- the declining support for Iraq war is not a rejection of war itself, but a rejection of losing wars.
While the editorial argues that staging a 9/11 like attacks could be useful for the Bush administration to further its totalitarian ambitions, it suggests that staging such attacks, though it may occur anyway, is not necessary.
Attacking Iran will definitely help shift the attention of the world and the angry American public away from the U.S. government’s failures in Iraq, it will also divert the attention from the country’s fragile economy.
In case the U.S. attacks Iran, according to analysts, this would provoke the Islamic Republic to retaliate by aiding the Shias armed groups in Iraq.
It would also threaten the oil shipments passing through the Persian Gulf [Strait of Hormuz]. It will also result in soaring oil prices.
But Pravda’s editorial emphasizes that fearing a surge in oil prices and endangering lives of its soldiers in Iraq wouldn’t stop the U.S. from launching a war against Iran, given America’s deeply rooted ambitions to control the Middle East oil, regardless of the cost.
Recalling Pearl Harbor during World War II, the article says the U.S. knew that Japan was planning for an attack, however it let it happen, it even cleared flight path for the Japanese attackers. So why would endangering the lives of a few thousands of American soldier stationed in Iraq be much of a concern to the U.S.?
With its army stretched thin in Iraq, the U.S. can only attack Iran by air, however such attack wouldn’t be effective if limited to "military" targets, but it would be a good initial step for U.S. which hopes to turn it to a larger war.
The only way for the U.S. to defeat Iran is dropping a couple of nuclear bombs on its civilian population- this is the only thing that would force the Islamic Republic to surrender to save the lives of its people.
Bush's admin would use the worldwide growing economic problems due to the shortage of oil as a justification that Iran must be stopped, no matter what cost.
To calm the world’s outcry that would be sparked if it used nuclear bombs against Iran, just as it did in Japan 60 years ago, the U.S. would use the same justification, that this was needed to put an end to the war.
Publicly, President Bush and members of his administration claim that they’re committed to diplomacy to solve the current standoff over Iran’s nuclear program, bwith Russia intending to veto any decision threatening Iran, the Bush administration might be seriously considering unilateral military action.