Is the Military Option Still on the Table
By: Javad Mohammadi
The military option is on the table. It is almost 30 years that this sentence has been circulating among American authorities against Iran. This is a slogan that Iranian public and US-Iran relations experts have most heard of. But since 2005 when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took office and more strongly insisted on independence of Iran's foreign policy and its inalienable right to use peaceful nuclear technology, these kinds of rhetoric and military threats against Iran have gained more strength.
Over the recent years, US has repeatedly tried to pave the way for military action against Iran under the pretext of alleged Tehran negative effect on the Middle East peace process, alleged IRI deviation from peaceful nuclear activities as well as Tehran support for terrorism and violation of human rights. For this purpose, every time, one of these four accusations are highlighted by the US officials.
Recently, in line with the political propaganda against Islamic republic of Iran, US by direct and indirect intervention in IAEA’s report, has blemished the reputation of this international body.
Regarding 2004 accusations raised against Iran’s peaceful nuclear program, the case was announce terminated after Iran's response to the questions. However, under US pressure, the same old allegations were brought forward again later.
Furthermore, the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Iran, Ahmad Shaheed, under the US pressure in his first report concerning human rights in Iran, has cited some delusive and unfounded accusations such as confiscating the bail of political prisoners! It shows well that the US is too empty-handed in this regard.
Why at this juncture, America unusually and tactlessly is threatening Iran and even included economic sanctions on Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which is almost unprecedented even in international conflicts? The fact is that, after 33-year continuous hatching of conspiracies against Islamic Republic of Iran and all-out support for opposition to the Islamic system particularly during 2009 post-presidential elections turmoil, US administration has come to nothing.
As a result, at present the US officials feel desperate and confused in adopting an effective approach towards Iran. This confusion in the US current Iran-related foreign policy is so evident that it is hard to say if US has a definite strategy or it is acting quite passively contributing IRI.
The ridiculously prefabricated scenario of the assassination of Saudi Arabia ambassador to the US, manipulated report by Yukia Amano Director General of IAEA and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's recent statements about negotiation with Iran and establishment of virtual embassy for Iranians, all bear testimony to the above-mentioned claims.
Historical experience and warmongering background of America demonstrates that Washington, whenever couldn’t achieve its objectives through carrot and stick approach, has resorted to military action and deployed forces to target countries. But when it comes to Iran, this administration is just threatening!?
The cause is that, the US decision-makers are fully aware that although they are physically capable of military assault against Iran, but the consequences of such attack is destructive to US interests in the Middle East and even it can uproot US hegemony in the region and result in crumpling of Zionist regime. Besides, in the course of time, considering Iran's growing power on one hand and instead the US declining might on the other, it is very unlikely that Iran is exposed to a military strike and the military option is nothing but rhetoric and demagogy.
Therefore US president should keep the military option in the drawer or remove the option from the table so that let the dust to settle!!!