Thus, the Chief of General Staff of Russian Armed Forces, Army-General Nikolai Makarov, said that the US invasion of Iran will be closer to the summer. Other projections call spring the beginning of the operation. In a word, most experts have no doubt that military action will take place. They believe the war needs only a spark to become a reality. And a spark can blaze up at any time. Why does Washington so consistently risk the aggravation of relations with Tehran and work for war?
The US, as repeatedly stated, accuses Iran of developing nuclear weapons, saying that it represents a terrible threat to peace and urges the world community not to believe Tehran’s words about desire to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. But, incidentally, when the development of the real, not imaginary nuclear weapons was made by countries such as Israel, Pakistan and even India, the White House did not protest and did not offer them any threatening ultimatums, behaving as if the US was not concerned about what was going. But in the case of Iran, Washington is behaving quite differently, as if the very existence of the United States is under mortal threat. It turns out that what is permitted for ones is forbidden for others. What accounts for such an outright double standard on the part of Washington?
The fact that Washington has given the go-ahead to Israel and Pakistan for joining the “nuclear club” is clear. Both of these countries, and in the first place Israel, are allies of the US, which means that for Washington who took on the role of a global hegemon, a master of destinies of the whole planet, there is no reason to be opposed to their weapons. The neutral India did not worry it either. Iran is quite another matter – it has been long ago rated by the United States, together with North Korea and some other countries among the so-called rogue states. They are the rogue states because they hold a separate, independent policy and do not want to “make friends” with Washington.
In those times when the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi - the US’ ally - was in power in Iran, and American oil companies played the master in the country, Tehran was in good standing with the White House. Of course! An obedient ruler, an obedient country, what more could one ask for. But after the Islamic revolution in 1979 the attitude of the new Iranian leadership headed by the country’s spiritual leader Ayatollah Khomeini towards the West, primarily the US, has changed dramatically. Washington has lost an ally, a support base in a very important strategic region, lost control of Iran’s oil wealth.
Since then, this country has become for the United States the number one enemy. Attempts to destabilize the situation in Iran, to create a “fifth column” here, failed, and then Washington began to hold a course for a confrontation. At first, it was an exchange of verbal accusations, and then, when Iran began to develop peaceful nuclear energy, the USA hold a course for a military solution to the problem of the disliked regime elimination.
An unprecedented information war was unleashed, the situation around the so-called nuclear issue heated up every day, and today its acuteness has drawn to a head. Events trend towards war, and the American fleet has defiled in the waters near Iran. It is safe to say that a military scenario has been adjusted; in fact, it was tested before, in Iraq and Afghanistan.
For example, it will be remembered how the things were moving before the Anglo-American aggression in 2003 in Iraq. At one time the Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was completely loyal to the United States and suited Washington. He suited so that it was him that the United States supported in the Iran-Iraq war of the late 70s-early 80s. But then Saddam began to show independence, autonomy, and became, of course, disliked by the White House.
At first, there was an Operation Desert Storm in 1991, which, according to the United States, was to sober up Saddam and return his obedience. And when it did not happen, Washington began to talk about the threat to peace posed by Saddam, who was reportedly close to mastering nuclear weapons. Then a big propaganda campaign was made on the need to punish Saddam, and although the UN Security Council did not authorize military action, Washington and London carried out it, entering Iraq and occupying the country for a long time, and at the same time capturing Saddam, who was tried and executed. In Iraq, a regime, loyal to Washington, was set; American companies took over the Iraqi oil, in a word, it was a done deal. True, since the aggression was committed chaos has reigned in Iraq; in essence, there is a civil war on, but Washington does not care about it. In the same way as in Iraq, the change of regime was held before in Yugoslavia, where the West got rid of the disliked Slobodan Milosevic, who was committed for trial of the International Hague Tribunal, and soon died in prison.
Now Iran is at gunpoint of the USA. And here we can see the same “hand”, the same familiar pattern, a familiar sequence of actions. First a noisy campaign in the western media about Iran’s nuclear armament was launched; “bogeyman stories” frightening the world with unpredictable actions of the Iranian leaders were put to use, as well as fanning hysteria, supplying the idea of a military solution to the problem. And then there will be nothing to do but strike a blow on the rebellious country, replace the disliked regime by a completely loyal one. But Iran is not Iraq, and it is very difficult to do here what was done in Iraq or Yugoslavia. Military action may not only shake the whole vast region, but also may become unpredictable.
However, Washington seems not to care about it. Such is the logic of the policy of double standards. What is allowed for friends, allies, is impermissible for enemies. This universal principle is the basis of US policy. The principle is universal, but deeply flawed because on its basis Washington preaches the cult of force able to solve any problem, in the opinion of overseas politicians.
