U.S. escalates its massive military presence surrounding Iran / News / News agency Inforos
Rate it
U.S. escalates its massive military presence surrounding Iran

Is Trump intending to provoke an Iranian attack?

13.05.2019 18:05 Steven Sahiounie, Middle East political observer

U.S. escalates its massive military presence surrounding Iran

The author of “The Art of the Deal” does not want a new deal with Iran.  The current stand-off between the U.S. and Iran is not aimed at creating a new document that would satisfy Pres. Donald J. Trump, after tearing up the past deal one year ago.   This standoff, which could escalate into all-out war, is about creating a new Iran.  The Trump administration, with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and National Security Advisor John Bolton, are calling for Iran to raise the white flag of defeat, and acquiesce to the 12 demands Pompeo announced. 

If the Iranian leaders are not ready to comply with the U.S. demands, then the secondary plan of action is to ensure that the Iranian civilians suffer so intensively that they begin a grass-roots uprising, and a new Iran will emerge from the fog of sanctions.  The Trump administration recently unveiled a possible third plan of action: surround Iran with a massive US military presence, wait until an incident arises which could be twisted into a provocation, and then attack Iran. 

Some analysts feel the U.S. foreign policy on Iran and the Middle East is drafted in Tel Aviv.  John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt published in 2006 an essay entitled “The Israel Lobby”, in which they discuss the need to understand the U.S. Middle East policy.  “The U.S. national interest should be the primary object of American foreign policy.

For the past several decades, however, and especially since the Six-Day War in 1967, a recurring feature — and arguably the central focus — of U.S. Middle East policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering U.S. support for Israel and the related effort to spread democracy throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardized U.S. security.”

 Israel sees Iran as its greatest threat because Iran is committed to the resistance of occupied Palestine. The fundamental issue which divides Iran and the U.S. is the occupation of Palestine.  Among the core values of Iran is resistance, which had been a core value of the Muslim world, and the Middle East, but recently more Arab countries, mainly the Arab Gulf monarchies, have acquiesced into an American style of acceptance that Israel's treatment of 5 million citizens of Palestine without any human rights, and under military occupation, is not going to change. 

There are still a few countries that don't accept the occupation, and Syria, half of Lebanon, and Iran are among those resisting.  The numerous UN resolutions which were passed with massive international support would make it appear resistance should not be marginalized, but there has never been a mechanism of their enforcement or accountability.

Israel invaded the south of Lebanon on June 6, 1982, and the Khaim Prison stood as a witness to the brutality of the Israeli occupation forces, with Lebanese men, women, and children suffering for 18 years.  This led to the rise in popularity of Hezbollah, an armed Lebanese resistance movement, who caused the Israeli occupation forces to leave Lebanon on May 24, 2000.

  Iran and Syria supported the resistance, and with success came confidence that Hezbollah could continue to resist not only the occupation of Palestine but also the occupation of the Lebanese Shebaa Farms.  In 2006 Israel attacked Hezbollah with air strikes which encompassed the entire country, but Israel was unable to defeat Hezbollah, even though thousands of Lebanese civilians were among the dead, injured and homeless in the aftermath. 

In 2011 an international attack on Syria was begun which used foreign Radical Islamic terrorists as ground troops.  The goal was regime change, and the U.S.-NATO backers of the terrorists planned to remove the resistance administration in Damascus, thus severing the relationship and support with Hezbollah and Iran. 

It was a well funded and planned attack but failed to consider that the majority of the Syrian population did not support Radical Islam, which is a political ideology.  Without enough grass-roots support, the regime change project failed after 8 years of destruction and at least 500,000 dead.  Israel has admitted they supported the Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists in Syria.

John Bolton is actively pushing for confrontation, harkening back to his 2015 published opinion arguing the case for a military attack on Iran. “The inescapable conclusion is that Iran will not negotiate away its nuclear program. Nor will sanctions block its building a broad and deep weapons infrastructure.

The inconvenient truth is that only military action like Israel’s 1981 attack on Saddam Hussein’s Osirak reactor in Iraq or its 2007 destruction of a Syrian reactor, designed and built by North Korea, can accomplish what is required. Time is terribly short, but a strike can still succeed.”

 

Add comment
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Загрузка...

Сообщите об орфографической ошибке

Сообщить
Выделенный текст слишком длинный.