Defiant Iran tests missiles to show strength in face of US warnings
It's to be expected if you keep threatening to attack someone that they will find a way to let you know the consequences if you do so.
Bush and Cheney have always treated Iran in the same way that they approached Iraq; as if they are dealing with an unpopular leadership whose army will dissolve rather than fight them. This is not the case.Tehran significantly raised tensions in the Persian Gulf yesterday by conducting missile tests and making clear that its weapons could be used against Israel and US forces if Iran was attacked.
According to Iranian official reports, the military exercise involved nine missiles, one of them a new Shahab-3 long-range missile that could easily reach Israel and a number of US bases in the region.
The Revolutionary Guard air force commander, Hossein Salami, said the test was not routine but a demonstration of resolve as pressure grows on Iran to curb its nuclear programme. "We warn enemies who threaten us with military exercises and empty psychological operations that our hand will be on the trigger and our missiles will always be ready to launch," Salami said. He added that Iran had thousands of missiles ready to be launched against "pre-determined targets".
Nor is the US - struggling to contain an insurgency in Iraq - immune herself from any Iranian revenge attack.
The notion floated amongst right wing circles appears to be that the US or Israel could attack Iran at will and with very few consequences. One of the reason that Mohamed ElBaradei has said he will instantly resign if Israel or the US do so is because he understands perfectly well that an attack on Iran will turn the region into a firestorm.
There is a ridiculous vanity in the Israeli and US positions, an assumption that they can act as they will without fear of consequence.
Iran's recent missile tests are urging the Israelis and the Americans to think again.
No doubt certain right wingers will be outraged that the Iranians would even dare to threaten them in such a way, but it is worth remembering that Iran are not breaking any law, and that - despite American/Israeli threats of action if Iran do not stop enriching uranium - Iran's uranium enrichment is within the NNPT as long as it is being carried out for peaceful means. Neither the US nor Israel, despite all their bellicose threats, have ever proven that Iran have designs on a nuclear weapon.Days earlier, Ali Shirazi, an aide to Iran's Supreme Leader, said Iran would retaliate against Israel and the US if it was attacked. "If they commit such a silly move, Tel Aviv and the US fleet in the Persian Gulf will be Iran's first targets and they will be burned with Iran's crushing response," he said.
The Shahab-3, which has an estimated range of more than 750 miles with a warhead weighing a tonne, has been tested before, but the remarks by Iranian officials made it clear that on this occasion the test was intended to send a message. Observers in the region interpreted the exercise as a pointed response to an Israeli exercise last month in which warplanes appeared to be rehearsing for a possible air strike against Iranian nuclear sites. An Israeli minister recently said that his government would have "no choice" but to attack Iranian sites if its nuclear programme continued.
Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate, said the tests demonstrated a need to change US policy to one of dialogue backed by tougher sanctions and fresh incentives. "Now is the time to work with our friends and allies, and to pursue direct and aggressive diplomacy with the Iranian regime backed by tougher unilateral and multilateral sanctions," Obama said.
His Republican rival, John McCain, echoed Rice's line that the missiles underlined the need for a new missile defence system.
The reaction of the two candidates in the US election highlights the difference between them. Obama sees the need for dialogue whilst McCain sees the need for a missile defence system which has already alienated Russia and caused them to threaten a "military" response.
Why is the whole notion of talking to people such an anathema to Republicans? Why can they only negotiate through threat and counter threat? Judging from the recent Iranian tests, that kind of behaviour is not proving terribly successful.
Click title for full article.
No comments:
Post a Comment