America to attack Iran?

America to attack Iran?

Posted 10/09/2012 06:18 PM

The emphasis has shifted concern to international and regional capitals concerned largely Iranian nuclear issue of the following question: Is Israel strike Iran or not, to another question texture when Israel strike Iran.

This does not mean, of course, that the Israeli strike on Iran is inevitable, but getting Rgehana. Happen in the midst of the growing dispute US-Israeli in this regard and visibility to the public, in light of the electoral outbidding in the United States carried out by Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate against President Obama. It speculations on the subject of gaining votes through double attack on Iran and stick to the official Israeli position.

All that is becoming increasingly important as the date approaches the U.S. presidential election. It also gets in the midst of an internal Israeli dispute, where politicians in general with the threat to strike Iran, and members of the organization overall security strategy also warn of the dangers of this scenario in what had been implemented. And this happens also in light of talk about trying to Washington to reach an understanding indirectly with Iran, under attack scenario, texture trapping fire by asserting Washington it will not support this attack in return for confirmation from Tehran not to attack bases and U.S. targets in the Gulf and Middle East.

Five questions raised in amid escalation in one of the most important files the hottest and most in the Middle East in terms of direct and strategic repercussions for the region and beyond the region as well:

First, the US-Israeli dispute based on the timing of the attack, where Washington wants to delay it until the depletion of what it considers Securities diplomatic pressure, political and economic. Secondly, is it on the concept of reaching a point of risk transfer the matter to the Department of another strategy: Washington sees as repeats its defense minister to reach a point of no return is to get Iran to nuclear weapons or specifically in the quarter final hour before getting it, while Israelis see that the subject respect to Iran’s access to nuclear capabilities and not necessarily a nuclear weapon, then Iran is entering a circle or immune circle immunity as he calls nuclear Ehud Barak, the defense minister. Which means that it no longer possible to extract nuclear paper.

Third, do you dispute the fact of the matter about the quality approach in dealing with the Iranian nuclear file, and whether the desired approach military whose time has come and stayed timing have to do, says the Israeli government, or that the desired approach is military, without saying that Washington and its Western allies directly , as saying so publicly lose leaves pressure on both sides of the equation any conflict of Israel and Iran.

Fourth, you dispute is to identify priorities in this revolutionary period in terms of the transformations taking place in the Middle East and the fear of Washington and its Western allies could lead an attack on Iran to shuffle the cards and hash priorities and enter into the unknown, while Israel believes that the absolute priority is what it sees as the existential threat it , which is expressed by the threat ¬ęBegin Doctrine, which is that the most important priorities Israeli prevent any country in the Middle East to obtain a military nuclear capability if needed to resort to military action, as was the case with Iraq, then Syria.

Fifthly, the dispute is in fact on a comparison between the cost and the result as the most optimistic scenario from the perspective of the Israeli and Western believes that the Israeli strike would, at best, to delay the Iranian nuclear program for a period of two years. Iran possesses human and scientific potential to speed up the process of producing a nuclear bomb, against the falling cost of the Middle East in the midst of the unknown. They cost significantly affect strategic security for political and economic Western countries as well.

In front of these questions there remains tacit strategic dialogue between the United States and Western powers on the one hand and Iran on the other. The strength of this dialogue, from the standpoint of Western, that the abandonment of the Iranian nuclear program open to nuclear weapons and accept Western conditions remain entrance necessary without the entrance sufficient, for the beginning of the normalization of relations Western Iran with an emphasis and reminder existence of differences basic strategy between the two parties as well. This corresponds to the position of Iranian clearly suggests that successful entrance to deal with Iran’s nuclear dossier is normalized Western-Iranian relations in terms of recognition of the role and status of Iranians in the region even though under controversial.

The bottom line is that in the Middle East that carries a lot of points flaming and other flammable, all interdependent and interrelated points, remains the Iranian factor various components essential conflict in the game and compete in the region and around the area.
Source: altahreernews