PART I: The enemy beyond

After the US dismantlement of the regime of Saddam Hussein, Iran has emerged as a major target of the acrimonious rhetoric of the Bush administration and Israel's threats related to that country's nuclear aspirations. Given the fact that Iran's active nuclear program has been the focus of US concern since the early 1990s, it is likely to acquire a crisis situation in the near future.

Two other realities are also keeping this issue on the front burner from the American vantage point. First, there is a high probability that North Korea will emerge as the next nuclear power. Washington is very much concerned about the precedent-setting nature of that development for Iran. Second, Iran has recently demonstrated much flip-flopping on whether it is enriching uranium, and has lost credibility even among its friends in Europe. What is the nature of Iran's security concerns? What is the nature of domestic debate inside Iran regarding its nuclear future? What are the dynamics of Arab concerns related to this issue? These are key questions that will be addressed.

Asia Times

As the US presidential election campaign is coming to a close and Iraq continues to burn, another dangerous diplomatic tussle is taking place: the United States and Israel are acting as a tag-team against the potential emergence of Iran as a nuclear power. The stakes are high in this tussle. At a minimum, that tag-team will make sure that Iran never emerges as a regional power, challenging the hegemonies of the US and Israel. At worst, the intention of this tag-team is to prepare grounds for a regime change of a different type - not necessarily through military invasion, but by taking concerted actions to weaken the Islamic government of Iran so much that it is ousted from within.

The use of United Nations sanctions or even a US naval blockade of Iran may not be ruled out as tactics to put pressure on Iran. After the toppling of Saddam Hussein, Iran is viewed by both Washington and Jerusalem as a target of a larger plan to ensure the long-term, if not permanent, subservience of Muslim countries. In the final analysis, it is purely a balance-of-power game that an earlier hegemon - the United Kingdom - played in previous centuries. Now the lone superpower is playing the same game using the euphemisms of democracy, liberation and secularism.

Viewing Iran through the US exercise of balance of power
A wisecrack explaining the emergence of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization during the Cold War years was that it was aimed at keeping the US in and Russia out of Europe, and keeping Germany down. In the era post-September 11, 2001, a wisecrack explaining the US occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan ought to be: to keep the United States in the Muslim world, to let Israel dominate the neighboring states, and to ensure that no Muslim/Arab state ever challenges the US or Israel. At least from the US point of view, this would be a benign development in the sense that it is being done in the name of promoting Western-style democracy and the institutionalization of secularism in that region. Couched in such a framework, the US should not - at least in the perception of US decision-makers and its strategic community - be seen as a threat to Arab or Muslim states. Of course, these developments would intensify in the coming years only if President George W Bush were re-elected.

When one gets away from all the overused hyperboles and highfalutin rhetoric of how menacing Saddam Hussein really was and how he threatened the security of the US (the lone superpower) and Israel (the unquestioned second hegemon of the Middle East), the bare fact is that the Iraqi dictator had the gall consistently to challenge the dominant presence of the US in his neighborhood and Israel's monopoly over the ownership of a nuclear arsenal and its superiority in conventional military power. Saddam knew that, under the present power-related realities, his country did not have any chance of emerging as a regional power. However, he always envisaged the potential emergence of "nuclear" Iraq as something that would materialize if he were to remain in power.

Asia Times

What's the big deal with Israel? Why is the U.S. so stubborn about blindly supporting Israel? Even John Kerry is talking about protecting Israel, blah blah blah. It's so freaking stupid. When are they going to realize that the reason the Arabs hate them is because they've armed Israel and given them blind support even though Israel is exactly like the South African apartheid. I think it confirms how much unhealthy influence Israelis have on U.S. politics. They're going to keep using America to do their dirty work for them (i.e. Iraq). I was disappointed to hear Kerry and Edwards pledge their support for Israel, and not talk about the peace process. How do they think they'll get arab support if they do that? Unless they show that they can be objective in the conflict, the Arabs will always look at U.S. policy with major skepticism and they'll never succeed. They'll make the same mistake as all of their predecessors which will breed more terrorists, and it will be a war that they cannot win. The U.S. is not as strong as people think. They can barely afford to wage war against one country (Iraq). There is no way they'll be able to threaten Iran or North Korea. I personally think that Iran has every right to get nuclear weapons. If Israel and other countries can do it, why shouldn't they? It's about self protection, and seeing how hawkish U.S. foreign policy has become, I would recommend it.

This thread is about Iran. Israel is relevant, but "why the US
supports Israel" is not. You can discuss that ad nauseum
in I/P if it suits you. Nothing personal, thats just the way things
work at DU.