,
Moscow: “The Middle East isn't a region to be dominated by Iran. The Gulf isn't a body of water to be controlled by Iran. That's why we've seen the United States station two carrier battle groups in the region,” Nicholas Burns, U.S. undersecretary of state for political affairs, said in an address to the Dubai-based Gulf Research Center, an influential think-tank, when commenting on the decision of President George W. Bush to send a second U.S. aircraft carrier strike group to the Persian Gulf.
He emphasized that the U.S. is striving for stability in the region and unimpeded oil and gas deliveries in the interests of all other countries.
French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said on the LCI television channel that the international community's demands that Iran stop its dangerous activities in the nuclear sphere were based on the logic of sanctions rather than the logic of war.
However, the situation around Iran has apparently turned towards the logic of war, contrary to the will of the international community, if there is such a thing.
A new U.S. carrier battle group has been dispatched to the Gulf.
USS John C. Stennis, with a crew of 3,200 and around 80 fixed-wing aircraft, including F/A-18 Hornet and Superhornet fighter-bombers, eight support ships and four nuclear submarines are heading for the Gulf, where a similar group led by USS Dwight D. Eisenhower has been deployed since December 2006.
The U.S. is also sending Patriot anti-missile systems to the region.
The above is Washington's reply to the question: What will happen if Iran drives the U.S. into a corner? Or was it the other way round?
It was believed that if Iran refused to stop its nuclear program, the U.S. as its main adversary would ensure the adoption of international sanctions and later start a military operation against Iran. The scenarios of their engagement were described as catastrophic, with Iran erasing the oil and gas infrastructure in the Gulf, blockading the Strait of Hormuz by sinking several oil tankers in it, and starting a war against Iraq, pulling the U.S. deeper into the quagmire. The inevitable conclusion was that a U.S. military operation against Iran would be suicidal, and Washington would never approve it.
So, the “what will happen if?” question has been answered. Now the world wants to know if Washington will be able to avoid a war against Iran.
Tehran is not going to abandon its nuclear program. Moreover, it has said several times that a uranium enrichment system comprising 3,000 centrifuges will be put into operation by the Iranian New Year, which is marked on March 21. From that, there is only one step towards building a nuclear bomb, given the political will, as Washington likes to point out.
If Iran reaches the industrial level of uranium enrichment, Washington will either have to swallow the humiliation, or will start a military operation against Iran. Russian expert Alexei Arbatov said the U.S. usually has to choose between two evils, one greater than the other. In this case, the greater evil will be the creation of a nuclear bomb in Iran. Therefore, if Washington refuses to speak directly with Tehran, it will most likely choose war.
In fact, the United States has already started preparations.
The Dubai-based Gulf Research Center, where Nick Burns made the above statement, has published a special report saying that Iran's nuclear ambitions will inevitably provoke a regional confrontation. Tehran must be aware that if the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) is forced to choose between allowing Iran to build a nuclear bomb and letting the U.S. deliver a strike against Iran, it will choose the latter.
The Gulf Research Center is a think-tank of the defense departments of the GCC oil-producing member states (Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman and Qatar). Jordan and Egypt have likewise approved Bush's new strategy in the Middle East.
In short, Washington has rallied sufficient support in the region.
The global media are writing that the plan of a potential U.S. strike at Iran has been worked out in detail, with the strike to be delivered by the end of April.
Pentagon chief Robert Gates, who advocated a “diplomatic engagement” with Iran several years ago, has said Tehran should know that the U.S., although “tied down in Iraq,” remains a dangerous adversary.
He denied that his recent decision to deploy Patriot missiles and a second aircraft carrier strike group in the Persian Gulf was meant as a threat to Iran. “We need some leverage, it seems to me, before we [diplomatically] engage with the Iranians,” he added.
Is the second carrier group the “leverage” Gates was referring to?
