Monday,
May 11, 2015
Folks, in international politics,
the United States is known for taking (in some instances, unilateral) action
against countries and systems that it considers to be a threat either to its
peculiar interests or to those of its allies. And the US has no friend but
permanent interests to defend!
In contemporary times, it doesn't
even have to wait for the United Nations mandate in some instances. And its
actions are known to be devastating, leaving in their wake wailing, weeping,
and gnashing of teeth by the victims. Its military-industrial complex is
designed for such purposes, come-what-may. And its military precision ensures
massive destruction to bring "recalcitrant" countries/systems to
their knees.
How many military actions hasn't
the US taken against such countries and systems in living memory? Count them
and you should know that when it comes to military might to defend its
interests (or the interests of its allies), the US doesn't brook
"nonsense" or overlook any threat to such interests. It acts
resolutely to prove that its might is right!!
Not so in the case of Iran whose
nuclear ambitions have dominated international political discourse and
diplomacy over the years.
And Iran is adamant, weathering
the negative backlash of the international sanctions imposed on it and doing
its best to ensure the lifting of some of those biting sanctions. Iran has
stood its grounds and is determined to go the whole hog while its opponents
chafe and spit fire for nothing.
By not crippling Iran, the US is
fast losing the confidence and trust of its Gulf State allies and angering
Israel. Probably, it is even using its clout to prevent Israel from taking any
unilateral, pre-emptive military action against Iran. Who knows?
(Of course, Israel feels more
threatened than any other state because of the perceived hostility that has
existed between it and Iran over the years under the former President
Ahmadinejad, who insists that the "holocaust" was a frame-up---or who
justified that holocaust as a just punishment for the Jews---and that Israel
should be wiped off from the earth. A terrifying stance for Iran to take!!)
Given the nastiness that
characterized Iranian-US relations over the years (especially after the 1979
events in Iran that shattered everything between it and the US), one might not
expect the US to treat Iran with a kid's gloves; but that is what is happening
in this Iranian nuclear-ambition scenario.
Why is the US not attacking Iran
to dismantle its nuclear capabilities? Why is it pampering Iran instead? Why is
the US afraid of doing to Iran what it is known for doing to such
"recalcitrant" systems?
Those of us following
developments regarding the nuclear ambitions of Iran know that marathon
negotiations that have so far been held between Iran and its opponents (mostly
the West, led by the United States and firmly supported by its European allies,
even if condemned by Israel) have yielded nothing concrete to allay fears that
a nuclear-power Iran won't be a threat to the Arab region or the world.
Israel has been vehemently
opposed to the nuclear ambitions of Iran and even threatened to unilaterally
take military action to stall any further development of the nuclear
facilities. Whether by design or accident, it hasn't made any move of the sort
so far. Negotiations have been going on and off without any concrete outcome to
assuage doubts, fears, and misgivings. So, Iran seems to have a slight edge,
insisting that its nuclear ambition is for civilian, not military, purposes.
Given the elbow room, Iran has
bought much time to put its house in order and strengthen its arms for the next
round of negotiations.
Intriguingly, the United States
has toned down on its hot-headed rhetoric and seemed to have given Iran too much
of a long rope with which it has refused to hang itself. In consequence, Israel
is angry (as can be inferred from the "snub" given Obama by the
Israeli Prime Minister (Benjamin Netanyahu) when he sidelined the White House
and interacted with the US Congress (being accepted by the Republicans mostly
as a strong ally in the anti-Iran drama).
The Republicans have moved ahead
to tweak the deal in preparation for measures to either neutralize the Obama
angle or put their own spin on the demands that Iran must meet. It is a new
complexion being added to the matter at this stage.
As if that is not all, there
seems to be some concerted attempt by countries in the Gulf region to bare
their teeth in an apparent show of disgust for the manner in which Obama is
handling the Iranian nuclear issue.
As reported by the BBC, leaders
of the Gulf State (particularly Saudi Arabia, the US' most trusted ally) have
boycotted a summit called by Obama:
"Many Gulf heads of state
have said they will not attend this week's summit of US and Arab leaders at
Camp David. Their substitution with more junior leaders is seen by some
analysts as a rebuff to President Obama's talks with Iran over its nuclear
ambitions." (See http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32694184)
The language of diplomacy may be
used to hide reality (especially as is obvious in the explanations given by the
Saudis); but there is something really simmering to prove that the leaders of
the Gulf States (who are the US' traditional allies) are unhappy about the US'
pampering of Iran. Is Obama really in for trouble here too?
I shall return…
·
E-mail:
mjbokor@yahoo.com
·
Join
me on Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/mjkbokor to continue
the conversation.
No comments:
Post a Comment