By Geoffrey Cook, TMO
Emeryville (Calif.)–Your commentator is beginning his writing in continuation of last weekâ€™s story on the Iranian conundrum in this funny little town on the Eastern side of San Francisco Bay which arose into contemporary prominence due to the fact it is close to the Bay Bridge and their small industrial town had had room to expand. Curiously, although the transcontinental railway traditionally terminated in Oakland, this small town on its own decided to build a major train station, and most of the passengers get off here to board buses over the water to the City (S.F.). It is squeezed between Oakland and Berkeley, the latter town is where this article originated, and this piece is the second installment of the article that examines the prospects for a disastrous war in the Persian (a.k.a. Arabian) Gulf.
The United States and Israel acknowledged that they were responsible for the Stuxnet computer virus during the past fortnight against the Iranian nuclear program creating a new Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD) that may have the ramifications off the even the magnitude of the nuclear tests in New Mew Mexico during the1940s. This new WMD not only slowed down Tehranâ€™s nuclear ambition, but poisoned the enterprise (big business) worldwide, and had a horrendous economic consequence that was not contemplated.
Karim Sadjadpour, of Persian ancestry, is a policy analyst at the Carnegie Endowment. Prior to that, he was â€œchief Iran analystâ€ at the International Crisis Group, and, at the program in which he presented at Berkeley, he tried to critically explain the perspective of the Islamic (Shia) Republic.
Sadjapour began by stating that in size â€œIran is Goliath and Israel is David, butâ€ actually, â€œstrategically Iran is David and Israel Goliath.â€ Strangely, Washington is well aware of this paradox.
Like old the U.S.S.R. (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics), they are/were both isolated, and both are/became weary of change. The Revolution is marked by a hatred of the United States and the hijab.
Thus, it is hard for the Obama Administration to create rapprochement with the Supreme leader even though America has tried over these past four years; making overtures to Tehran. Henry Kissinger (not one of your authorâ€™s favorite former civil servants) has stated that â€œThere is a commonality of interests [between the two nations â€“ the U.S. and Iran], but Persia refuses to release itself from its â€˜cause.â€™â€ Sadjadpour conjectures that the dominant country in the Gulf has forced a policy of coercion against itself by its own actions for perceived self-survival. â€œTehran doesnâ€™t react to ordinary pressure, but only to â€œreal pressure.â€ Further, â€œThat Iran is purposing a strategic threat is ridiculous, but it is making a political challengeâ€¦Its central interest isnâ€™t nuclearâ€ at all,â€ but Israel itself. He believes that â€œâ€¦it is best if Iran does not threaten Israelâ€¦but can keep its nukesâ€¦like Pakistan.â€ Yet, â€œâ€¦Iran is more pragmaticâ€¦than ideologicalâ€¦â€ Curiously, Dr. Sadjadpour suggested that â€œObama should go to Iranâ€¦[as]â€¦Nixon [went] to Chinaâ€ in the 1970s.
Our think thank expert points out that â€œâ€¦Iran is not a global, butâ€ rather a â€œregional powerâ€¦a diluted version of the Soviet Union and the Talibanâ€ together. It is possible that Iranâ€™s atomic efforts could (and probably has with the cyber-attack have) be(en) set back by by one to three years (most likely less) if an attack were launched, but definitely it would have the effect of entrenching the most conservative elements of that Islamic Republicâ€™s body politick.
Iran is in a position that â€œIt canâ€™t do too little or too muchâ€ on the threat of this crisis. The U.S., NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization), the Arab League and other Middle Eastern actors plus the P 5 + 1 (the acknowledged nuclear powers plus Germany) have reached a diplomatic impasse with Iran. Yet, the (U.S.â€™) Obama government does not desire another war in the Middle East.