United States, Iran’s Instructor in “Preventive Defense”

Tuesday, May 6, 2008

Ali Montazeri 

Regional military developments as well as secret news about Americans’ decisions and their military positions in the Middle East and Iraq clearly prove that the United States is planning to launch “preventive attacks” against Iran to demolish its major atomic, military and economic centers before bombarding sensitive political and military headquarters. The sole reason that has prevented the attack, thus far, is Iran’s defense policies and inability of the Americans to have an accurate appraisal of the country’s possible response.

Changing the course of developments in Iraq from a conflict between Iran and US to a conflict between Iran and Iraq is another flip side of US new policy in the region, so that, in the case of a military assault on Iran, they would be able to mobilize the Iraqi army against Iran.

This hypothesis becomes stronger when we consider that the United States is reckoned as an occupying force in Iraq and is trying at the highest level to attune Iraqi military commanders to its policies.

In addition, recent statements by some Shiite political figures of Iraq like Muwafaq al-Rubaie, national security advisor of the Iraqi president and favorite disciple of the US national security advisor, Stephen Hadley; combined with his anti-Iranian positions show that dependent elements, both Shiite and Sunni, who have lived outside Iraq, have been taught good lessons to help the United States under critical conditions.

Military developments in Iraq show that the United States is trying to minimize the risk of a regional response to US attack on Iran. Therefore, although policies and approaches taken by al-Mahdi militias are quite different from those of Iran, their total annihilation is on the agenda of US army, so that, in case of an all-out conflict with Iran, a regional response is averted. Also, another development to the point was the measure taken by Azerbaijan in seizing a nuclear consignment which was sent by Russia to be used at Bushehr nuclear power plant. Meanwhile, transfer of fuel planes as well as AWACS planes to that country; prove that in case of an Iran-US war, Azerbaijan would play a strategic role against Iran.

On the other hand, resumption of negotiations between Israel and Syria has been mediated by a Muslim interlocutor that is accepted by both sides and aims to dissuade Syria from helping Iran in case of a possible military conflict through encouraging director contacts between Israel and Damascus. In this way, they aim to greatly reduce trans-regional power of Iran, so that, it would be much easier to eradicate regional allies of Iran simultaneous with a military attack on Tehran.

At the same time, double efforts have been made to settle the political crisis in Lebanon through election of a consensual president on May 13. They aim, through establishment of constitutional institutions in Lebanon, to establish political and security peace in that country and prevent it from becoming a base for Iran’s trans-regional response to a military attack. At the same time, severe political attacks are mounting against Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon by political elements friendly to the United States.

All these American scenarios are being completed though dispatch of US Navy to the Persian Gulf on the threshold of warm season. Although trying to look innocent and announcing that they have no plans to attack Iran, it is quite evident that a major goal of the Americans behind their recent regional movements is to launch a military offensive against Iran and the sole obstacle that has barred them, thus far, has been domestic developments of Iran as well as regional developments.

On the other hand, if the United States is assumed to be planning an all-out attack against Iran, it is the logical right of the latter side to embark on preventive military strikes against the American targets and in places where the United States expects the least. Who would be able to criticize such a policy? The Americans were the first state to found this policy on the basis of which they have thus far, attacked Iraq, Afghanistan, and Somalia and have turned the Persian Gulf into a big military fortress for more than two years. Can they who have occupied two Muslim nations and have positioned their warships off the Mediterranean coasts of Syrian and Lebanon take Iran to task for adopting such a policy?

However, despite some past remarks that the United States knows how Iran would respond to a possible attack, now, we can be sure that they know nothing about the possible tactic and weapons that would be used by Iran in case of such possible attack. The Americans do not know right now, but will know in the near future that a large portion of their assumptions about Iran’s military power has been wrong and if they launched an attack, Iran would be sure the sole side which would determine its end point. They would be seeing such a big defensive power before them that none of their spies would have been able to discover.

Iran considers the American world, a world of aggression and hegemonic policies in which the United States is looking for excuses to attack other nations. Therefore, it has reinforced its military to face the United States. The last message, therefore, sent by Iran to the United States is that “the foes of the Iranian nation are not bold enough to enter a field from which they could not possibly leave on their own. The United States should understand the correct meaning of this message.”*

* excerpt from Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei’s remarks in Fars province


طراحی و توسعه آگاه‌سیستم