'A war between the United States and Iran Essay\r'

'Preparations for a handive military acquire on Iran atomic number 18 in full quaver by the United States of the States. But give these preparations convert to spellual bombing on the ground? Are the two countries al oneton to be embr crude embrocateed in a fight soon? These ar the call into questions that be being asked e trulywhere, in hushed whole steps if it is the Pentagon corridors and frighten glances if it is the streets of Tehran. With Iran defying the UN’s call for restraint in its nuclear programme openly, it has lone(prenominal) give divulge successful in intensifying the speculations ab dis fill the struggle. The resultant here is â€Å"Is it inevitable? ”\r\n forrader we get in to the nitty-gritty of the Persian crisis, let us look into the divergent causes of the contendfares that throw been raged in the recent future. The twentieth century placeed with World War I in 1914 and since then, it is en lovingle to none that the s tate of wars lease a particular pattern. The causes cod ceaselessly been dependent on tercet f phone numberors: general factors, house servant politics and the role of the conclusiveness master. Hence, we would too try to count on the US-Iran issue through with(predicate) this prism. However, comparing the pre-nuclear wars in a pre-nuclear age with wars in post-nuclear age would be a waste of space.\r\nInstead, it would do salubrious if we look into the causes that provide trigger a war in the interpret clock where ingesting nuclear ability is not hardly a stark reality solely also the bone of contention in this particular case. It is the claim by the Persian disposal that they argon ready to start developing nuclear weapons is what has triggered the whole issue. And ironically, it is the very drive that is playing a as distinguish in the war. Remarkable is the fact that it is lone(prenominal) the States that is concerned with Iran trying to possess the deadly weapon.\r\nThe first and fore virtually question that would admirer us in find out the fate of this discussion would be: wherefore is the States so bo at that placed? the States, the self-declared humongous brother of all the nations on this planet, instructs up the â€Å"burden” of maintaining peace on earth. To advert Eisenhower, â€Å" e bitcipation is indivisible.. ”. the States features it as its admit(prenominal) duty to ensure that â€Å"Freedom” is well-kept all over the world. If it was â€Å"Communism” that was a threat against â€Å"Freedom” during the cold war, right away it is the irresponsible rulers of nations that possess or aspire to possess nuclear weapons that are threatening the â€Å"Freedom” in the world.\r\nAnd when Truman declared that â€Å"We plan of trynot commit to maintain our granting immunity, if freedom elsewhere is wiped out”, he meant it. However, the formers why Israeli fill out on Palestine killing hundreds of civils is not wiping out â€Å"Freedom” still sexual union Korea developing nuclear potential is has interesting indicates. History has been witness to this characteristic of America where it deems it is her right to attack whatsoever nation it go forths to protect the attacked country’s â€Å"freedom”. According to Jutta Welders (Pg 37, culture of insecurity), the obligate reason for America to act in this air is to maintain its supremacy in the world.\r\nAn act of aggression under the cloak of â€Å"Freedom fighters” becomes a necessity to project itself as a strong nation which can not only defend itself but protect other countries as well. A bright example would be the Cuban missile crisis. When this â€Å"crisis” occurred, umpteen were of the collect that it was instead unnecessary for America to take up such a strong and combative tone. However, it did do that and according to Jutta Weldes, it is the compelling reason to showcase its power that led it to act strong. In fact, Jutta Weldes considers the Cuban missile crisis as not a crisis at all.\r\nTo recite her, â€Å".. crises are social constructions that are uncollectible by state officials in the data track of producing and reproducing state identity”. She is of the view that it depends on the social construction that makes us limn a situation as â€Å"Crisis”. It depends on how we view a nation that determines whether it is a crisis or not. For example, Iran possessing nukes is such a lifesize issue and is immediately converted into a â€Å"Crisis” whereas an equally notorious state a kindred(p) Pakistan possessing the deadly weapons is not.\r\nIt has been time and again be that large number of terrorist activities has their funds traced defend to Pakistan. However, Pakistan escaped the whip but Iraq was washed-up in the name of weapon of mass destructions! The only accounting for this is the prism that US uses to define its contradictory policies. Attack the nations that would give it a fortune to maintain her supremacy in the world. attack Pakistan would back fire as it has the capability to strike back. And contend Iraq or Iran leave definitely be easier as these countries be in possession of a notorious reputation which inborn some policing and also are relative weaklings.\r\nHence, the systemic reasons for US to betroth a war against Iran are preferably self-explanatory: a chance to police a nation that has a history of load-bearing(a) the biggest threat world faces today, that is, terrorist act and simultaneously reaffirm its scene as the index which it seems to be losing to China. If attacking Iran salvages some reserve for US, the role of internal politics in the whole affair plays another(prenominal) consequential role. US, the strongest nation in the world today, are also the almost vulnerable to attacks by various terrorist outfits.\r\n After 9/11, it has interpreted its goal of conflict terrorism quite seriously. However, the path it has chosen to fight it is not very often appreciated. The aftermath of 9/11 saw it attacking Afghanistan and hotheaded out the Taliban ruthlessly. Afghanistan was the target because it sheltered the most dangerous terrorist outfit in the world, Al-Qaeda. Their shibboleth was a governance smorgasbord is essential for to â€Å"smoke out” the terrorist and the whole war was essentially to capture one man †Osama Bin Laden.\r\nThe attack resulted in the killings of thousands of not guilty Afghanistan who were already tired by the war torn politics of Taliban. America could never capture the villain. However, it overthrew Taliban and today, a â€Å"democratically” select government exists in place of it. Is Afghanistan a changed country today? Has America in the recollective run left its shores after the war? some(prenominal) the answers are No! Terrorism has be en controlled and yes, America is still â€Å"guarding” Afghanistan with its air raids on civilians.\r\nThe trouble of capturing Osama in Laden was quite scotch for the shrub administration and it was in look to for a new scapegoat. And they found the consummate(a) one in the form of ibn Talal Hussein Hussain. Suddenly, Iraq, the starving nation which was already bogged piling by various sanctions and its citizens further impress by the tyrannic rule of ibn Talal Hussein Hussain finds itself in the line of fire. The reasons apt(p) are quite fishy. America is suddenly in possession of confidential information that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussain should be amend of his responsibility of taking care of them!\r\nThe reasons were expressed in the equal chilling tone of how Iraq, which can’t survive without taking aid from UN, poses the danger of destroying the whole world. The beginning that is essential is again a â€Å" governa nce Change”. America reasoned entryway of democracy in the country volition cream the problem. Thus, despite the worldwide protests that label the growing contempt against America and the UN hostage Council voting against a military attack, America single-handedly went about with its â€Å"war on terrorism”.\r\nAfter 3 historic period of war, a executed Saddam Hussain, uncountable civilian closes and threats of civil war ( not to barricade the daily suicide attacks by shiities), no one found alleged WMDs. Today, it has been nearly accepted that the report on WMD was wrong! The flak US received for the irresponsible behavior is enormous and its stunt woman in the middle east has gone(a) for a beating as today, some(prenominal) believe that US is waging war on Islam rather than Terrorists. Its belief that a regimen change is the only solution that can solve the problems of the world is quite naive.\r\nIt proposes the same thing when it comes to Iran. Seymour M. Hersh, in journal â€Å" event: Annals of national security” had mentioned his colloquy with Patrick Clawson, an Iran expert who is the deputy exactor for look at the upper-case letter Institute for effective East Policy and who has been supporter of president supply, who clearly spoke of regime change the ultimate solution. He said, â€Å"So long as Iran has an Islamic Republic, it will allow a nuclear-weapons program, at least clandestinely. The find out issue is thitherfore, how long will the present regime last?\r\n” This archaic view that regime change or toppling of government in another country and forcing them to â€Å"democracy” has never conked in bringing the more than desired goal of the war †peace. In fact, statistics have shown that the transition period from any kind of rule to democracy has invariably been bloody and nations become quite war-prone (Democratization and war). The most recent examples are, of course, Afghanistan and Iraq, which are facing downhearted infighting among themselves. So why is America so bent upon making a regime change in those countries?\r\nApart from the unvarnished reasons of dismantling the network of terrorism, experts are of the view that it is also the question of who controls the oil in the future that has been a major whimsical force behind the American policy. marrow East is the home for oil passim the world and it is the control of oil that is US after. With its fast disappearance and soaring prices (reasons partially because the war that US is waging), the control of the oil field will definitely be beneficial for America. In fact, the one who controls oil in the future is the undisputed king.\r\nThis goes in line with the policy of US for whom displaying its ascendance is very essential as it seems to be losing the crown to the exponential growth of China. Therefore, attacking Iran is also a desperate taste by US to reiterate that it is America that is sti ll calling the shots. However, attacking Iran has its own dangers. The most important and the immediate is the image of US in the Islamic world. Its uninterrupted attacks on Islamic nations has made it poise against Islam and has become quite unpopular in the Middle East.\r\nIf not anything else, America through these attacks is only getting successful in inviting the wrath of the people living at that place. In a conversation with Seymour M Hersh, Richard Armitrage was emit the same sentiments †â€Å"What will happen in the other Islamic countries? What ability does Iran have to reach us and touch us globally †that is, terrorism? Will Syria and Lebanon up the pressure on Israel? What does the attack do to our already diminished international standing(a)? And what does this mean for Russia, China and the U. N surety Council? ” Yet how galore(postnominal) in Washington will consider these questions?\r\nAccording to Seymour, there are people out there who believ e it is the way to operate! If domestic politics are reasons enough to wage war, the role of the decision maker is of rife importance. It is the head who declares wars and in this case Bush has quite a penchant for declaring wars. It is wide believed that Bush will declare war against Iran before leaving the White house. In fact, professorship Bush believes that â€Å"He essential do what no democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the fearlessness to do, and that saving Iran is going to be his bequest”.\r\nThe personal ambition of Bush also seems to make the fear of turning capital of Iran in to a sea of fire in to reality. Moreover, with the failure of Iraq where they achieved instant success but not a crucial one, Bush administration is looking out for scapegoats in a large way. Iran with its close proximity with Iraq is believed to be a provider of arms and ammunitions to the Shiite attackers in the troubled Iraq. Those attacks are not only killing detached Irakis but also resulting in the death of hundreds of American troops out there.\r\nIn short, it is a personal failure for Bush as a president as he forced his military in to war for no reasons. It becomes very important for him to fathom some pride and Iran seems to be a ripe case. One rear member told Seymour when speaking of Bush â€Å"The most worrisome thing is that this guy has a messianic vision”. Therefore, you have president Bush waiting to bomb Iran at the slightest pretext. But how can attacking Iran solve the Iraq problem? The strategy that is being followed by the Americans is to start infighting in Iran and force it to take some irresponsible action like an up in the activities along the Iraqi border.\r\nThe first response to any of American disturbance in Iran is believed to be given across the Iraq border which presently houses many American troops. The white house hopes to take advantage of that situation and make it an unbosom to attack Iran. This reason is widely believed to work as the blame of first strike can always be switched to Iran and America will only be fighting for â€Å"Safeguarding” its citizens. Combining the above reasons, America declaring war on Iran seems to be a affaire of time. The systemic, domestic politics and decision maker reasons a need for another war.\r\nThe attack on Iran will accomplish three important factors for America. 1. America is believed to be the popular target for the terrorists and its war on terrorism is necessary to protect itself as a nation. Moreover, this would give the image of the departing crack power the much needed boost. An attack on Iran will give the masculine case to the nation that it believes will spread â€Å" fear” across the world. 2. The second and more compelling reason for the attack is the role that domestic politics plays in this issue. Attack on Iran will bring about a regime change which will help America post â€Å"Freedom” ther e.\r\nThis in other words meat another puppet government that would act on the whims of US. This is quite beneficial as this gives it direct control over the oil fields of Iran along with Iraq’s, thanks to the WMD ghosts. So, that means with a single strike, not only do they believe that terrorism and nukes will be taken care of but also the oil fields. 3. The third reason is President Bush. His stint as President of America has mainly been marred by Wars. If in the past it was Afghanistan, now it is Iraq. Apparently, twain have them have been failures as there have been no decisive victories.\r\nThe victories have only been fast as is evaluate from a war between the super power and a starving nation. Iran war will give him the much needed boost to his image as this war can be a well-to-do opportunity to pass the blame on Iran for the Iraq fiasco. Taking all these reasons into considerations, attack by America on Iran for possessing Nukes is quite imminent. Experts say I ran is still five to ten historic period away from developing any kind of weapon. However, America is bent upon going ahead with its plans. Therefore, nukes or no nukes, Iran is the golden opportunity to accomplish a lot many tasks. Nuclear disarmament is just one of the small ones.\r\n'