An American political analyst calls for an urgent deal with Tehran and avoid any American attacks in the region
Former American political and diplomatic analyst Richard Haas, in an opinion article published by the Financial Times & quot; British, in its Friday issue, the international powers, especially the United States, to urgently reach a deal with Iran that reduce US sanctions and dispel fears of new American attacks in the region. Because it was the government of Israel that decided to launch an optional war on what it describes as the increasing nuclear threat posed by Iran. Israel also dominated the airspace over Iran for a long time, destroying or causing damage to many nuclear facilities and assassinated many major military and nuclear officials, and weakened Iran’s defenses and its ability to launch revenge attacks against it. The Israeli war has reached its end, as Israel alone cannot achieve its main goals, as the end of the Iranian nuclear program in the short term requires military capabilities that Israel does not possess. The history of the region strongly indicates that the force of the regime by force in Iran will not be easy, and the desired result may not be achieved; So what will happen later will depend on the other two main parties in this conflict: the United States and Iran & quot;
& nbsp;
The author emphasized that American policy has so far been attracted to now. Washington opposed the Israeli military action before it appeared to accept it, and even attribute it to itself. Washington also provided Israel with weapons and helped protect it from any retaliatory response, but it did not join Israeli offensive operations. She tried to reach a diplomatic settlement, held five rounds of talks with Iranian officials, and then retreated. And now.
& nbsp; Currently, the Trump administration discusses whether the United States should attack the Iranian underground nuclear facility, especially in the Fordo nuclear reactor, which can only be penetrated with heavy and large-sized bombs for immunization carried by B-2 launchers, which is what Israel does not possess. In the early 1990s, when the administration of former US President Bill Clinton thought about attacking North Korea’s nuclear program when he was weak and is still in its early stages. But in the end, the United States refrained from this, for fear that such an attack would lead to a second Korean war, a war that would lead to the fall of dozens, if not hundreds of thousands of South Korean and American victims. It was an understandable decision, but it came at a large cost in the long run, as North Korea today has dozens of nuclear weapons alongside the intercontinental ballistic missiles to deliver them to the American mainland.
& nbsp;
The author added: & quot; But Iran may attack the 40,000 American forces stationed throughout the region. Tehran can also expand the scope of the war and choose the threat of its recent improved relations with the Gulf states and attack their Arab neighbors, which leads in this process to high global energy prices & quot;
according to the writer’s opinion, & quot; American strike on Fordo will also weaken international standards against preventive military attacks, something that Russia, China and North Korea may choose to simulate. This will reduce America’s ability to respond effectively to military challenges elsewhere. It would bring the United States closer to an unpleasant Israeli Prime Minister, whose policies in Gaza and the occupied West Bank have angered many of the world. It is certain that any American attack will succeed if success is defined as the destruction of all the remaining Iranian nuclear program & quot;
But allowing the Fordo facility to stay makes it very likely that Iran can sooner and not to produce nuclear weapons, which is likely to see it necessary in the wake of its failure to deter Israel in the crisis Current.
& nbsp; And if Iran appears nuclear armed, it will pose an existential threat to Israel and others. It will also be in a better position to resume support for its regional agents. Also, Iran’s possession of a nuclear weapon would push a number of other countries in the region until it follows its example, which puts the Middle East on the brink of a very dangerous danger. Its fertilized and dismantling the centrifugal devices and other elements known in its nuclear program and agreeing to open inspection operations by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
& nbsp; Uranium is associated with nuclear power generation, not weapons.
- For more: Follow Khaleejion 24 Arabic, Khaleejion 24 English, Khaleejion 24 Live, and for social media follow us on Facebook and Related
