Shayan Ghajar and Geneive Abdo
Iran's perception of the United States' declining power in the Middle East and its dream of capitalizing on regional instability have provoked two actions in recent days: Tehran now has vowed to send naval vessels to the Atlantic Ocean and perhaps the Gulf of Mexico. It has also rebuffed an idea by some U.S. officials to establish a military-to-military hotline with Iranian forces in order to reduce the chance of a clash in the Persian Gulf.
In an interview broadcast live to one of Iran's primary state-owned TV channels October 4, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad indicated that the establishment of communication with the U.S. would be "conditional," and he demanded that the United States pulling its naval vessels out of the Persian Gulf.
The president's remarks reveal the Iranian regime's current aggressive position. Since the Arab uprisings, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has made clear that he believes this is Iran's moment at last to influence the Arab world and particularly create a security arrangement with Arab states in the Persian Gulf. Without the United States, Iran believes it could alter the balance of power -- even though this is highly unlikely.
Iran is particularly focused on the instability in Bahrain, where the United States has a major naval base for the Fifth Fleet. Not only has tension grown between the ruling monarchy, the Al Khalifa family, and the majority Shia population, but there is growing sectarian strife between Shia and Sunni. Tehran is hoping that the tension in Bahrain will force the United States to close its naval base.
During the Bahrain uprising earlier this year, the presence of the Fifth Fleet became a source of criticism toward the United States for its position as both a defender of human rights in countries such as Egypt, and a traditional ally of the authoritarian Bahraini government. Bahrainis lashed out at President Barack Obama for his unwillingness to condemn the Bahraini government for the profound human rights violations being committed against the protesters.
Tehran's current thinking does not bode well for any form of cooperation between Tehran and Washington. Once again, it seems Tehran has rebuffed the Obama administration's efforts --however modest -- of some form of engagement. U.S. military officials have long held the belief that accidental miscommunications in the Persian Gulf posed a much greater risk of a military conflict with Iran than an air strike or another form of conventional attack.
In an apparent effort to make the United States feel the same pressures the Islamic Republic faces in the Persian Gulf, Iranian commanders declared September 27 that Iran would be sending naval vessels into the Gulf of Mexico."As the global arrogance (a pejorative euphemism for the United States) have a presence near our sea borders, we also plan to have a strong presence near the U.S. sea borders with the help of the soldiers who are loyal to the Supreme Leader," declared one of Iran's highest ranking naval officers, Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari. When this statement met with skepticism from American military analysts, who argued Iran lacks the global infrastructure to project its naval power so far abroad, another Iranian officer, Captain Alireza Rahmati, declared that Iranian vessels are indeed capable of such distant sojourns.
Nevertheless, unless or until Iranian ships share the Gulf of Mexico with its more usual flotillas of shrimpers and oil vessels, the major threat to international peace and regional stability remains the proximity of American and Iranian naval vessels in the Persian Gulf.
On September 21, Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States, lamented the lack of communication between Iran and the United States in the context of military tensions in the Persian Gulf. "We're not talking to Iran so we don't understand each other. If something happens [in the Persian Gulf], it's virtually assured that we won't get it right, that there will be miscalculations which would be extremely dangerous in that part of the world." Admiral Mullen supported the idea of opening a line of communications between the two countries to prevent catastrophic escalations in the event of a violent incident in the Persian Gulf, comparing the situation to the communications maintained between the United States and U.S.S.R. during the Cold War.
Ahmadinejad, when asked about the potential for a military hotline between Iran and U.S. forces in the Gulf, stated this week: "First, we oppose the presence of American forces in the region and we believe that as the basis for dissolving tensions, the United States forces must leave the region." These statements reflect somewhat of a reversal in his earlier position on the issue. After Admiral Mullen's remarks several days ago, the Iranian president seemed more open to the idea of the military-to-military hotline. But apparently, Ahmadinejad was sidelined once again by more powerful figures -- Khamenei and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corp.
In recent weeks, multiple Iranian military commanders have rejected the idea out of hand. On September 26, Commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy, Rear Admiral Ali Fadavi, declared "When we go to the Gulf of Mexico, we will establish direct communication with them. In the view of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the illegitimate presence of the U.S. in the Persian Gulf makes no sense," according to Mehr News, a semi-official news agency.
Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast also parroted on October 4 what increasingly seems to be Iran's stance on the issue: "Any solution which helps remove tension among the countries should be hailed; of course the best solution is the U.S.troops' withdrawal from the Middle East. The possibility of any tension would be removed if the U.S. troops leave the region."
Given that the United States has no future plans to eliminate its military presence in the Persian Gulf, it seems the hostilities with Iran will go unabated.
Geneive Abdo is the director of the Iran program at The Century Foundation and the National Security Network. Shayan Ghajar is a research associate for the project.
http://www.rense.com/general95/iranpl.htm
Why I Published US Intelligence Secrets About Israel's Anti-Iran Campaign
http://www.opinion-maker.org/2011/10/richard-silverstein-my-secret-intelligence-reports/#
How do you come up with that? Any reference?
Hearsay and making up stuff doesn't make an intelligent article.
http://bit.ly/n5noGw
http://hamshahrionline.ir/news-143835.aspx
http://bit.ly/pCKOxi
"Given that the United States has no future plans to eliminate its military presence in the Persian Gulf" and despite this admission by the authors, it is still Iran's fault. The authors not once ask the question if US presence is even legitimate in far away waters, and if that presence is the cause of tensions. If so, then the demands of the Iranians are logical: "leave and the tensions will disappear." Yet the conclude Iran is escalating.
The authors ignore the fact that establishing a "hot line" is more about legitimizing the status quo and occupation of the regional territories. The establishment of the "hot line" with the soviets only legitimized 60 years of cold war, and it was part of the infrastructure of that cold war. It creates new facts on the ground. It is no different than the Israeli's building walls to "protect" their citizens, but the walls are also creating new facts on the ground and enforcing the apartheid system. The red line would do the same.
Classify this article under "blame Iran first, think of consequences later."
In terms of whether this is something justifiable to the world and/or the American people (think taxes etc.) - something like a third (!) of the world's seaborne oil transports pass through the Strait of Hormuz. Out of all of the world's oil chokepoints, it's the one with the single highest throughput daily. You really don't wanna be leaving that one unattended with a wildcard like Iran around the corner - it's one of the most strategically important areas in the world at this point; as a result, it's highly unlikely that either country will ease up on this issue. Blame tectonic plates, god or allah or whomever you choose for escalating the issue by creating that bottleneck in the first place.
The US may control the sea lanes as UK did not too long ago. However, the Iranians have much right to travel the seas as they fit.
The US and the UK took out the democractic government in Iran with the CIA/MI6 help and all for OIL.
They not being the only country in the ME and it is only bravado that they think they speak for the region and have the sole right to tell the US to leave. Ask their Sunni neighbors?
Talk is cheap and any Iranians with military knowledge know its Navy and Air power is no match for the US. The number of foot soldiers in Iran is meaningless.
One commentor states that “ it is not going to scare the Iranians since they have an asymmetric defense policy that allocates numerous extremely fast boats with missiles and torpedoes and cruise missiles available to confuse the slow moving US fleet.” The answer is these boats may for a few minutes confuse the US ships but only for a few minutes and when these attacks were over the few surviving boats would be without bases to return. Speaking of cruise and guided missles.
It would be "aggressive" for Iran to send war ships to the Gulf of Mexico, but it is not aggressive for the USA to station war ship in the Persian Gulf.
think that the entire US-Iran relationship started with the Iran hostage crises.
Mention Mossadegh and you will be given a blank stare.
Given our history of overthrowing their democracy and installing the Shah,
I think the history of transgressions has been very one sided.
The entire ME once welcomed the USA as a reprieve from the French
and more so the British colonialists. Unfortunately the USA is now doing the same thing.
The Iranians are right to look at us with distrust.
Iranians
..............................Today there is a CHESS Game being played...who will blink first.
excerpt: The Obama administration has been rapidly expanding US offensive capacity in the African island of Diego Garcia, claimed by Britain, which had expelled the population so that the US could build the massive base it uses for attacks in Central Command area.
excerpt: Obama has dispatched includes 387 "bunker busters" used for blasting hardened underground structures. Planning for these "massive ordnance penetrators," the most powerful bombs in the arsenal short of nuclear weapons, was initiated in Bush administration, but languished. On taking office, Obama immediately accelerated the plans, and they are to be deployed several years ahead of schedule, aiming specifically at Iran.
"They are gearing up totally for the destruction of Iran," according to Dan Plesch, director of Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy at the University of London. "US bombers and long range missiles are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours," he said. "The firepower of US forces has quadrupled since 2003," accelerating under Obama.
Today Iran is doing much business with the BRIC countries, the USA does not like that..
...........IRAN is very Independent......the USA does not like that
balance of article: http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20100702.htm
Admiral also mentioned US direct military line with USSR as a example of adversaries can also communicate, nevertheless he didn't mentioned US had also had embassy and diplomatic ties with USSR at the same time, I guess Iran is considering this US military proposal in broader term of policies and geopolitical implications (majority of Iran neighbors already think Iran is somehow is in bed with US when it comes to invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan) for Iran in a background of having no diplomatic relation with US!
As far as having line of communication with Iran's armed forces are concerned, there is procedure there which is working fine, both side are declaring upfront where they holding their military exercise in that area, also any time one side want to say anything to other side over military radios, their respective military headquarters and chain of command will overhear and can intervene in real-time if it's necessary, therefore US military proposal is nice but not necessary, Iran want diplomatic relation with US with no precondition and not military ties before that, US is trying to put the cart before the horse if you will!
Cart before the horse? How about just trying to stop an unfortunate incident before it happens.
There is nothing wrong with US proposal as long as being offered by the President through State Department since it's not up to military generals to initiate any foreign policies!
War between Iran and U.S. wouldn't benefit anybody except the scavengers who would pick up the pieces when finished. A hotline isn't a bad idea, debunking even our modest attempts at communication isn't going to get anybody anywhere.
Please have the Iranians come over to Gulf of Mexico...we need the tourist.
Indeed, given what the Iranians could offer the Haitian government (not just oil, but help rebuilding a destroyed infrastructure, the differences between infrastructure destroyed by war and infrastructure destroyed by earthquake being minor, and turning a third world economy into a modern industrialised one) and have given in the past (yes, Iranians sent aid to help when the earthquake hit) they could do a deal that American's wouldn't automatically write off, politically speaking.
My original point was that it doesn't make any difference whether the US is in Bahrain or Qatar. But, the larger issue is that the time for gunboat diplomacy is over. The area belongs to the regional powers. The US is just like a bully. It is just like Great Britain in the 18th and 19th century trying to rule the world. Sooner or later, the US will be kicked out of the Persian Gulf when the puppet leaders like the phony "King" of Bahrain are toppled.