America Repeats Verbal Attacks on Iran - why?

RIA Novosti Political Commentator Pyotr Goncharov

MOSCOW. -- The U.S. administration has come down on Iran twice in the past three weeks.

As President George W. Bush addressed the American Legion late in August, he said that the Iranian nuclear program was threatening a nuclear Holocaust to the entire Middle East, that the danger was not regional but global, and that the United States would repulse it before it was too late.

Bush had never been so outspoken about an alert for a military operation against Iran.

Next, The Sunday Times related information from Dr. Alexis Debat, Nixon Center director of the terrorism and national security program. He mentioned a plan the Pentagon had allegedly drawn for air-raiding 1,200 targets in Iran to cripple its army within three days.

To all appearances, the plan is not sheer fiction. First, such an operation would be the most effective, from the military point, of all options known for today. Second, it is so typical of the U.S. to make plans known well beforehand and in ample detail to dampen enemy morale and warn civilians to avoid casualties.

U.S. pressure on Tehran is evident. In fact, Iran has never received such an explicit warning. What is behind it?

The U.S. administration is hardly toughening its policy on Iran only because of its nuclear program. True, prospects for Iranian nuclear industry able to manufacture arms, plus a program envisaging the region's strongest missile arsenal, are to reckon with-but this is not the only factor.

Tehran's regional policy remains the strongest irritant. Take President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's call to the United States to pull out from Iraq. As he reassured, Iran had sufficient forces to fill the void. That's the problem at stake now, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said by way of comment.

Ahmadinejad's demand set not only the U.S. administration on its guard. The LAS foreign ministers meeting in Cairo also expressed major concern, assuming that the Iranian president was interfering in Iraqi domestic affairs. They certainly meant much more.

Ahmadinejad sees the weakness of present-day U.S. policy in the Middle East. His regime has overwhelming regional ambitions backed by economic, military and raw materials potentials. That is really a bad problem. To all appearances, the administration has not yet blueprinted its policy on Iran in case the United States pulls out from Iraq. Hence alleged information leaks about Pentagon plans, air raids, etc.

What will come of the threats? Certain European Union political emissary experts on U.S. policy in the Middle East think an American military operation against Iran is quite plausible unless Tehran offers Washington a choice. With the impending Iranian nuclear danger, it is hard to imagine the United States leaving its Middle Eastern allies to face Iran single-handed.

In a recent interview with Der Spiegel, IAEA director general Mohamed ElBaradei said that it would be clear in November, or December, at the latest, whether Iran was complying with its own pledges on its nuclear program. If it was not, Tehran would miss its crucial chance, which might be its last.

The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.