‘US RETREATING FROM ATTACKING IRAN’ – claims Iranian newspaper


The US is retreating from an attack on Iran, says an article in Iran’s newspaper Jaam-e Jam, published last Tuesday.

It reports: ‘The Israeli Haretz newspaper, (13th issue) writes that the US is damaging Israel’s logistic preparations for an attack to destroy Iran’s nuclear installations.

‘The US is not willing for such an attack to take place and has warned Israel that it should avoid any military action without prior consultations with Washington.’

‘On the last page it says that the US has refused to give Israel military equipment which would strengthen the Israeli army if it moved to destroy Iran’s nuclear installations.

‘Ehud Barak, Israeli defence minister, later said the US is against Israel’s military actions against Iran’s nuclear activities.

‘This news comes as Republicans in Washington are worried Israel will launch a military attack without informing Washington – as it did in 1981 in an attack on Iran’s nuclear establishment which destroyed the Temmuz reactor and the installations in Osirak.

‘Or perhaps imaginary worries in Washington caused such rumours in the Israeli press that Bush will not order a military attack on Iran but will use diplomatic measures in the last months of his presidency.’

The Iranian article comments: ‘This change in the White House position comes after the new round of Iranian, US and Israeli military manoeuvres and the Simpson manoeuvre in the east Atlantic.

‘Even with minor military actions against Iran another ugly tradition would be passed to the new US president after Iraq and Afghanistan.’

The paper said thatUS politics has been expansionist and aggressive for decades and that for Bush – ‘with the lowest rating among American presidents – to put aside the military attack solution is the result of regional and international realities and not US foreign politics.

‘Bankruptcy of mortgage banks, the weak dollar, high inflation in world prices of food and oil – along with pressures from traditional competitors like China, have alarmed the neo-conservatives and made them realistic.

‘These economic anti-oxides together with Iran’s geo-strategic role in an Iraq which has become a nightmare for supporters of the White House’s militaristic politics, proves Iran’s traditional power.

‘The unfruitful four-day meeting of Iranian and American representatives on Iraq security shows that the US acknowledges Iran’s influence there.

‘Strong religious and social links with Iraqi Shas were used by the US against the Sunni minority in Iraq, but Americans now know that in an attack against Iran, leaders like Moqtada al-Sadr will stand against it and the Iraq nightmare will become more terrible.

‘In the current situation, when the resistance of moderate Sunnis is supported by Saudi Arabia and Jordan, instability in Shia regions will cause more inconvenience to the allied forces – another main factor dictating neo-conservatives’ more moderate politics in Iraq.

‘According to an informal US State Department and National Security Council survey, the policy of a military attack on Iran has stopped now and there is a possibility that Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards will be hit in the next two months.

‘This survey, conducted by Pentagon’s Defence Research Department and Blackwater Security services in April, shows that this will be Bush’s answer to Iran’s so-called “interference” in Iraq and in the region.

‘Difference of opinions between politicians and the public has always been an Achilles’ heel for the Republicans’ foreign agenda.

‘Another survey conducted in May-June 2008 among 108 known American experts such as James Woods, former CIA director; Aaron Friedberg former first assistant to Dick Cheney, Bush’s deputy; former secretary of state Madeleine Albright, and Lawrence Eagleburger, showed 89% per cent of experts are against an attack on Iran’s nuclear installations, and 65% believe that Bush will not attack Iran until the end of his presidency, while 35 per cent think that he will.

‘Only 8% think that an attack on Iran is necessary.’

The Iranian article continues: ‘Harmonic trends in American political and military preparations in eastern and central Asia, which are going to end soon, have silenced the Zionists and caused them to change their tactics.

‘American political author Zbigniew Brzezinski, in his book “Domination, Choice or Leadership” says that tensions and instability in the region from the Suez Canal to Sichuan, and from the Caspian Sea to the Persian Gulf are unavoidable.

‘ “Middle Asia has become a centre of instability since the world financial base moved from the US to China. Hong-Kong, Shanghai and Singapore are now the distributors of world finance, while previously it was London and New York.

‘ “The transfer of financial centres from the US to China shows the dollar is not the only currency of world trade. Large banks have shifted from having dollars as their only currency to having it as one of several currencies.

‘ “This means that the consumer oriented comfort for Americans is over.

‘ “It also means that the US military aid to Israel stops suddenly and Israel is left alone to face a growing Islamic world and its main enemy Iran.”

‘Many in the US believe that whoever is the 44th president of the US, will leave Israel alone against Iran.

‘Previously it was said that if Obama won the election, with his Brzezinski ideas he would let Israel alone, but in the event of McCain’s victory he would support Israel following Kissinger’s ideology’, the article said.

It continued: ‘But the results of a survey announced on 4th of August showed a big change. Support for McCain jumped to 52% against Obama’s 37%.

‘Perhaps because Obama bore the effects of the Zionist lobbyists after his visit to the Western Wall and his statement to Congress Democrats that if the sanctions against Iran do not give results, Israel will attack Iran.

‘After Iran’s army commander announced new missile tests and threatened to close the Hormuz Canal indefinitely – when the unstable energy market affected the US economy, when Europe drew back from the military attack agenda on Iran and when (Iranian president) Ahmadinezhad stated Tehran’s readiness to have political relations with the US – the military map of the region changed.

‘This region was already unstable after two US war ships capable of delivering an atomic bomb were sent there.

‘Michael Mullen, commander of the Allied Forces said: “This area of the world is unstable itself and there is no need to make it unstable any more”.

‘Bush had no other option than to choose the politics he has today – the CIA and Mossad failure to identify the exact location of Iran’s nuclear establishments, the increase in oil prices, the erosion of US military in the sphere of equipment and world public opinion against war were the reasons for it.

‘Bush had to shift his path in order to calm the oil markets. He had to improve the chances for a Republican candidate to be elected.

‘Pushing for diplomatic solutions and warning Israel from time to time to stay calm is the only option for Republicans to keep the Rasmussen survey results unchanged.

‘However, it seems all this is not sufficient and Bush still needs to do more. He has to take the military agenda off the table and put it in the archives forever to ensure that McCain will not join Dick Cheney in singing The Beach Boys’ “Let’s go Bomb Tehran”,’ the Iranian newspaper article concluded.