We witnessed a new development that fueled the recent Iran-U.S. cold war in the Gulf, when Iran downed an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) belonging to the U.S. in the Strait of Hormuz. Following this event, an expectation developed especially in Israel, and of course in Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates (UAE) – which want to see the U.S. and Iran at war at once – for the U.S. to make a immediate countermove. Though U.S. President Donald Trump initially responded to this expectation with his words, it was ascertained that it would not be too realistic for this scene to be followed by a U.S. attack.
It could after all be clearly observed that the UAV shot down by Iran was carrying out spying activities in Iran’s airspace. According to international rules, it was the U.S. side that was in violation, and the right to shoot down this UAV belonged to Iran within the context of protecting its country against spying activities. This is exactly how the incident was reflected to the U.S. public.
Iranian Spokesperson for the Presidency of General Staff Brig. Gen. Abolfazl Shekarchi said that a likely military attack against Iran would be extremely detrimental to Washington’s interests and its allies in the region, warning about the consequences of a military attack targeting Iran. In response to this, Shekarchi stated that his country would not launch a war against any country, but that they would harshly respond to attacks.
Shikarci, who stated that the U.S. attack would be a mistake, said: “Even if the enemy makes the slightest mistake, it will face Iran’s greatest revolutionary reaction in Central and West Asia and can certainly not remain standing. A bullet shot at Iranian territory will throw into the fire U.S. interests and allies in the region.”
However, upon this incident, the matter of why the U.S. needs to wage a war against Iran has become increasingly questioned in the U.S. On one television program, while attention was drawn to the terrifying number of U.S. bases in countries around Iran, in other words, in a region surrounding Iran, it was stated that in comparison to this, there is no Iranian base anywhere even remotely near to the U.S. The question of how – in this situation – Iran constitutes a threat to the U.S. also reveals the fact that the U.S. is the one that constitutes an abusive threat against Iran.
The comparative views raised by this question are increasingly drawing greater attention among the U.S. public, and U.S. citizens themselves are asking what the U.S. is fighting for in the Middle East.
There is no real reason requiring the U.S. to go to war with Iran. Iran does not threaten the U.S. in any way; it has no realistic distance or power to do so.
As the U.S. is the one that withdrew from the nuclear deal with Iran, this actually gives Iran the opportunity to act as it wishes in this regard. By withdrawing from the nuclear deal, the U.S. is no longer in a position to intervene in what Iran does in relation to this matter. As this deal is still in question with Europe, the EU may have demands to make from Iran to remain loyal to the deal, however, the U.S. has no such right.
Yet, Israel may sense a threat on its own behalf in relation to Iran’s possession of nuclear power, but it is not a simple task for U.S. presidents to explain to their own people that the U.S. is waging a war against Iran simply because Israel senses a threat.
This dilemma was revealed very well by an answer Nancy Graham, a powerful figure in the U.S. Congress, gave in response to a question that was directed after Iran shot down the UAV in recent days. Graham was clearly saying that there is currently no reason for the U.S. to wage a war within the context of its own relations, however, in the case thay Israel wages a war against Iran due to the threat it senses due to nuclear arming, the U.S. would join this war to support its ally Israel.
It is a little strange, but Graham was saying that as long as Iran continued its nuclear enrichment program, both Israel’s sense of this threat and joining this war would be inevitable, and hence the U.S. would indirectly have waged a war against Iran. In other words, the Republicans’ most reasonable and powerful figure warned Iran not on behalf of the U.S. but on behalf of Israel.
As a matter of fact, these statements give a very clear picture of how Israel is the U.S.’s most important problem. It is not very clear what a performance being staged for the U.S. public and the whole world is depicting, or to what end. It is also obvious that this will not work in favor of the U.S.’s long-term interests.
The situation would not change even if the U.S. acted against Iran on behalf of Saudi Arabia rather than on behalf of Israel. It is clear that the U.S., which is after the oil sources in the region, would be cheaply selling off the great U.S. leadership with the bodyguard image.
Of course these relations have deep-rooted meanings at other levels. However, no meaning at any level changes the fact that all these relations are slowly consuming the U.S.