The end of pre-emptive strike doctrine

Iran is more successful in pursuing its interests than the USA.
For example, Iranians conducted a brilliant operation – they overthrew Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein with the hands of Americans.
After quick and effective victory over Saddam’s regime (it seemed so at that time), experts all over the world started figuring out which country will be the next one to be attacked by the USA. They selected one of the three countries named by George Bus as the “Axis of Evil”: North Korea, Syria and Iran. Of course, nobody said that the USA was planning a new military operation. However, Washington did not try to hide the fact that these countries regimes’ will be watched by the USA very closely. Moreover, this attention corresponded well with the doctrine of “pre-emptive strike”. “We should strike the enemy, destroy its plans and counteract the threats before it has developed a capability that could someday become threatening”, said the US President two years ago.

Iran ideally fits this doctrine. Of course, Americans believe that not only Iran, but North Korea as well is developing nuclear weapons. But look at the map, and you will understand that Iran attracts attention of the US strategists much more than North Korea. In addition, Teheran has never abandoned its aspirations for being a regional leader.

The recent scandal with the US protйgй in Iraq, the former emigrant and current criminal Ahmad Chalabi who had been sentenced in Jordan for bank affairs and escaped from punishment, demonstrated that Iran is playing a smart game in the Middle East. In the end of May some articles were published in the Western press, they stated that Chalabi was a double agent and was working for Iranian intelligence. He allegedly gave Americans false information, including the data on Saddam’s possessing weapons of mass destruction. This information was invented by Iranians and became the plausible excuse to starting the war.

Of course, the real situation could be different. The accusations to Chalabi could result from some intrigues of dividing authority in Iraq. But even these accusations are true, Iranians conducted a brilliant operation – the overthrew the Iraqi leader (whom they detested) with the hands of Americans, involved the USA in the protracted conflict in Iraq, and now Washington has no idea how to get out of this conflict, and at the same time Iran improved its authority among Iraq Shiites. Finally, Teheran drew aside the threat of US interference (or even direct military invasion) in Iran.

The US administration diminished its criticism to Iran. Of course, Washington still repeats its old statement of the danger of Iranian developing nuclear weapons (by the way, no evidence of this has been produced so far). 

Christian Science Monitor wrote that at the recent G-8 summit the USA made a concession and agreed with the offer of the other G-8 countries to introduce moratorium for one year for export of splitting nuclear materials to the countries which have been recognized as not having such materials. Meanwhile, initially Washington had tougher opinion and offered to impose absolute ban on importing such materials.

The newspaper gives another example of US reducing criticism to Iran: the USA des not “press” the International Atomic Energy Agency submit the “Iranian case” to the UN Security Council, this could result in imposing sanctions on Iran.

The Christian Science Monitor believes that the USA probably temporarily abandoned its pre-emptive strike doctrine and tries to achieve its purposes with the help of international organizations.  The example of Iraq has demonstrated that relying on assistance of international organizations produces better results. At least, not only the USA accepts responsibility for some actions (or lack of action).

Subscribe to Pravda.Ru Telegram channel, Facebook, RSS!

Author`s name Evgeniya Petrova