Iran Believes U.S. Presidential Elections Will Prevent Attack
Analysis of potential attack plans published on supreme leader’s website
By Paul Joseph Watson, Infowars.com
November 25, 2011
A candid analysis published on the official website of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, contends that the United States is highly unlikely to support an attack on Iran in the short term due to the upcoming presidential elections in 2012.YNet News describes the publication of a piece written by Dr. Amir Mohebian, a senior political commentator, as “unusual,” in that it details three different scenarios under which Iran could face a US/Israeli attack.
1. An all out war of attrition that would combine aerial and ground forces attack.
2. Limited war as a preparatory action for political proceedings. This would include hitting Iran’s control centers for the purpose of disrupting the stability of the Islamic regime. The best case scenario here would be that war leads to the regime’s fall; the worst case would see Iran surrendering at the negotiating table.
3. A war on specific targets with the aim of destroying the regime’s assault capabilities, especially against the “Zionist regime.”
Taking into account next year’s US presidential elections, Mohebian concludes that “the chances of an all out war against Iran are close to nothing.”
Although Iran believes that the presidential elections are a roadblock to US involvement in an attack, the opposite could just as easily be true. After all, the prospect of the 2004 presidential election did not stop the Bush administration from invading Iraq in 2003.
Given that virtually all of the Republican frontrunners support war with Iran, Obama adopting the same policy is hardly going to harm his re-election chances. Indeed, neo-conservatives have consistently lobbied Obama to attack Iran, advising him that it’s the only way to rescue his political legacy.
In addition, Mitt Romney’s criticism that a nuclear Iran would be the consequence of Obama’s re-election would be completely nullified if his administration was to green light the attack. Establishment Republicans hoping to defeat Obama by posing as being tougher on foreign policy would have the rug pulled out from under them if Obama was to sign off on an assault on Iran which is supported by roughly half of Americans.
Should the US become embroiled in yet another theater of conflict, Obama could rely on the same rhetoric that helped his predecessor defeat John Kerry, by claiming that it would be unwise to change horses in the middle of a race.
Since Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama has deployed more US troops than Bush ever did and embroiled the US in more wars than at any time under Bush, the notion that a pesky presidential election will abate his administration’s lust for more bloodshed is a naive assumption.