| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Why Iran Thinks America Won't Attack |
| 2012-03-23 |
| By Reza Kahlili Iran's leaders believe that with the current global economic climate, specifically in the United States and Europe, and it being an American election year, the talks of a military option to take out the nuclear facilities amount to a bluff. They believe they hold the key to President B.O.'s re-election, as any instability in the region and in the price of energy will send America back into a severe recession. More dangerous is their belief that even a limited conflict with America will help their status as the leader of a worldwide Islamic movement and trigger the downfall of regimes in the region more friendly to the U.S.; help the Syrian regime out of its current crisis; and push the military junta out of power in Egypt, helping solidify control by the Moslem Brüderbund. As the Iranian strategist Mehdi Mohammadi recently stated, as Iran progresses on the nuclear front, the West will realize that not only will a military option no longer work, but neither will sanctions. Then the West will have to accept a nuclear Iran. Iranian leaders also believe that since Israel would now have to act alone, it will not risk thousands of missiles from many fronts raining down on Tel Aviv and ultimately will also accept a nuclear Iran. Most of all, they believe that once Iran is nuclear-armed, the West will be checkmated, as the cost of any confrontation at that time would be the destruction of the world. Reza Kahlili is a pseudonym for a former CIA operative in Iran's Revolutionary Guards and the author of the award-winning book A Time to Betray. He is a senior fellow with EMPact America, a member of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security, and teaches at the U.S. Department of Defense's Joint Counterintelligence Training Academy (JCITA). |
| Posted by:trailing wife |
| #6 Why Saddam thought America wouldn't attack..... |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2012-03-23 19:39 |
| #5 Why? Gas is approaching $4 per gallon during an election year. And the Prez is a goof who sourced ayatollah suppression of the 2009 riots, in America's 1953 intervention. BHO has never attacked Ahmadinejad; he only expresses differences with same. |
| Posted by: Jinesing Dingle1220 2012-03-23 16:47 |
| #4 I meant, you soon will eb able to reacll a decline in popularity fror not bombing. |
| Posted by: JFM 2012-03-23 11:21 |
| #3 @Gromgoru. You soon will be able to recall. |
| Posted by: JFM 2012-03-23 11:20 |
| #2 Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't recall a POTUS who suffered a decline in popularity for bombing the sh*t out of somebody perceived as villainous/hostile by USA public. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2012-03-23 09:17 |
| #1 NO NUCWEAPS = tantamount to NO OWG-NWO GLOBAL "CALIPHATE" THAT IS PAR, SUPERIOR, OR DOMINANT VEE THE NON-ISLAMIC WORLD. By extension, IMO NO "NEO-PERSIA", "GREAT SHIA" OR "GREAT POWER" IRAN EITHER. [OWG MADONNA'S BROTHERS notwithstanding]. D *** NG IT, WOMAN, THOSE HIPPIE YIPPIE KIDZ WANNA VISIT PERSIA FOR SPRING BREAK! |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2012-03-23 00:47 |