|
Archived Articles
Simeon Mitropolitski is a Canadian analyst, of Bulgarian origin, and a former syndicated columnist with the Bulgarian News Agency (BTA). He is the author of several hundred articles dealing with hot political and economic topics, both national and international.
He was part of the first group of Bulgarian intellectuals and students that began the opposition movement that finally put an end to the communist regime in this country in 1989, and in 1996-1997 participated in international observation teams during the elections in several Balkan countries - Romania, Albania and Bulgaria.
In 2002 Simeon and his family moved from Bulgaria to Canada where they live now in Montreal, province of Quebec. Simeon is a Master of Political Science from McGill University and a B.A. of Political Science and History.
Global Real Estate Project
|
 |
Strikes against Iran look so realUnlike China-Taiwan's periodic 'wars of words' or the international problems with North Korea over its nuclear program, the situation and its seriousness surrounding Iran looks real, almost like the situation surrounding Iraq a year before the last war. Well, not exactly, then the scent of war was in the air, now many hope a diplomatic solution is still possible. What made the situation of Iraq not so complicated was that the players were two, the U.S. and Saddam, notwithstanding the 'noise' coming from Europe and from somewhere else, and the big enigma was the Iraqi's leader strategy. The players are at least three now, including Israel, and within Iranian leadership the strategies are as many as in Washington DC. This makes the situation less predictable and more dangerous. The situation now looks less likely explicable in terms of Cold War nuclear confrontation and much more in terms of pre WWI loose military alliances. If Iran could be dealt with following the logic of the Cold War mutually assured destruction (MAD) then we could hope for peaceful solution no matter how many nuclear weapons they have. In fact the nuclear weapons made the world a safer place for so many years despite the warlike rhetoric coming from Moscow or Washington. Is it possible this time to present similar model for peaceful solution? It may be, but it will be less likely for the following reasons. Iran is still an ideological state much more than the Soviet Union has been in its final 2-3 decades. When the leaders of such state say they like to see another state 'wiped off the map' this should be taken very seriously, especially in this particular state, in our case Israel. When this particular state is presumed to have its own nuclear weapons, then the whole situation becomes very serious, not only for the countries in the large Middle East region, but also for those that are supposed to preserve the world peace. In the good old times of Cold War strong military alliances and strong pressure exercised by the hegemons, USSR and the U.S.A., upon their client would guarantee the peaceful solution of any political crisis, at least in northern hemisphere. The alternative being MAD all diplomats had strong incentives to find mutually acceptable solutions. If we still have lived today in a world ruled like the world during the Cold War, then Russia, if we assume it's the hegemon and Iran is the client, will make everything to stop Tehran from attacking Israel; otherwise the MAD will hit Moscow as if Russia itself attacks Israel. Unfortunately in our world Russia will only sell nuclear technologies to Iran and air defense systems to protect its client against the U.S. and/or Israeli strikes. America won't nuke Moscow because of Iranian nuclear strike against Israel. Russia knows it can take no responsibility for such a war, and this makes it less concerned over the effects of its nuclear and military technologies sold abroad. The second player, we promised there were at least three main players, Israel, wouldn't be assured by its hegemon and third player, the U.S., that there wouldn't be any Iranian nuclear attacks. That will lead Israel considering preemptive strikes against Iranian nuclear technologies. Israel of course will prefer that Iran give up its nuclear program under international diplomatic pressure. The military solution will be implemented only as a final tool. Washington, giving precedence to diplomatic tools, develops similar strategy now. But there is some difference between the U.S. and Israel and it comes from the perception of the level of Iranian threat as intolerable. There isn't doubt that the level of tolerance in Tel Aviv will be lower than in Washington DC, meaning everything being equal, Israel may decide to go and strike as the Americans still think that situation can be managed peacefully. The U.S. will be involved in war with Iran whenever Israel decides to strike because Tel Aviv technically can't do it without sending advanced notices to their American friends flying over their heads in Iraq. This will be the worst scenario for the U.S., being required to go to war in time chosen by others, no matter how close allies they may be. It isn't here the place to discuss Iranian strategies. As far as we can see Iran can benefit to a degree, economically and politically, from a diplomatic confrontation of limited intensity with the West. If they act rationally they won't allow the situation to slip out of control. The question is can they keep the situation under control and at the same time keep the diplomatic confrontation unsolved for a long period? With at least three main players, plenty of 'noise' coming from outside, and lack of clear understanding what Iran is exactly looking for, world power status, or weapons to destroy Israel, or prestige, or international guarantees for its security, the prospects for peaceful solution aren't so big.
Iran - country profile: --------------------
See also the directory of companies providing real estate services in, and general real estate information of Iran.
|
See also:
