New York Times: Iran is not Venezuela; Iran’s tough response likely

Afghan Voice Agency (AVA) - International Service: When US President Donald Trump announced last summer that US military forces had carried out airstrikes against Iranian nuclear facilities, he claimed that the purpose of the operation was nothing more than to stop the threat of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. He said that if Iran’s leaders “do not make peace, future attacks will be much more severe and much easier.”

 

The New York Times wrote with this introduction: Trump repeated this threat this week and is now considering another action against Iran; a country whose nuclear program poses almost no immediate threat to the Middle East or the United States. In the past six months, there has been almost no sign of significant progress by Iran in rebuilding its nuclear fuel enrichment capacity and building a nuclear warhead.

 

The American media cited these documents as based on statements by American and European officials and independent groups monitoring Iran.

 

Trump's threats are aimed at forcing Iran to negotiate

The New York Times continued by writing that given these circumstances, questions have been raised about the timing and motivations behind Trump's threats. The newspaper stated that "Are his threats simply to bring Iran back to nuclear negotiations? Could a military attack on the nuclear program be an excuse to weaken Iran's leaders? Why has Trump's stated reasons for targeting Iran returned to the nuclear program, when he initially said he was seeking to defend protesters? If Iran's nuclear enrichment program has been "totally and absolutely destroyed," as Trump said last June, what could be the possible targets of a new attack?"

 

According to the report, US officials said that “Trump has not yet authorized military action and has not decided among the options presented by the Pentagon.” Iran has also warned that any military action will be met with a decisive response.

 

The New York Times wrote that Trump is still seeking a diplomatic solution, and some officials acknowledged that the public issuance of military threats was aimed at forcing Iran to negotiate.

 

The Trump administration’s negotiating positions have now gone beyond the nuclear issue and include banning Iran from enriching uranium, giving up its stockpile of enriched uranium, as well as imposing limits on the range and number of ballistic missiles and cutting ties with resistance movements.

 

Iran has repeatedly stated that as a member of the NPT, it has the right to peaceful nuclear energy. Tehran has also emphasized that it will not negotiate on defense issues. Iran has also stressed that it has always adhered to diplomacy and that it was the United States that betrayed diplomacy by giving the green light to the Zionist regime in the middle of negotiations.

 

A US official said that Trump and senior officials in his administration are well aware that any operation in Iran would be far more difficult than the US action in Venezuela. The difficulty and risk for US forces would be much higher, and Iran is a much more capable adversary than Venezuela. For this reason, Trump is still weighing the range of options.

 

But the Israeli regime is pursuing another option; it wants “the United States to join it in a renewed attack on Iran’s ballistic missile program. Iran has largely rebuilt the program, according to intelligence officials.”

 

The American newspaper warned that “for several reasons, a second US military campaign in Iran could be far more destabilizing than the first, depending on its scope or objectives.”

 

Regarding the first reason, the New York Times wrote that even “the fall of the Iranian regime would have uncertain consequences,” and the second reason goes back to Iran’s response: Israeli intelligence agencies assess that an Iranian counterattack using ballistic missiles could target major Israeli cities, while Iran’s attacks last year have focused mainly on military and government targets.”

 

There are also serious questions about what legal authority the United States would use to take military action against Iran in the absence of any authorization from Congress.

 

As US military equipment is being deployed to the region, even Trump’s top advisers admit that they have no clear idea of ​​what might happen if the situation continues to escalate.

 

Trump has claimed that the US military will act “swiftly and violently” if Iran refuses to “negotiate a fair and just deal” to eliminate its nuclear program, but Rubio described the deployment of US forces in the region as primarily defensive, saying that 30,000 to 40,000 US troops are in the Middle East within range of Iranian drones and missiles. The US Secretary of State also spoke of a "preemptive defense option."

 

Some Democrats, however, consider Trump's strategy of threatening military action to achieve nuclear diplomacy to be wrong.

 

US lawmaker Jason Crowe, mocking Trump for wanting to solve all problems through military means, said: "What we need is a permanent, verifiable agreement to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."

 

Enriched uranium is in place

The New York Times writes that US and Israeli intelligence agencies have a high priority for gathering information on how Iran can recover its nuclear weapons.