Dit artikel is deel van de serie: De komende oorlog tegen Iran
[ 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - 20 - 21 - 22 - 23 - 24 - 25 - 26 - 27 - 28 - 29 - 30 - 31 - 32 - 33 - 34 - 35 - 36 - 37 - 38 - 39 - 40 - 41 - 42 - 43 - 44 - 45 ]

The attack on Iran has already begun

Video: The attack on Iran has already begun
Audio: Daan de Wit interviewed by BNR Nieuwsradio
Book: The Next War - The Attack on Iran - A Preview
Video: Documentary exploring the culture of Iran (English)
Article: The Other Face of Barack Obama - I (English)
The following article discussed on NuJij.nl
-

By Daan de Wit
Translated by Ben Kearney

For the first time in a year international talks are being held with Iran. The question is whether or not these talks are designed to arrive at a solution. Or do these discussions - and the sanctions which will no doubt follow - represent an uptick in the direction of a military conflict, just as was the case with Iraq?

The attack on Iran has already begun. War is merely one phase in the long-running conflict that the West, along with Israel, is engaged in with this country. This phase isn't underway yet, but the fundamentals for it are being layed - just as was the case with Iraq. An autonomous Iran is a thorn in the side of Israel and the West. You need only take a look at the map. The large gray area in the middle is Iran, surrounded by American bases and American interests, and within shooting range of Israel. Now take a look at the other map, on which oil and gas reserves are represented. Put both maps next to each other and you can see the problem. The energy interests for the West are huge, especially now that accessible reserves are in drastic decline. At the same time Iran is threatening the dominant regional postition of the nuclear power Israel. The manufacturing of consent in the the West and Israel was started under Bush and is continuing under Obama. A problem is being presented, and the consciousness of the people is being prepped for the solution. And all of this aided by Iran itself, a country that does not come across as very sympathetic in either word or deed. This despite some words having been distorted and some deeds possibly having been influenced.

Obama, Brown and Sarkozy gave the world a fright on Friday when they announced the disclosure of a new nuclear facility near the Iranian city of Qom. Yet the existence of the facility was not news to the American government. It's also still uncertain as to whether or not the highly-enriched uranium suitable for the production of nuclear weapons can be produced there. It says something about President Obama that he nevertheless presents this information as such. He underscores his message by saying that Iran is breaking the rules that all countries must adhere to. But this is also not true, because with the approval of the United States, Israel chooses not to follow these rules - it is not a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Earlier this year, during his famous speech on the Iranian New Year, Obama publicly reached out to Iran. He said that it was up to Iran to respond, but at the same time said that the country had to give up its nuclear program. For him the alternative is that Iran will 'continue down a path that is going to lead to confrontation'. In this way he is not ruling out the military option. It's the type of rhetoric that would have suited the previous American president quite well and which can be counted upon to evoke the same dismissal from Tehran. Iran is playing by the international rules of the game and is not prepared to shut down its nuclear program. That means that neither side is prepared to meet the other halfway. The question is how long this can go on. The clock is ticking.

As time goes by and Iran keeps testing rockets and making progress with its nuclear program, the moment is approaching when the country can at the very least give the impression of being untouchable. At that point the U.S. and Israel are no longer going to be able to achieve their goals. And from that moment on, Iran will get the respect that it has longed for and will take its 'rightful' place in the region. For Obama and Netanyahu, a nuclear Iran is unacceptable. And because at the same time Iran wishes under no condition to put a halt to its nuclear program, both sides are heading for a confrontation. Such a collision can assume many forms. Because of this, all we can do is hope that 'Iraq' is being viewed as a warning by the United States and Israel, and not as a blueprint.

Waarom ligt Syrië onder vuur? - Deel 4

Wie onder de oppervlakte kijkt, ziet dat Syrië onder vuur ligt vanwege de belangen van de betrokken partijen. 'Syrië' gaat over macht, geld, invloed en energie.

lees meer

Waarom ligt Syrië onder vuur? - 3

Wie vorm en inhoud scheidt, ziet dat de strijd om Syrië vooral niet gaat over waar het over lijkt te gaan. De vorm maskeert de inhoud. Syrië en Iran zijn stukken op een geopolitiek schaakbord.

lees meer

Waarom ligt Syrië onder vuur? - Deel 2

Bij grote militaire conflicten die aanzienlijke humantaire en economische gevolgen kunnen hebben, is het goed te kijken naar de belangen van de betrokken partijen en naar de rol van de media bij de verslaggeving van de feiten.

lees meer

Waarom ligt Syrië onder vuur? - Deel 1

Aan de oppervlakte is het duidelijk: de VS willen Syrië bevrijden van een wrede dictator die zijn bevolking met gifgas bestookt. Onder de oppervlakte is er iets heel anders aan de hand.

lees meer

Albert Spits: Creëer je eigen financiële veiligheid

Spits beschrijft hoe de euro richting de uitgang gaat en dat je intussen maar beter waarde voor je geld kunt kiezen. Hij raadt iedereen aan zich voor te bereiden op een systeemkrach.

lees meer