The call for a more robust and proactive approach towards Iran is being voiced loud and clear. The main question is can the politicians admit their mistakes and harken to this call?
When the nuclear deal was signed, the politicians and deal makers tried to convince us that the deal will moderate Iran and mellow its terrorism and regional aggression. It seems that the most recent missile attacks by Iran Houthi Proxies on the US warship, and the US response, have been the last straw, which has instigated a thought process.
Admiral Stavridis, former 16th supreme allied commander at NATO and currently dean of Fletcher School, wrote a compelling column in the Time. While cautioning for the need for increased deterrence against Iran and its regional ambitions, he states the following: “the sanctions relief it negotiated as a result is pouring billions of dollars into its economy. A major part of that money will be used to increase Iranian control over Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan and other fragile regional nations. They will..continue to collide with our Sunni allies, notably Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. The Iranians will also increase their ability to use asymmetric weapons such as cyber and terrorism to influence public opinion and increase their freedom to maneuver. The next President of the United States must take a proactive approach to the Iranian challenge“.
The Wall Street Journal, not far behind, declares “the tide of war is not receding in the Middle East”, going on to assert: “..Obama’s Iran deal was supposed to moderate Iran’s regional ambitions, so Mr. Obama could play a mediating role between Tehran and Riyadh. But the nuclear deal has emboldened Iran, and fortified it with more money, so now the U.S. is being drawn into what amounts to a proxy war against Iran. Genius”.
Continuing, the WSJ refers to the Yemen conflict as “another catastrophic civil war that is another front in the Iranian campaign to become the dominant power in the Middle East”.
The observer gives a full survey of the Yemen missile issue, noting that Iran is not a neighbor and therefore should not have been involved at all, concludes that the altercation is a result of Iranian desire for more control in the region. The Observer warns that “rough seas may still be ahead”.
Already in October 2015 IranTruth called for a strategy to counter Iran’s regional aggression. Are the decision makers now ready?
Filed under: Human Rights, Iranian Financial Sanctions, Iranian Nuclear Crisis, Iranian Politics, Media Coverage, Military
