ANOTHER REASON

More than a year ago, the world community, at the suggestion of the Russian media, anxiously discussed the US plan to attack Iran under the symbolic name "Bite". The air strikes on certain targets across Iran were "scheduled" for 0400 on 6 April 2007. Of course, everyone understood very well that if the Pentagon really had such a plan, its important details would not have leaked to the media, especially to the Russian newspaper Argumenty Nedeli, not to The New York Times or The Guardian. Nevertheless, the situation remained nervous until the very morning of 6 April. Public statements by some Russian officials, including the Russian army chief of staff, Yuriy Baluyevskiy, and Deputy Foreign Ministry Andrey Denisov added oil to the fire of the journalistic rumours that quoted "a source in the Russian law-enforcement agencies" and the Israeli intelligence service.

One year has passed since then. The same news is still on the agenda. On 30 April, CBS TV reported that the Pentagon has issued an instruction to prepare a plan to attack Iran. Moreover, it was reported that an ultimatum will be issued to Tehran if it does not stop destabilizing the situation in the region.

It must be noted that the rumours about the possible beginning of hostilities against Iran appeared immediately after the resignation of the chief of the US Central Command, Admiral William Fallon. The US media claimed that he is almost the only person in the Pentagon who is against attacking the Islamic Republic of Iran. As a result, both Pentagon chief Robert Gates and Fallon himself had to issue denials.

Thus, the Washington administration still continues to deny any reports that the USA is planning to attack Iran. American politicians are also indirectly supported by experts on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean who draw the conclusion more and more often that a military scenario is unlikely. Moreover, statements by the military also have quite a sceptical nature. For example, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, believes that Iran should not think that Washington has no power to make an attack, but at the same time, it does not need another war in the Middle East. According to the admiral, there are quite a few military options with regard to Iran, but everything will depend on the development of events.

We have to say that the Iranian authorities themselves are convinced (or at least they skillfully pretend that they are convinced) that the USA is unlikely to resort to a military operation now. A spokesman for the Iranian Foreign Ministry, Mohammad Ali Hoseyni, said that an attack on Iran is unlikely because the US army is currently "bogged down" in Iraq and Afghanistan. "We don't think that the USA is planning to involve itself in a new catastrophe which, as they understand themselves, will lead to unfavourable consequences not just for the region, but also for the whole world," Hoseyni stressed.

It seems that everything is the way it was one year ago - almost the same statements, the same moods and the same assumptions. Meanwhile, there is a difference. The thing is that in the recent period, the Americans have been citing more conclusive evidence that the Iranian authorities have a hand in the USA getting "bogged down" in Iran, of which Mohammad Ali Hoseyni spoke earlier. According to CBS, an American military official said that the military operation is being planned because Iran has been behaving more aggressively in the recent period. Tehran does not just refuse to react to UN Security Council resolutions, but also continues to supply weapons to Iraqi militants who use them against the US troops.

In turn, Pentagon chief Robert Gates said that "the Iranians are in fact killing US soldiers in Iraq". Though the US defence secretary denies any preparations for a military operation in Iran, his words coincided with the confrontation in Iraq between the coalition troops and militants of the Mahdi Army led by Muqtada as-Sadr. The Americans are convinced that the Mahdi Army is getting weapons from special units of the Iranian Islamic Revolution Guards Corps - Al-Quds. Specifically, the commander-in-chief of the US troops in Iraq, General David Petraeus, made a statement to this effect recently. It is also believed that Muqtada as-Sadr is currently in Iran.

Moreover, several days before the CBS report, representatives of the US military command said that weapons of Iranian origin had been found in Iraqi territory. According to The Wall Street Journal, the US military found caches containing mortars, reactive missiles and explosive substances. The labels on the weapons show that they were made in the last two months. It is reported that so-called explosively formed penetrators (EFP), capable of piercing the strongest armour, pose the greatest danger to the US troops.

Officials in Washington and Baghdad immediately issued statements that the weapons that were found prove that Iran is continuing to support Shi'a militants in Iraq. For example, Admiral Michael Mullen thinks that the inflow of weapons supplied by Tehran to Iraq is increasing all the time. "The latest events, especially during the operation in Basra, showed how actively Iran is trying to cause instability in Iraq," Mullen said. Tehran supports criminal groups, training them and supplying munitions, and also encourages them to kill soldiers of the coalition forces and fighters of the Iraqi security forces, he said. The Wall Street Journal also quotes the American authorities as saying that Iran is the main long-term threat to Iraq. For example, Robert Gates assumed for the first time that Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinezhad personally is aware of all arms supplies to Iraq.

On 5 May, the CBS report was indirectly confirmed by Britain's Sunday Times which quoted informed sources. Specifically, the newspaper said that the US Defence Department is working on an operation to carry out "pointed strikes" on Iraqi militant camps in Iran, which are controlled by Al-Quds. What's more, Lebanese Shi'as from the Hezbollah organization and Iraqis who have military experience are working as instructors there. The Sunday Times maintains that after the recent fighting in Basra, Washington drew the conclusion that IRGC instructors were involved in the seizure of the city by Shi'a militants. "If the situation in Basra deteriorates again, the USA will blame it on Iran and may carry out strikes on the training camps in Iranian territory," the newspaper said.

Meanwhile, according to the USA's International Herald Tribune, which is published in the EU, in this regard the USA has submitted a special report to the Iraqi government. Iraqi Prime Minister Al-Maliki has already declared that his country's government will carry out its own investigation into the facts mentioned in the document. Observers, however, are sure that in this way, Iraq is trying to distance itself from the US accusations against Tehran. According to the official government spokesman Ali ad-Dabbaq, Baghdad has no intention of starting a confrontation with its neighbour and will carry out its own investigation in order to find evidence to back up these accusations.

It must be noted that this is not the first evidence of Hezbollah's involvement in training Iraqi militants. In March 2007, one of the commanders of this group - Ali Mussa Dakdur, was captured in Iraq. He admitted during an interrogation that he arrived in Iraq in order to assess the activity of Shi'a militants trained by Hezbollah. Recently, the Western media reported that this group is preparing for war with Israel again and that hundreds and even thousands of militants are going to training camps in Lebanon, Syria and Iran. At the same time, militants say that the matter is about "when Said Hasan Nasrullah issues an order".

It must be remembered that in March this year, The Sunday Times also reported that militants of the Izzaddin Al-Qassam Brigades - a paramilitary wing of Hamas - are training in Iran. According to the source, the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps have trained Hamas people in Tehran for the last two years - since the Israeli troops left the Gaza sector. Militants follow the Egypt-Syria-Tehran route. The best "students" train longer than others and become instructors on return home. Israeli politicians say this all the time. Specifically, during his recent address, Israeli President Shimon Peres said that "the world will become unpredictable" in a situation "when the fanatical leaders of Iran and the terrorists this country trains get hold of nuclear weapons".

We should not forget that the main reason for the anxiety of the USA and the rest of the world community about Iran is the suspicion that under the guise of a peaceful nuclear programme, this country is in fact trying to develop an atomic bomb. UN Security Council resolutions have so far been unable to persuade Tehran to give up its plans as it calls all documents that are adopted illegal. On 8 April, Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinezhad said that his country has started testing new faster centrifuges to enrich uranium.

Due to the clear obstinacy of the Iranian leadership and permanent promises by Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinezhad to "raze Israel to the ground", statements are being made that Iran can be brought to reason only by means of force. However, are the sanctions imposed on Iran really so ineffective? Perhaps, the answer to this question can show whether the USA is planning a military operation against this country.

For example, a number of experts believe that the sanctions hold back the influx of investments into Iran which are needed to develop the country's oil and gas sector. Iran also needs additional routes to deliver its hydrocarbon resources to the world market. In this regard, experts do not rule out that with such a state of affairs, Tehran will even have to import oil in the future. In turn, the lack of oil money will have an impact on all other spheres of the life of Iranian citizens. Thus, the Islamic Republic may experience a sharp economic decline, especially in comparison with other countries of the region where innovational programmes are being implemented. However, all these threats do not seem to have persuaded Iran to stop enriching uranium. The thing is that it is exactly the nuclear programme that is the main trump card for the policy of Mahmud Ahmadinezhad and his conservative supporters who gained an impressive victory in the recent parliamentary elections in the country. At the same time, the so-called reformists were thrown "overboard" though they have no intention of giving up the achievements of the Islamic Revolution and call for a rapprochement with the West and intensive economic and political reforms. As a result, Ahmadinezhad has a good chance to be elected president for a second term in 2009. This means that in its foreign and domestic policy, Iran will stick to the same principles which will back it into a tight corner sooner or later. According to Western experts, the president's opponents are currently closing ranks in Iran. The opposition includes Khatami, Hashemi-Rafsanjani and Larijani and Larijani's predecessor Hasan Rowhani who is known for his tough statements against Ahmadinezhad.

However, the question is whether the international community has enough time. Will Tehran be able to create its atomic bomb before the international community stops it? In that case, a possible US operation against Iran will be seen through a different prism… What happens if Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas, as the USA claims, continue their "terrorist cooperation"?