The Iran Question: War Or No War

By Chandrashekar (Chandra) Tamirisa, (On Twitter) @c_tamirisa

Flattr this

(Directly jump to permalink for guidance on decision discussions meant for the United States Congress and The White House)

He loves me, he loves me not.

The petals are falling off one by one in Washington in a nail-biting Freudian romance between two men: one, an accused Muslim and the president of the United States, and the other a Muslim and president of Iran. Barack Obama and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. There is even talk about nuking each other if the last petal to drop is the gauntlet in a test of wills utterly devoid of commonsense on both sides when minor misunderstandings can lead to gratuitous confrontations on the battle field, killing thousands on both sides.

The echoes of war in Washington and Tehran, each have their own life and momentum. Yet, it is not beyond the point of no return, bluff or no bluff, in the game of who blinks first in the poker of international relations.

Barack Hussein Obama is running budget deficits as far as the eye can see and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is running inflation upto his eyeballs. The elites in America want Obama and the people of south-side Chicago feel betrayed. The elites in Iran want the clerics and want to betray Ahmadinejad because his people from the lower rungs of the Iranian economy are hurting from high prices while their president is obsessed with nuclear power for peaceful purposes, but is being propelled into the violence of war by Israel and America.

What matters in the approach to war is always the aggressor. The fact of the matter is that the offensive quarterback in the game is Obama, playing the football of world champions, P5 +1, and thinks he can rush the 50 yards to touchdown after kickoff, presuming that the other team may not have enough players in sound physical condition to last the hour. Sadly, he may have to punt because his victory may be pyrrhic.

Obama may embroil the United States together with Israel in a 10-year war, not uncommon for the resilient people of Iran, similar to Alexander the Great’s rout of Persia but at twice the great man’s age before his untimely death, using the expected budget savings, from Iraq after 2011 and from Afghanistan after 2014, on Iran. That, however, may be a great expectation for Pip to secure his beloved Arab Spring: America will have to nurse Obamacare back to health for having spent the scarce healthcare funds on Iran by borrowing more from China until it may be too late to save his country from its indebtedness in pursuit of bringing the world together by reaching out to the Muslims and by keeping China at bay, his Nobel mandate, only for tactical nuclear weapons to ultimately go off, perhaps, in both places, crudely on the streets of Tel Aviv and New York and in CNN style in Tehran.

Such is the irony of literature.


About Chandrashekar (Chandra) Tamirisa
This entry was posted in Foreign Policy, National Security and Defense, North America and Caribbean, Politics, Transformations LLC, Turkey, Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia, World and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to The Iran Question: War Or No War

  1. Reblogged this on and commented:
    is WW3 at our door.

  2. Decision points, in the following order, for Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States, on the Iran war question:

    1. All diplomatic options are not exhausted.

    2. Iran can legally, under international law (International Atomic Energy Agency or IAEA), develop nuclear technology indigenously.

    3. Regional safety issues arising from the Iranian nuclear program are regional: Arab League, Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) regional members and then for the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).

    4. Regional security issues arising from the Iranian nuclear program are regional: Arab League, OPEC regional members and then for the UNSC.

    5. Iran cannot be attacked under US law unless US property is physically attacked anywhere in the world, including cyberspace.

    6. United States may already be attacking Iran in cyberspace, justifying Iranian defense from within US and EU or other Iranian implicit or explicit external allies.

    7. Any action by the president of the United States in contravention of US Constitution and established government procedures for handling US weapons of mass destruction, such as the knowledge of US nuclear codes, can lead to his impeachment and/or charging outside actors, such as Bohemian Club, with domestic espionage and sedition.

  3. The numbering in the comment below is mapped to the numbering in the comment above

    1. Iran’s cooperation to return to P5 + 1 talks may be moot if Iran, under IAEA transparency, is capable of Uranium enrichment on its own.

    P5+1 must transfer the responsibility of engaging the Iranian nuclear program to IAEA after the next round of talks with Iran provided all nuclear programs in the world, including P5+1, are open to IAEA.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s