ChristiansUnite Forums

 US would not go for war against Iran: Pak analyst
Islamabad, March 22, IRNA

Pakistan-Analyst-Comment
The United States had the capability but lacked courage to go for a military action against Iran, a leading defence analyst in Pakistan said on Wednesday.

In an interview with IRNA here ex-Chief of Army Staff and top defence analyst General (Retd) Mirza Aslam Beg said that the US decision to take the issue of Iran's nuclear programme to the United Nations Security Council reflected its helplessness and inability to resort to any extreme measure on the matter.

Substantiating his viewpoint, the analyst said that the US had been forced to adopt a different policy vis-z-vis Iran, contrary to its military invasion of Afghanistan and then Iraq.

"The US could have done so about the Iran issue, but it fully knew its consequences. Besides other things, Americans knew the strength of Iranian nation, their unity and courage to face any eventuality," he contended.

The US, he maintained, must understand the fact that the world community was no more willing to condone its policy based on threats, pressures and illogical ground.

"The clear example is the China and Russia model: they defied the US and have been engaged in efforts to resolve the issue through talks, he said.

The analyst believed that China and Russia had in a way, accepted the Iran's position on peaceful use of nuclear technology that was why they were quite active for its settlement through negotiations, and might not vote for any US-moved resolution.

To a question, he said that it was not likely for the US to succeed in getting through a resolution from the United Nations Security Council, clamping curbs on the Islamic republic, as besides China and Russia, some European nations were also opposed to America's plan on the issue.

"The US will have to tread carefully keeping in mind these factors. The Americans simply can't afford more embarrassment," he contended.

About the US decision to hold parleys with Iran, he said that,"it was the best way to find out what was a fact and I guess Iran's position is clear on allegations of its involvement in Iraq".

The analyst said that on this particular issue, Iran would succeed in convincing Americans about its indifference to Iraq developments.

"To my mind, Iran will not object to US proposal for deployment of UN observers on Iran-Iraq border, in case, US keeps on leveling charges," he added.

However, he was quick to add that by sealing the borders or deployment of UN observers, the inherent love and closeness between the peoples of Iran and Iraq could not be done away with.

The general lauded the Iranians principled stand and resilience in view of the US and its allies' pressure and hoped they would prove their stance was correct on both nuclear issue and Iraq situation.

US would not go for war against Iran: Pak analyst (http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-234/0603225361163313.htm)

Dan 8 tells me the US is going to bomb the place

I'm not so sure about Dan 8 telling me that but I do get the message that we will do so unless things change quite drastically.

Unfortunaly it not only foretells the invasion in Iraq, but also the attack on Iran.
After wich the horn of the goat will break off; an intrigue that is more detailed
explained in Eze 38:10

Eg: oil will be so expensive the western economy will buckle under the pressure,
the EU will cut off the dollar and more and more oil will be traded in Euros, fulfulling
the scenario whereby the EU will be *the* most powerfull nation in the world, and
several coastal US cities in rubbles ( Rev 18:10 )

When Iran is attacked the Islam nations in collabaration with Russian and possible Chinese
cooperation, the biggest money lending & spending force in the world will be brought unto
it's knees in one hour.

Hello 2B, long time no see. Sorry, I'm going to have to disagree with you, on Daniel 8. I think you are reading more into it then whats there.

Believe it or not Pastor Roger, I don't think the United States will attack Iran. Look at the role, Persia plays, in Chapter 7 and 11. In order for there to be a Persia, Iran has to be strong.

Who knows how strong they are already and Persia is not Iran alone. Combined there could be a strong problem for the U.S. What I am saying is that if we attack them or even indicate that we are it would be enough to set off the events that are in fact listed in the Bible.

Yes I think that there will be problems, for the United States. I know that Iran, is only one of the few countries that make up Persia. Here is a note for you brother, on Iran. The term Persian Empire refers to a series of historical empires that ruled over the Iranian plateau. The political entity which was ruled by these kingdoms has been known as Iran (lit: Land of Aryans) throughout its own recorded history. Generally, the earliest entity considered the Persian Empire is Persia's Achaemenid Empire (648-330 BC) a united Aryan-indigenous Kingdom that originated in the region known as Pars (Persis) and was formed under Cyrus the Great. Successive states in Iran before 1935 are collectively called the Persian Empire by Western historians.

Persia has long been used by the West to describe the nation of Iran, its people, or its ancient empire. It derives from the ancient Greek name for Iran's maritime province called Fars in the modern Persian language and Pars in Middle Persian. Persis is the Hellenized form of Pars, based on which other European nations termed the area Persia.

This area was the core of the original Persian Empire. Most foreigners referred to the state as Persia until March 21, 1935 when Iran formally asked the international community to call the country by its native name. Seemingly, the Aryan tribes who formed the country in the Achaemenid era united the plateau in that region and called the country Iran at its birth.

In 1959, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, before his removal from power announced that both Persia and Iran can be used interchangeably.