(Persia Digest) - An Iranian university professor has said: “US military action against Iran in medium-term will gain more weight should the latter’s military power and regional influence decline, but increasing the cost of a US military action would halt the implementation of this policy.”
Certain media in the US have recently reported that the Trump Administration is after a military strike on Iran based on the War Against Terror Authorization Act, 2001, which allows the US President to attack Iran without congressional approval. To this end, the Trump Administration is seeking to justify its strike on Iran by presenting documents and evidence on alleged relations between the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) and Al-Qaeda terrorists.
Dr Fuad Izadi, the Tehran-based university professor, told Persia Digest (PD): “A military action on Iran is unlikely in the short-term but in the medium-term, it depends on Iran’s performance. The reason why the US attacked Iraq and Afghanistan and not Iran was the country’s military power. Such an attack would cost the US dearly.”
“If this happens, Iran will use its missiles and inflict huge financial and human costs on the US. Moreover, with Iran’s regional influence, its allies can target US bases in the region. Therefore, if Iran increases its military and missile power as well as regional influence and mounts the cost of any US attack, then any US military action will be unlikely even in a medium-term period.”
The conservative political expert added: “If Iran’s regional presence decreases 10 percent, the possibility of a US attack will grow by 20 percent aiming to overthrow the Islamic Republic and plunge the country into a long-term crisis. Hence, it is not moral restrictions but the costs which have so far stopped the US from striking Iran.”
Izadi added: “From the early days of the Islamic Revolution, the US has been imposing new sanctions on the country each month and each year because it is paying not costs for it. This trend has not changed since the past and will continue unless the US is forced to pay for it. A clear example was during the nuclear negotiations. At first the US announced it will not negotiate with Iran as long as the latter continues its enrichment activities. Iran used the opportunity and added to the number of its centrifuges and enriched uranium. Consequently, the US realized that not negotiating with Iran will cost it, then it changed its policy. Therefore, the US changes its policies when not doing so is costly.”
He stressed: “In order to change the US’s present approach towards Iran, the latter has to define some costs for it. However, media and interviews are not a proper medium to discuss what those costs should be.”
As for restoring to international laws or organizations to stop any US military actions, the university professor said: “Iran can open files with international bodies but they are under US dominance and influence. In some cases, the US even confronts those bodies; therefore, there is no hope for Iran to use international legal means. But this does not mean to ignore those bodies at all. The least benefit for using them is that should the US be condemned by those international bodies, this means that Iran has been successful in making a great propaganda against the US in the world public opinion.”
Click here for more political news.