Readers' comments

Would you like to post a comment ? Be the first to share your thoughts.

Post a comment

Comments are welcomed and encouraged. However, comments not pertaining to the topic or containing slander or offensive language will be deleted. You have to be registered to be able leave your comment. Sign in or Register now for free.

Enlarge Photo

Bozoyan says "the balance has been disturbed".

Analyst Yervand Bozoyan says that the current Iranian crisis and Iran’s nuclear weapon programs and aggressive rhetoric are the result of U.S. policies.

“Many have forgotten that they balanced each other in the region, as after the revolution in Iran the idea of exporting revolutions was precluded through the Iraq-Iran war and with the Iraqi regime,” he says. “The United States won during the Desert Storm operation, but stopped short of toppling Saddam Hussein’s regime. At that time, the U.S. political thought realized that a big vacuum would emerge with the toppling of Saddam.

“Now the balance has been disturbed: Shiite positions in Iraq became stronger as a result of the war started by the United States, and in consequence Shiite Iran has become stronger too. The war in Iraq showed that the United States has failed to digest Iraq, and now is searching for a dignified way to leave it. The Iranian authorities understood that the United States would not get trammeled into another war with a country which is three times as big as Iraq, that military operations without a sanction from the United Nations Security Council is discrediting, and consequently it is carrying out a rather pragmatic and dangerous policy.”

Political analyst, Head of the Chair of Iranian Studies at the Yerevan State University, Armenia’s former ambassador to Syria David Hovhannisyan says that the current situation is extremely volatile and reminiscent of the period preceding World War I. “It is like that period, not by the developments, but by the untalented politicians and the lack of responsibility. Everyone sees the danger, but they underestimate it,” he says.

Nevertheless, he considers the likelihood of a land war to be zero. It is more likely that nuclear facilities will undergo pinpointed bombings, however in the predictable future, within a year and a half, it also looks impossible. And within that period Iran could complete the nuclear technology necessary for weapon development.

According to Hovhanisyan, the U.S. tactics will be to step up pressure through sanctions simultaneously surrounding and isolating Iran with political strongholds and military bases. The United States will aspire for decreasing the regional influence of Iran, which is active in the Middle East, the Caucasus and in the Gulf. And that approach could involve Armenia.

“Armenia’s situation will be very difficult if a war begins. But even if there is no war, it will be difficult. The United States wants to blockade Iran, and our very positive relations with Iran are at risk. We must never forget that all roads were blocked during the (Karabakh) war, only Iran’s road remained that was our road of life.

“In this situation Armenia ought to carry out a multi-layer policy, have multilateral agreements. Our foreign policy lacks the width of the framework of objectives. We have a couple of objectives and we keep stressing them (for example Karabakh) and we are not interested in anything else, consequently there is less room for political maneuvering.”

Hovhannisyan says that Armenia needs neutrality in the event of a war: “One must understand that there are pressures from different sides on a neutral party and means to withstand those pressures should be found.” And if the United States wants to use Armenian airspace and land: “There is a very clear legal framework here, Armenia is a member of the Collective Security Treaty Organization, which is prejudiced toward other member states concerning use of its territory.”

Bozoyan says that unlike the Iraqi campaign to which Armenia has contributed a small platoon of troops, with Iran it must preserve absolute neutrality: “Any for or against position is very dangerous. Unfortunately, we have no active role in the region, but in this circumstance we must aspire for active neutrality, that is to create an active field for mediation.”

Other opinions are also voiced, for example speaking on Kentron TV political analyst Aghasi Yenokyan spoke in favor of the U.S. operations against Iran and said that after military operations in Iran, Armenia will get gas from a democratic Iran.

“It would be very simple to say that the United States can turn Iran into a democratic state at once,” Bozoyan says. “Iraq’s example shows that democracy is not built with one strike. There are democratic currents in Iranian society, but they become weak under the circumstances of U.S. threat and the people get consolidated against the external enemy. How do you transform the democratic fermentations inside Iran? How do you make Iran develop the way of stable reforms, the tendencies of which were observed during the tenure of Khatami? These are the questions that must be given attention.

“A war will be a disaster for the region, Armenia will become a frontline country. The dream of the United States is to create a big democratic Middle East will turn into a big destabilized Middle East.”