Coming war on Iran

Be the first to a new site participants

WAZZUB is in pre-launch until April 9, 2012. The more users that join our network through your personal link the more your $FACTOR will grow. Each new member 5 generations deep let your $FACTOR grow by 1. After launch we will pay 50% of WAZZUB's profits to our pre-

launch members every month.

http://signup.wazzub.info/?lrRef=f3be6 

Iranian boats approaching the U.S. ship at the Straits of Hormuz (island)

Saw the British writer Simon Tssadol that the war on Iran is inevitable, in light of what he ignored and mutual miscalculation chronic on both sides, pointing out that modern America for regime change through military action is misleading, just as it is believed Tehran that it winner in this conflict.
The writer began his article in the Guardian newspaper that French President Nicolas Sarkozy in which he said that "time is running out" to avoid foreign military intervention in Iran, addressed to Russia and China, which refuse to support the European and American sanctions.
But the Iranians - and the talk of the writer - may calculate these statements and calculated a worrying escalation, will push them to a question: How long will we wait before we are exposed to a U.S. or Israeli attack, or both together? Why wait for the inevitable? Perhaps we have to start the attack?
In this way the war began - says Tssadol - through any hostile rhetoric and ignore mutual appreciation of chronic ill.
U.S. stressesTssadol goes on saying that anyone in Tehran will realize - the day after the speech inflamed the U.S. on Iran - that constituency influence in Washington - With the help of the leaders of the Republican candidates like Mitt Romney - would prefer military action sooner rather than later.
For these militants Americans, the regime change is the title of the game for it - from their perspective - the only way to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear bomb.
He quotes Jamie Fly and Gary Schmitt - of the magazine "Foreign Affairs" - saying that the limited military strike targeting Iran's nuclear facilities do not lead to regime change, and therefore say that the U.S. government should expand the scope of its objectives.
Fortunately - the writer says - those ideas horrible did not reach into the thinking of the administration of President Barack Obama, but although the letter of the parties (the Iranian and American) may reflect the atmosphere hot, the belief that the Iranian people would welcome bombing the U.S. and turning suddenly on his leadership, reflects a serious disregard.

Ignore the IranianAnd talking about Tssadol ignore Iran, saying Tehran's reaction to the letter sent by the private White House on the "red lines in the Strait of Hormuz," it involves a confusion and uncertainty.
This was reflected in what he said Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi, who said "in public flexing their muscles, and behind the scenes to sit down and call for dialogue."
The writer says Salehi had to be taught American history and what happens when the red lines are ignored, in reference to the Vietnam War.
And transmits also Patrick Clawson of the Washington Institute as saying that the leadership of Tehran believes it will gain in the war, but this idea may be called "the mentality of Hezbollah" fired on the 2006 Lebanon war, when I think Hezbollah that won despite what he suffered losses.
Tssadol indicates that the Iranian regime believes that the conflict with America or Israel or both will serve to justify the objectives of nuclear deterrence, because it Sasourhm as courageous leaders in fighting the global aims of Zionism and American imperialism and the "global arrogance", and thus mobilize the people with them.
But he added that corrects these illusions scary, but it is part of the truth false growing to take the decision of war, warning that there is a growing sense that the decision makers and opinion makers of the fatigue parties - captured frames in their stories wrong - do not listen.

Source: Guardian