The United States and Iran:Battling Strategies and Prospects for the Future

Dong Manyuan

I.Origins of the Strategic Games between the United States and Iran

The United States and Iran are both great countries in the world. By virtue of its superb economic, technological and military, United States enjoys huge influence in world trade,finance, market and industrial division, and it dominates the global rules-making. The United States firmly believes that its“vital interests”exist all over the world, boasts that it was destined to rule the world, and is bent on“transforming the world”using the Western system, model and ideology. Iran is an ancient civilization with a long history and it has created glorious cultures throughout time, from the height of the Persian Empire to the prosperity of the teachings and fiqh of Shia Islam. The“Islamic Revolution of 1979,”one of the most significant incidents in the history of Islam and contemporary international relations, changed the balance of power in the Islamic world and the Middle East, intensifying a variety of basic regional contradictions and sparking complicated strategic rivalries among various related forces. The main stage for this controversy is the relationship between Iran and the United States.

The Middle East has remained one of the United States’global strategic focuses from the Cold War era into the 21st Century. The U.S. strategic objective in the Middle East has been essentially stable for years, and its main contents are as follows:

1. Maintaining the survival and security of Israel

Jewish Americans have made outstanding contributions to making the United States into a superpower. The Jewish people, many of whom are elite intellectuals or business and political leaders, exert irreplaceable influence over the formation of U.S. domestic and foreign policies. For the United States,Israel is a major force to contain the rise of the Arab world.The maintenance of Israel’s survival and security includes the nonproliferation of WMDs, containing the expansion of Islamic fundamentalist forces, fighting terrorism, and promoting Arab-Israeli Peace. Therefore, it is not only significant to protect U.S.strategic interests in the Middle East, but also important for the American ruling party to avoid offending the strong domestic Jewish consortium and interest groups.

2. Controlling oil resources, markets and strategic passages in the Middle East, especially in the Gulf Region

The United States has made great efforts to construct the“Middle East Market”over the years and has tried to coordinate this market with the“Barcelona Process”(i.e. Euro-Mediterranean Partnership) initiated by the EU. However,progress has not gone smoothly, with the main obstacles stemming from Arab-Israeli and Iran’s continued provocation.

3.“Democratic transformation”in the Arab world

“Democratic transformation”in the Arab world is an important part of the United States’global strategy. The U.S.put forward the“Great Middle East Initiative”after the Iraq war based on the understanding that the dictatorial regimes in the Arab World have strategic support from the“one-party system states”beyond the region and consequently become an obstacle to global democracy; considering these conditions, the policy sought to uproot these dictatorships one by one. After turmoil broke out in West Asia and North Africa, the United States intervened actively and promoted“realizations of the democratic transformation”(namely regime change) in Tunisia,Egypt, Libya and Yemen. Presently it is imposing pressures on the al-Assad regime in Syria in an attempt to overthrow his government and“democratize”Syria.

4. Containing and changing Iran’s regime

Iran’s domestic and foreign policies have been reshuffled since the 1979“Islamic revolution”and Iran, which used to be a strategic ally of the United States during the Cold War, has turned into Israel and the United States’top enemy. Therefore, forging regional alliances to contain Iran and overthrow the Iranian regime when the opportunity arises has become an important U.S. strategic. Successive U.S. governments since Reagan have deemed Iran the largest obstacle to the implementation of their Middle East strategies.

The above-mentioned main objectives of the U.S. Middle Eastern strategy, which disclosed the U.S. intention to control the region, happens to clash with Iran’s grand strategic ambition.Conflicts in the strategic objectives of the two countries have evolved into irreconcilable structural contradictions. As one of the cradles of civilization, Iran, with an area of almost 1.65 million kilometers and a population of around 75 million, is a great power in the Middle East and the Islamic world. Entrenching in the Eurasian hinterland and standing at the outlet of the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman, Iran borders important countries such as Iraq, Turkey, Afghanistan, and Palestine, and it is eyeing the Arabian Peninsula across the Persian Gulf in a significant strategic position. The country is rich in energy and it has the second largest natural gas reserves in the world and the fourth largest proven petroleum reserves. The fluctuation of Iran’s oil and gas exports is closely connected to the rise and fall of international oil and gas prices, to global energy security and to the smooth operation of the global economy. As a founder of the United Nations, Non-Aligned Movement, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, Iran plays an important role in a group of developing countries, especially in the Islamic world.

Iran’s ambitious strategic conceptions are reflected mainly in religious writings, sermons, fatwas and major speeches of late supreme religious leader Ruhollah Khomeini, incumbent religious leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Ahmadinejad.Particularly, the thoughts and instructions of Khomeini should be followed strictly and consistently by Iranians while Khamenei and Ahmadinejad have mainly interpreted Khomeini’s ideology on both internal and foreign affairs. Khomeini is the author of more than 200 books, with his most influential writings being Islamic Government: Governance of the Jurist, Forty Traditions and The Greater Struggle. His principal arguments rest on the following aspects:

1) Islam and the Islamic world

Twelver Islam, which is the largest branch of Shia Islam,is responsible for saving the Islamic world and should lead Muslims all over the world to voluntarily convert to the teachings and fiqh of Twelver Islam. Sunni Islam is not the orthodox school. The Saudi royalty are not entitled to be the guardians of the two holy places - Mecca and Medina - and“flim-flam”is blasphemous behavior against Allah and the Prophet. Therefore,Twelver Muslims must follow Allah’s will to“export the Islamic Revolution”and“transform the Islamic world thoroughly.”

2) Heresies and pagans

Nowadays, heresies overflow wildly around the world,misleading religious followers and interrupting the spread of Islam. Such heresies contain Christianity, communism and atheism, creating matching systems and social formations.Pious Muslims need“neither West nor East.”The United States and its system is the root of all evils. The United States, as the biggest exploiter and oppressor of the Islamic world, should be eliminated and replaced by an Islamic society ruled by the teachings and fiqh of Twelver Islam. In addition, regimes oriented from other heresies must also be eliminated and all pagans should convert to Islam.

3) Punishment of apostasy in Islam and the jihad

It is the apostates that caused the Islamic world to fall behind and suffer from aggression, exploitation and oppression by the United States, Europe and Israel. In addition to“individual apostates,”there are“apostate regimes,”for instance Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan belong to“apostate regimes,”while the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan fall into the category of“individual apostates,”as they“shamelessly collaborate with the U.S. strategy in the Middle East”and even make peace with Israel. Saddam Hussein is“the third Satan after the United States and Israel”because he launched an invasion against Iran, and he“is defeating the Islamic revolution for the United States and Israel.”In addition to those individuals and regimes,most of the regimes in Islamic countries are deviant that need to be“transformed thoroughly”because they refuse to practice Islamic theocracy. Islamic Jihad aims at the United States and Israel, but also at apostates of Islam, with the purpose being to“destroy all enemies of Islam.”

Khomeini’s thoughts mentioned above have been translated into Iran’s foreign policy, especially its Middle Eastern policy. It is a tit-for-tat relationship with the U.S. policy in the Middle East and it will influence the future trends of the Middle East. The United States and Europe defined the turmoil that broke out in North Africa and the Middle East in 2011 as the“Arab spring”and attempted to take the opportunity to start a“democratic transformation”in these areas, hoping to enact regime change in Iran and dismantle the Iranian-Syrian strategic alliance. On the contrary, Iran dubbed the turmoil the“Islamic Awakening”and tried to seize the opportunity to expand the strategic influence of the“Shia Crescent,”intending to engage in a longterm struggle with the U.S., Europe and their regional allies.

II. Features of the U.S.- Iranian Strategic Battle

The games of strategy between the United States and Iran have been the most influential strategic competition in the world since the 1980s. Its features are mainly as follows:

1. The games have strong tints of systemic and ideological antagonism.

The United States intends to“transform the world,”including the Middle East, with its western parliamentary democracy,values of freedom and human rights. The goal of“transforming the Middle East”cannot be achieved without overthrowing the religious ruling class in Iran. Iran wants to expel Western influence from the region and unify the Islamic world under theocratic fundamentalism so as to replace Saudi Arabia to be the“leader”of the Islamic world. Yet the United States has been the guardian of Saudi royalty, as well as the supporter of secularism in Egypt and Turkey. If Iran cannot frustrate the United States’Middle Eastern strategy, Iran’s goal of“exporting the Islamic Revolution”may run into big resistance.Iran has no edge in“hard power”vis-à-vis the United States,thus it prefers to exert its religious influence, which it deems its“soft power.”For example,“Hezbollah,”supported by Iran,has become the leading force in Lebanese politics; Iraq’s Shias have close religious relations with Iran and are now in power,and particularly the valiant and militant Mahdi Army led by al-Sadr is an armed group capable of battling in Iraq; Palestinian Hamas, though they are Sunni and not Shia, stick to Islamic fundamentalism, and cooperate with Iran and Hezbollah.

2. Bipolarization of two camps.

The United States takes multi-faceted efforts to deter Iran from“exporting the Islamic Revolution”and to ensure the systemic security and national security of its regional allies. The United States, on the one hand, has sometimes helped promote Palestinian-Israeli peace talks, in the hope of relieving the civil anti-U.S. sentiment in Arab countries. President Obama even gave“speeches with messages of good will”at a conference in Turkey and at Cairo University, relieved some debts owed by Arab countries, and offered economic aid to Egypt and Jordan.On the other hand, it has also exaggerated“Iran’s threat,”endeavoring to make a patchwork of regional alliances. The core circle of this alliance, led by Saudi Arabia, embraces six states in the Gulf Cooperation Council together with Egypt,Jordan, Turkey and Israel. The periphery of this alliance covers all Sunni Muslim countries that are keeping vigilant against Iran.

In response, Sudan, Libya, Lebanon and Syria are Iran’s allies, and it has built an“anti-U.S. camp”to counter the United States. Unexpectedly, Sudan and Libya“withdrew or defected”one after another and Iran changed the“anti-U.S.camp”into the“Shia Cresent,”the core circle of which contains Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iraqi Shias and the Mahdi Army,while the periphery includes Bahrain, Yemen (Seveners), Shias in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, and Yemen Hussein tribal forces(Fivers). Even though the Seveners and the Fivers are different from the Twelvers in religious doctrine, they all have the same historical hatred of Sunnis, and they share religious sentiments in their struggle with Sunnis. Therefore, there is an emotional and ideological basis for Iran to forge its“Shia Cresent”.

3. Iran’s nuclear program is the focal point of the U.S.-Iranian contest, and it drives big power relations.

The United States is attempting to make use of the Iranian nuclear issue to overthrow Iran’s regime. Without this issue,the United States would find other“issues”to challenge Iran.Iran’s nuclear exploitation dates back from the 1950s with support from the United States and other Western countries.After the United States and Iran severed diplomatic relations,the United States accused Iran several times of developing secret nuclear weapons under the cover of“peaceful nuclear energy”and then adopted a“containment”policy against Iran.In early 2003, Iran’s secret nuclear program was disclosed. The Iranian government announced that Iran had the capability to possess and refine uranium, which turned up the heat on“the Iranian nuclear issue.”

Under pressure from the United States and Europe, Iran signed the additional protocol of NPT and halted the refinement of enriched uranium. But in early 2006, Iran declared that it would resume nuclear fuel research since its requirements related to peaceful uses of nuclear energy were unsatisfied by the United States and Europe in negotiations. To strengthen pressure, the United States pushed the UN Security Council to adopt UNSC Resolutions 1696, 1737, 1747, 1803 and 1929,imposing sanctions on Iran. In response, Iran dealt with the situation with both soft and iron hands. With soft hands, Iran conditionally agreed to negotiate with the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) and five permanent members of the UN plus Germany, which demonstrated its attitude to settle the dispute over the nuclear program peacefully through negotiations. It undertook this path inspire sympathy from some Muslims and developing countries. With iron hands, Iran firmly advanced its nuclear program with new underground facilities(over 60m deep) and developed higher enriched uranium. In order to deter the United States and Israel’s military actions and to threaten the six member states of the GCC“not to cooperate with the United States,”Iran sped up the pace of its military build-up, increasing military spending year by year and developing massive missiles, vessels, aircrafts and long-range artillery, holding military exercises frequently in the Persian Gulf. It often closed the strait, practiced attacking carriers and cracking down on economic and military targets across the strait. These moves inspired the domestic morale of troops and people and diverted attention away from contradictions. At the same time, they made the United States and Israel hesitate to use force.

Since the beginning of 2012, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany have negotiated with Iran (6+1) for three rounds, all without reaching any substantial progress. The United States, the United Kingdom, France and Germany have all lured Iran by“partly lifting”sanctions if Iran halts its enrichment of uranium to 20% purity and if it closes the country’s Fordo uranium enrichment site. Western countries maintain that Iran is permitted to take nuclear medical research with purity levels lower than 20% and to produce compatible nuclear fuel rods under the supervision of the IAEA. On this basis, the United States and Europe have considered lifting their sanctions. Meanwhile, the United States demanded that Japan,South Korea and some European countries stop purchasing Iran’s oil - with a grace period of up to six months - in an effort to force Iran to make concessions on the nuclear issue.The United States has the commitments of these countries, but it was unsuccessful in gaining ground with larger developing countries like China and India.

In response, Iran insisted on the peaceful nature of its nuclear program and argued that any international supervision needs Iran’s consent. Iran would accept international supervision on the precondition that the EU offers unlimited 20%-enriched uranium“for scientific research”free of charge; that the U.S.and Europe will lift all“unjustified sanctions”; that sanctions and all related resolutions imposed by the UN on Iran be abolished; that the United States suspend economic and military aid to Israel and assure that Palestinians will regain occupied territories and establish an independent country;and lastly, that the United States withdraws all armed forces stationed in the Middle East and the Gulf region, including the U.S. Fifth Fleet and air force stationed in Turkey. With respect to the blockade of Iran’s oil exports, Iran firmly believes that the United States will not achieve its objectives because many countries need Iran’s oil.

From the above lists, one can see that the U.S. and Europe are in contradiction with Iran on many positions, and that a substantial compromise cannot be reached by both sides.However, negotiations and platforms for contacting are necessary since both of them need the moral advantage and intend to“demonize”each other. Looking to the future, the 6+1 talks may be intermittent, but both sides need the talks to announce their positions, seek sympathy from international parties, and pass the buck if the talks end up in failure.

4. The games of strategy between the United States and Iran are complicating regional hotspot issues.

It is a rule that every time Iran faces pressure from the United States, it will certainly strike back on regional issues in order to make trouble in the implementation of U.S. strategy in the Middle East. For example, the United States pushed Israel and Palestine to strike the Oslo Accords in September 1993 and further raised the policy of“promoting peaceful talks in the west and containing Iran and Iraq in the east.”In response,Iran swore to“frustrate the Middle East peace process”and overthrow the“dovish governments”represented by Rabin and Peres. When Rabin was assassinated, Iran was excited. After Peres’taking over, Iran urged Hezbollah and Hamas to attack Jewish targets, forcing Peres to make a cross-border attack on Hezbollah that led to the Qana massacre in 1996. Peres lost his early election to Netanyahu, and later Palestinian-Israeli peace talks came to a standstill. Taking another example, the United States imposed financial sanctions on Iran in 2008, and George W. Bush even threatened to use force. To break the U.S.’momentum, Iran instigated al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army to wage a fierce offensive against U.S. troops and Iraqi government forces in Iraq, causing serious U.S. and forcing the Bush administration to return to the“6+1”talks while reinforcing U.S. troops in Iraq.

III.Prospects of the Games of Strategy between the United States and Iran

In the short run, the United States and Iran cannot defeat each other, even though they see each other as enemies. Judging from the general situation of the U.S. and Iran in the Middle East, the United States is holding an advantage in power and influence and seems aggressive, while Iran is uncompromisingly sitting back,accelerating resource integration, waiting to discover the United States’Achilles’heel. Because regime change in Iran cannot be achieved overnight, the United States is weakening Iran’s regional capability step by step, generally in a“trilogy.”The first step is to overthrow the Syrian regime and destroy the Iranian-Syrian strategic alliance. By“cutting away Iran’s other arm,”the United States will leave Iran to struggle with a single arm. The second step is to take a chance and attempt to wipe out Iran’s nuclear facilities. After Iran’s fangs are plucked, the survival threats to the United States’regional allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia, will be eliminated and the advantage in conventional forces of the United States and its allies will be enhanced. The third step is to expand regional alliances to contain Iran, and to help stir up civil strife in Iran. External forces will intervene in Iran and finally change Iran’s regime to achieve a decisive transition of the“Great Middle East Initiative.”

Regarding the outcome of these three policies, I believe the first step seems likely to succeed. Iran will not stand idly while the al-Assad regime collapses. Once it cannot stop the United States from overthrowing the Syrian regime, Iran will undoubtedly get involved in“post-Assad”Syria and try to turn the achievements of the American“Democratization”into a bitter fruit. It is possible for the United States to adopt the second policy, but Iran will get its revenge, compelling the United States to pay a heavy price in the Middle East and all over the world. As for the third policy, it is just the United States’wishful thinking and it will be difficult to succeed. If it were applied, Untied States would probably push the Middle East into upheaval and further wars instead.

1. With the al-Assad regime in a precarious situation, a post-Assad Syria may become the major battleground of Iran-U.S. rivalry.

Formed after Iran’s Islamic Revolution in 1979, the Iranian-Syrian strategic alliance has played an important role in the Middle East geopolitics for decades. It not only confronts the United States and Israel; it also rivals the regional Sunni powers such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt. The early roles of the alliance were to oppose Egypt in making peace with Israel, fight against Saddam with all efforts in the Iran-Iraq War, and remove the influences of the United States and France in Lebanon. In the 21st Century, the alliance’s role has changed into thwarting the Oslo Accords between Israel and Palestine, backing Hamas,establishing Shia’s leading role in Iraq, expanding the“Shia Cresent,”maintaining control over Lebanon after Syria troops’withdraw, and contending with the United States’attempts at Iranian containment. Plagued by the“Arab Spring,”anti-Assad movements broke out in Syria in March 2011. With the support of the United States, Europe, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and other countries, the opposition forces have grown stronger and the demonstrations have turned into armed conflicts with the government that continue today. Under these circumstances,the United States and Europe are determined to change the al-Assad regime, urging the Syrian leader to step down, and“demonizing”his regime on the international stage, criticizing him for“killing civilians and spinning it into humanitarian catastrophe”and assailing him for“losing regime legitimacy.”Pushed by countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco and Qatar, the Arab League ultimately“deprived”Syria of its membership and broke off relations with Syria after it passed several resolutions denouncing the al-Assad regime. Most Arabian countries withdrew their ambassadors to Syria, putting Syria into an isolated situation in the Arab world. The United States, Europe, the Arab League and some other Arab countries joined hands to submit resolutions related to Syria in the UN Security Council. After the resolutions were denied three times,they came to push the General Assembly to pass resolutions two times, indirectly grabbing the“moral advantage.”

U.S.-led Western countries attempted to copy the“Yemen Model”in Syria through Kofi Annan’s mediation. But due to al-Assad’s clinging to power and the escalation of conflicts between government troops and the“Free Syrian Army,”they turned to offer full support to anti-government forces, hoping to overthrow the government with force. Anti-government forces have now acquired“supply routes”by controlling major border crossings with Syria and Turkey, and now a considerable number of war materials including heavy weapons can be transported directly to Aleppo and Homs. As a result, rebel forces have grown stronger and their combat capacity has improved. They are not only capable of launching street fighting in the capital of Damascus, but also able to scramble for Aleppo vis-à-vis government troops. At the level of the general situation, the anti-government rebels, despite their high morale, are inferior to the government troops. As a result, the anti-government troops are unlikely to overthrow al-Assad on their own. External military intervention is therefore unavoidable and al-Assad’s collapse will occur in just a matter of time. Iran has a hunch in this regard. While continuing to support al-Assad, Iran is also making plans to“sow bitter seeds”against the United States in“post-Assad”Syria.

2. The possibility of military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities by the United States and Israel exists, but such an act would instigate Iran’s retaliation.

It is widely believed among interested states that Iran is aiming to develop nuclear weapons with the goal of deterring GCC states like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey and finally taking the leading position in the Islamic world as a nuclear power, religious power, and economic and military power. It is not developing weapons to eliminate Israel, as is so popularly believed. This move is the foundation and premise for Iran to“transform”the Islamic world. Only after the accomplishment of“transforming”the Islamic world can Iran proceed to“transform”the whole world and convert all pagans into Islamic Shia fundamentalism.

By opposing Israel, Iran holds a trump card and seizes the moral high ground in the Islamic world. The Palestinian plight implicates the religious feelings of nearly 1.5 billion Muslims around the world. Since the“Islamic Revolution”in 1979, Iran openly and proudly opposed Israel, threatening to“eliminate Israel”and alleging to“support the just struggle of Palestine people.”But no war has occurred between Iran and Israel in the past thirty years, and Iran has been taunted as a“talker”by some Muslim countries. In the context that Iran is really forging ahead with its nuclear program, and President Ahmadinejad has sworn to wipe Israel“off the map”several times, Israel is concerned that Iran will launch nuclear attacks on Israel once it possesses nuclear weapons. But from Iran’s perspective of trying to scramble for leadership in the Arab world by taking advantage of the Palestinian issue, the possibility that Iran will launch nuclear attacks against Israel can be excluded, because Israel has a narrow and small territory, with more than four million people dwelling in Gaza and the West Bank, and with over one million Palestinians living in Israel. Iran could not avoid high casualties of the Palestinian people even if the nuclear assaults were to be accurate, and the radiation and pollution of the region would linger for decades. Once Iran’s religious decision-making body decides to launch a nuclear attack on Israel, Iran would forever be blamed and would become the“sinner who has slaughtered Palestinian people.”If so, Iran would replace Israel as the top enemy in the Islamic world, casting doubt on its qualifications as moral leader.

The fact that Iran will not launch a nuclear attack against Israel does not mean that Iran does not need nuclear weapons. In a sense, if facing a U.S. invasion, and if the rule of fundamentalism is precarious, Iran may take the risk and use nuclear weapons against U.S. troops in the Gulf, because it earns itself acclaim from Islamic people without any moral reprehension. On given occasions, it even cannot be ruled out that Iran may use nuclear weapons against Saudi Arabia in the name of“punishing Islamic apostates.”

According to the present development trends of the U.S.-Iranian conflict, the United States is unlikely to take military actions against Iran in 2012. First, Obama will be focusing attention on the general election to seek a second term, but this will be more determined by domestic economic issues rather than Middle Eastern policy. It is not too late to consider a military attack after he wins. Second, the United States, the world’s sole superpower, finds that its resources, capabilities and means cannot live up to its ambitions. At a time when it is perplexed by economic difficulties, an option for the United States will be to seek regime change in Syria as a first step, and then try to overthrow Iran in a more progressive way. Third,the United States will not wage war on Iran and it will also dissuade Israel from attacking Iran to make sure that Obama’s presidential election and U.S. strategy in the Middle East will continue uninterrupted.

Waging a military attack will probably be put on the agenda if Obama wins a second term or if a Republican candidate is elected, while Iran continues to boldly challenge the U.S.strategy in the Middle East and the al-Assad regime remains precarious. To reinforce the U.S.-Israeli strategic alliance and dispel Israel’s anxieties, the United States will launch attacks on Iran separately or give tacit consent to Israel’s attacks on Iran.These scenarios will not trigger full-scale or large-scale Arab-Israeli conflicts on the grounds that most Arabian countries keep vigilant against Iran and hope to undermine Iran via the United States. Accordingly, it is less likely that the conflict will intensify between the Islamic world and the United States and Israel under these scenarios.

The possible means of military attack are a tactical strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities by air raid, ensuring a paralysis of Iran’s ground nuclear facilities. Even if Iran’s underground nuclear facilities survive the strike, its process of developing nuclear weapons will be delayed. In accordance to levels of the damage,Iran may choose to retaliate by launching missile attacks on Israel, instigating Hamas and Hezbollah to attack Israel, inciting Hezbollah to muddle in Lebanese politics, abetting al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army to muddle in Iraq, attempting to produce unrest in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Yemen by exerting its religious influence over the Shias outside Iran, or by messing up Syria with its influence over the Alawites. One or two of these measures, or all of them together, could be taken according to the development of the situation. If the United States does not wage a full-scale war on Iran, Iran will not carry out missile strikes on the U.S. air and naval bases in the Persian Gulf or take other forms of attack, as it seriously wants to avoid a fullscale military conflict with the United States.

3. The United States will not put regime change in Iran on the agenda until its“first two goals”are achieved.

As a big Islamic nation, Iran has a superior population,territorial size, economy, military capacity, religion and national consciousness that far outreach those of Iraq or Libya. To change Iran’s regime, the United States would have to take progressive measures by clearing up the periphery, for instance, by first overthrowing the al-Assad regime and destroying the Iranian-Syrian strategic alliance. But it is never an easy job to replace the al-Assad regime and consolidate the“fruits of democratization.”With a solid ruling basis, Iran’s religious decision-making body has a strong ability to control situations. Pressures on the Iranian nuclear issue imposed by the United States have sparked Iranians’outrage which helps create strong national cohesion and allegiance to their religious leader. Once a fullscale war were waged against Iran’s regime, the United States would certainly encounter desperate resistance and complete retaliation, including the blocking of the Hormuz Straits and strikes against U.S. interests across the region. At that time,the Middle East would fall into violent turmoil, and the world economy would be heavily hit.