24. Iran-AQSh nizosi haqiqatmi? - Geopolitik afsonalar | Quran Course

24. Iran-AQSh nizosi haqiqatmi? - Geopolitik afsonalar | Quran Course

0% read · 3 min left

Geopolitik afsonalar Bookmark

This chapter was translated automatically from English and may contain mistakes. Read the original

Show original

24. Iran-AQSh nizosi haqiqatmi?

24.Is the Iran-US Conflict Real?

by Adnan Khan3 min readViewed 222 times

Fors ko'rfazi, o'zining ulkan energiya zaxiralari va strategik joylashuvi bilan hamda dunyodagi xom neftning eng yirik yagona manbai bo'lgani uchun, 100 yildan ortiq vaqt davomida turli kuchlar o'rtasidagi nizolar markazida bo'lib kelmoqda, mintaqadagi eng qudratli kuch esa Eron hisoblanadi. Shu sababli, kim Eronni o'z tomonida saqlab qolsa, butun mintaqani nazorat qiladi, chunki Eron mintaqaning kalitidir.

The Persian Gulf with its immense energy reserves and strategic location as well as being the world’s largest single source of crude oil, has been the centre of conflict for over 100 years by various powers with the most powerful force in the region being Iran. Hence whoever has Iran on their side will have control over the entire region since Iran is the key to the region.

Iraq'ga AQSh tomonidan bostirib kirilganidan so'ng, AQSh rasmiylari Eronni tanqid qilishda davom etib, hatto Jorj Bush tomonidan urush bilan tahdid qilindi. 2002 yilda Bushning "yovuzlik o'qi" haqidagi davlat nutqidan beri Bush Eron bilan muloqot qilishdan bosh tortib keldi. Eron doimiy ravishda Iraqdagi qo'zg'olonchilarni qurollantirishda, Hizbulloh'ni qo'llab-quvvatlashda va yadro qurolini ishlab chiqishda ayblanmoqda. Fors ko'rfaziga qo'shimcha aviatashuvchi kemaning yuborilishi AQShning Eronga hujum qilishi mumkinligi haqidagi taxminlarni yanada kuchaytirdi. Bularning barchasi yuzaki qaraganda AQSh va Eronning bir-biriga keskin qarama-qarshi ekanligini, manfaatlari keskin farq qilishini va natijada Eronning mintaqada AQSh uchun to'g'ridan-to'g'ri tahdid ekanligini ko'rsatadi; shuning uchun uni qurolsizlantirish, ayniqsa yadro qurolidan mahrum qilish, uning islomiy nufuzini yo'qotish va unga demokratiya va erkinlik in'om etish zarur, degan xulosaga olib keladi.

Garchi Bush ma'muriyati tomonidan oshkora masxara qilingan bo'lsa-da, Eronning bunday islohotchi hukumat arboblari Eronda, shuningdek qo'shni Afg'oniston va Iroqda AQSh manfaatlarini ilgari surishda davom etmoqda. Iroqda Tehron SCIRI rahbari Ayatulloh Hakim va Badr brigadasiga yordamini davom ettirmoqda, ular Iroqning janubi bo'yicha AQSh rejalarining tayanchiga aylangan. Afg'onistonda Eron Kobul, Hirot va Qandahorda keng ko'lamli qayta tiklash va o'quv dasturlarini olib bormoqda. Shu paytgacha Eron pushtun qarshiligining Shimoliy Afg'onistonga yoyilishiga muvaffaqiyatli to'sqinlik qildi. Baker–Hamilton hisoboti bunday hamkorlikni tasdiqladi: '…Qo'shma Shtatlar Iroqqa nisbatan konstruktiv siyosatga va mintaqaviy masalalarga sodiqlikni ta'minlash maqsadida Eron va Suriya bilan to'g'ridan-to'g'ri muloqot qilishi kerak. Suriya va Eron bilan muloqotda AQSh rag'batlantirishlarni ham, cheklovlarni ham ko'rib chiqishi lozim; konstruktiv natijalarga erishish uchun…Eron bilan muloqot muammoli, ayniqsa AQSh–Eron munosabatlarining hozirgi holatini hisobga olganda. Shunga qaramay, Qo'shma Shtatlar va Eron Afg'onistonda hamkorlik qilgan, shuning uchun ikki tomon bu modelni Iroq holatiga qo'llash mumkinligini o'rganishi kerak.' Boshqa tomondan, AQSh Eronning yadro imkoniyatidan kelib chiqadigan tahdid haqida ishontiruvchi dalillar keltirishga harakat qildi va mamlakatning yadro intilishlari xalqaro me'yorlarga zid bo'lgani uchun sanksiyalarni talab qilishda davom etmoqda. Isroil Eron yadro bombasi bir necha oy uchun uzoqda ekanligi haqidagi qarashni targ'ib qilishda davom etadigan yagona davlatdir. Isroil tashqi ishlar vaziri Silvan Shalom Nyu-Yorkdagi yahudiy yetakchilari yig'ilishida shunday dedi: '"Xalqimiz, xavfsizlik va razvedka ma'lumotlariga ko'ra, ular juda, juda yaqin. To'liq bilimga ega bo'lishlariga atigi olti oy qolishi mumkin."' 2005-yilda Vena shahridagi Xalqaro atom energiyasi agentligi (XAEA) yig'ilishida Eronning oliy rahbari Ayatulloh Xomanaiy yadro qurollarini to'plash, ishlab chiqarish va ishlatishni taqiqlovchi fatvo chiqardi.

Despite being publicly derided by the Bush administration, such reformists in the Iranian government continue to promote US interests in Iran, and neighbouring Afghanistan and Iraq. In Iraq, Tehran continues to extend support to the leader of SCIRI, Ayatollah Hakim and the Badr Brigade who have become the lynchpin of US plans for Southern Iraq. In Afghanistan, Iran runs extensive reconstruction and training programs in Kabul, Herat and Kandahar. Thus far, Iran has successfully prevented the Pushtun resistance from spreading to Northern Afghanistan. The BakerHamilton report confirmed such engagement: ‘…the United States should engage directly with Iran and Syria in order to try to obtain their commitment to constructive policies toward Iraq and other regional issues. In engaging Syria and Iran, the United States should consider incentives, as well as disincentives; in seeking constructive results…Engaging Iran is problematic, especially given the state of the US-Iranian relationship. Yet the United States and Iran cooperated in Afghanistan, and both sides should explore whether this model can be replicated in the case of Iraq.’ On the other hand the US has attempted to make a compelling case about the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear capability, and continues to push for sanctions as the country’s nuclear aspirations contravene international norms. Israel is the only country that continues to propagate the view that Iran’s nuclear bomb is months away. Sylvan Shalom, Israel’s Foreign Minister told a meeting of Jewish leaders in New York: ‘According to our people, security and intelligence, they are very, very close. It may be only six months before they will have that full knowledge.’ In 2005, at the meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Khameni, issued a fatwa, which forbade the stockpiling, production, and use of nuclear weapons.

Inqilobning maqsadlari 1979 yilga kelib AQSh ta'siridan uzoqlashgan Shohni ag'darish edi. Eron xalqi nazarida ishonchli muqobil bilan uni almashtirish AQShning asosiy strategik ustuvor vazifasi edi. Ayatulloh Xumayni va AQSh o'rtasida "inqilob"ni tashkil etish uchun o'tkazilgan uchrashuvlar o'sha paytdagi Sudan rahbari Sodiq al-Mahdiy tomonidan tasdiqlangan; u AQSh va Xumayni o'rtasida vositachi bo'lgan. Shuningdek, sobiq Bosh prokuror Ramsi Klark 1979 yilda Xumayni bilan bevosita muzokaralar olib borgan. Inqilob natijasida Xumayni boshchiligidagi "konservatorlar" harbiy, sud, razvedka va xavfsizlik tizimlarini amalda o'z qo'liga oldi. Eronning AQShga qarshi ritorikasiga qaramay, u AQShga neft yetkazib berishni hech qachon to'xtatmadi va ular bilan tuzilgan kelishuvlarni hech qachon bekor qilmadi. Bunday muhim lavozimlarda qattiqqo'l kuchlar turganida, AQSh Eronda islom inqilobini to'liq teskari qila olmadi. Aynan o'sha qattiqqo'l kuchlar o'z mavqelarini mustahkamlash maqsadida yadro qurolini ishlab chiqish va murakkab qurollarni sotib olish ustida ishlamoqda, AQSh esa buni to'xtatishga harakat qilmoqda.

The revolution’s objectives were to overthrow the Shah who had by 1979 moved away from US influence. His replacement by a credible alternative in the eyes of the people of Iran was a key US strategic priority. The meetings between Ayatollah Khomeini and the US to organise the ‘revolution,’ have been confirmed by the then Sudanese leader Sadeq Al-Mehdi, who was the mediator between the US and Khomeini, as well as the former Attorney General, Ramsey Clark who held direct talks with Khomeini in 1979. The revolution led to the ‘conservatives’ led by Khomeini taking effective control of the military, judiciary, intelligence and security apparatus. For all the anti-US rhetoric from Iran it never stopped supplying the US with oil and never ended any agreements with them. With the hardliners in such key positions the US has been unable to completely reverse the Islamic revolution in Iran. It is the same hardliners who are working on developing nuclear weapons and purchasing sophisticated weaponry in order to strengthen their position whilst the US is attempting to end this.

Masalaning markazida realistlar bilan neokonservatorlar o‘rtasidagi Eron bo‘yicha eng yaxshi yondashuv haqidagi tortishuv turardi. Bu nizo AQSh hukumatining barcha tarmoqlariga singib ketdi va Tashqi ishlar vazirligi, Pentagon hamda Markaziy razvedka boshqarmasi kabi muassasalarni bo‘lib tashladi. Erон masalasidagi kelishmovchiliklar 2004 yil iyul oyida Tashqi aloqalar kengashi (CFR) tomonidan Prezident Jimmi Karterning Milliy xavfsizlik bo‘yicha maslahatchisi doktor Zbigniew Brzezinskiyning rahbarligida tayyorlangan “Eron: yangi yondashuv vaqti” nomli hisobot e'lon qilinishi bilan keskinlashdi. Hisobotda Eronda neokonservatorlar talab qilganidek rejim o‘zgarishi uchun vaziyat yetilmaganligi ta'kidlangan. Hisobotda shunday deyilgan: “Siyosiy keskin o‘zgarishlar va xalqning noroziligiga qaramay, Eron yana bir inqilob arafasida emas. Mamlakatning joriy tizimini saqlashga intilayotgan kuchlar hokimiyatni mustahkam ushlab turibdi.” Hisobotda, shuningdek, Vashington bilan Tehron o‘rtasidagi barcha mavjud ziddiyatlarni hal etuvchi “katta kelishuv” haqiqatga yaqin emasligi va muzokaralar o‘rniga mintaqaviy barqarorlik hamda Eronning yadroviy intilishlari kabi bir qator asosiy masalalarda “bosqichma-bosqich yutuqlarga” qaratilishi kerakligi qayd etilgan.

At the heart of the issue was the dispute between the realists and the neoconservatives regarding the best approach towards Iran. The row permeated all sections of the US government and divided institutions like the State Department, the Pentagon and the CIA. The disagreements over Iran came to ahead in July 2004 with the publication of the report entitled ‘Iran: Time for a New Approach’ which was prepared by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) under the direction of Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser. The report argued that Iran was not ripe for regime change as advocated by the neoconservatives. The report stated: ‘Despite considerable political flux and popular dissatisfaction. Iran is not on the verge of another revolution. Those forces that are committed to preserving Iran's current system remain firmly in control.’ The report also stressed, that a ‘grand bargain’ to settle all outstanding conflicts between Washington and Tehran is unrealistic and that talks should focus instead on making ‘incremental progress’ on a variety of key issues, including regional stability and Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Hisobotning tavsiyalari neokonservatorlar tomonidan darhol rad etildi, ular Vitse-prezident Dik Cheyni va o'sha paytdagi mudofaa vaziri Donald Rumsfeld bilan yaqin aloqada edi. Yirik neokonservator Maykl Ledin, Tehronni islomiy "terror ustalarining" global poytaxti deb hisoblaydi, "National Review Online" nashrida CFR tavsiyalari "xo'rlovchi" va "appeasement" (murosaga kelish siyosati) ekanini yozdi. Biroq Bushning ikkinchi muddatida va Iroq falokati tufayli neokonservatorlarning ta'siri sezilarli darajada pasaydi. Pol Volfovits va Jon Boltonga o'xshash ayrim neokonservatorlar tashqi siyosatni shakllantiruvchi lavozimlardan chetlatilib, Jahon banki va BMTda siyosatni amalga oshirish vazifalariga yuborildi, boshqalari, masalan Duglas Feyt, iste'foga chiqishga majbur bo'ldi. Neokonservatorlarning ketishi Bush ma'muriyatida realizm va yumshoq kuch (soft power) yo'liga o'tilishiga olib keldi. Katta darajada AQSh Davlat departamenti va Pentagonning tashqi siyosat masalalaridagi ta'siri o'rtasida muvozanat tiklandi. Sudan, Livan, Shimoliy Koreya va Eron bo'yicha siyosiy inqirozlarni hal etish uchun boshqa davlatlar bilan hamkorlik qilish oldingi AQSh ma'muriyatlari qo'llagan ko'p tomonlama yondashuvni eslatadi.

The recommendations of the report were instantly dismissed by the neoconservatives who were closely associated with Vice President Dick Cheney and the then defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Arch neoconservative Micheal Ledeen, who considers Tehran the global capital of Islamist ‘terror masters,’ wrote in National Review Online that the CFR recommendations were ‘humiliating’ and constituted ‘appeasement.’ However, in Bush’s second term of office and with the debacle of Iraq, the Neocons influence declined considerably. Some of the neoconservatives like Paul Wolfowitz and John Bolton were ushered out of foreign policy making roles and given policy implementation roles at the World Bank and the UN, while others like Douglas Feith were forced to leave. The departure of the neoconservatives gave way to realism and soft power in the Bush administration. To a large extent parity was restored between the influence of the US State Department and Pentagon over foreign policy matters. Collaboration with other nations to solve the political crisis in Sudan, Lebanon, North Korean, and Iran is reminiscent of multilateralism employed by previous US administrations.