"Only the EU nowadays is capable of campaigning against the Americans and Iran should use the situation wisely as a strategic decision," Ali Ansari said in an interview with IRNA.
Ansari, an associate fellow of the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London, was referring to the growing aggressive rhetoric being used by American leaders against Iran.
He suggested that at the end of the day the best way in dealing with the differences between the two countries would be a direct dialogue between Tehran and Washington, but until then Iran should prevent threatened US military action through the Europeans.
The lecturer from the Department of Modern History at the University of St Andrews in Scotland emphasized that American foreign policies are not drawn perfectly and change their direction time to time quite dramatically.
"This makes them more dangerous for the time being because you cannot predict their reactions and so that one cannot expect a wise policy be pursued", he warned.
Ansari said that even if the military threats made by some hawkish members of the Bush administration against Iran may seem untrue, the ad-hoc nature of decision-making in the White House should alert everyone of its possible sudden dangers.
He accepted that Neo-Conservatives had their own agenda for changes in the Middle East even before the Republicans took power in 2000, but emphasized that they did not and still do not have detailed plans for their goals in the region.
The nuclear issue, Ansari believed, is not the major dispute that is causing the stand-off between Iran and the US. It was more about the pro-Israelis and neo-cons in the US being worried and trying to break Iran developing stronger relations with the EU.
"When you speak to European diplomats involved in negotiations with Iranians you can see their overall satisfaction with the developments and this is exactly the issue that worries Israeli lobbies in the US," he said.
In his opinion, some Arab countries in the Middle East were also anxious about Iran's new position after the US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.
He argued that so far Iran has been seen to be the major winner and will become the major power with allies in Shiite Iraq and Afghanistan if foreign troops leave Iraq for good.
This analogy made some Arab leaders, who are worried for their future, such as in Saudi Arabia and Jordan, to allude to US intervention and to limit Iran's strength by the use of military attacks.
Ansari predicted that Prime Minister Tony Blair was ready to support Washington in an attack to Iran but said his stance would be personal.
There would be no party support for Blair this time as most of his fellow party members have clearly signalled that they will not tolerate another unilateral pre-emptive attack against a sovereign country, he said.
The political analyst said many Labor activists had already openly warned that they would ask Blair to resign if he supported Bush in a unilateral attack against Iran.
All the European nations would oppose any kind of military attack to Iran by the Americans and were in fact worried if such a threat becomes reality, he said.
... Payvand News - 2/4/05 ... --