RPT: ANALYSIS - US Flaunting With Military Buildup In Mideast Amounts To Psychological War Against Iran

MOSCOW (UrduPoint News / Sputnik - 15th May, 2019) US moves to deploy additional military firepower and the possibility of higher troop numbers into the middle East to counter what Washington sees as a growing threat from Iran is a psychological war to put further pressure on Tehran, experts told Sputnik.

The New York Times newspaper earlier reported that acting US Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan had presented a military plan last week that could result in sending 120,000 US troops to the Middle East in the event that Iran attacks US forces in the region or accelerates its development of nuclear weapons. However, US President Donald Trump brushed off the report earlier on Tuesday, slamming it as "fake news." Yet, he did not rule out deploying "a hell of a lot more" US troops in the future.

The report came after Shanahan approved a deployment of the Patriot missile defense system and USS Arlington amphibious transport dock to the Middle East. The United States also expedited the deployment of an aircraft carrier strike group and a task force of B-52 bombers into the region, with US National Security Advisor John Bolton saying the move was a clear and unmistakable message to Iran.

US 'PSYCHOLOGICAL WAR' AGAINST IRAN

In a press statement, published on May 9, US State Secretary Mike Pompeo accused Iran of being engaged "in an escalating series of threatening actions and statements" in recent weeks. While stressing that the United States did not seek war with Iran, Pompeo warned that any attack by Tehran against US interests or citizens would be answered "with a swift and decisive US response." Tehran, on its part, described the deployment of the US aircraft carrier to Iran's regional waters as "psychological warfare," designed to intimidate the Islamic Republic.

Dr. Alam Saleh, a lecturer in Middle East Politics at Lancaster University, said this was just "a psychological war" aimed at putting pressure on Iran, which, according to Saleh, had resisted the US sanctions.

"None of the land bordering Iranian neighbors would ever host American troops, not even Saudi Arabia. In 2003 Iraq War, Kuwait did host the troops though, and they have launched their invasion from Kuwait. There is no such case for Iran today. Thus, the question is again where do they want to base their 120,000 troops?" Saleh said.

According to the expert, the only likely US strategic objective in the war against Iran is to "capture Tehran."

"From which border? Let's say from the Persian Gulf. How land invasion is possible from the Persian Gulf? The distance between the Strait of Hormuz and Tehran is over 1,200 kilometers [746 miles], almost as twice as the distance between Kuwait and Baghdad. Iran is much larger than Iraq and more populous. Thus, to me it does not make sense sending 120,000 troops marching 1,200 kilometers to Tehran between Iranian cities, mountains, deserts, and rivers. Thus, the number and the news to me is just part of the psychological war," Saleh stressed.

Another important factor, according to Saleh, is that since the 2003 Iraq War, the United States has lost its legitimacy to launch unilateral wars against other countries as the international community would "no longer buy Washington's pretexts to invade Iran."

"United States plus NATO could not yet defeat Taliban, a very traditional, basic, small and irregular militia, in Afghanistan. How then the United States can enter a long war with perhaps one the strongest armies in the region, and win or achieve its objectives quickly? Washington may choose when to start the war, but surely it would be Tehran's decision when to end it," he underlined.

Moreover, Saleh argued the United States could no longer wage prolonged wars due to public opinion, expenditure, and life costs, stressing that he considered the report about the alleged US plan to deploy 120,000 soldiers a bluff.

After the talks with Pompeo on Tuesday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov expressed hope that common sense would prevail and the rumors about the troop deployment were untrue. The Russian minister stressed he felt the United States was also set to find a political solution to the situation with Iran.

POTENTIAL WAR WITH IRAN WOULD BE 'LOSE-LOSE' FOR US

Mohammad Marandi, a professor at the University of Tehran, said he believed the US military and the Central Intelligence Agency did not want military confrontation as they were unlikely to win.

"Everyone will lose, but the Americans will lose, too. All the oil and gas installations in the Persian Gulf region will be up in flames ... The whole region will be in uproar. And I think if the oil and gas facilities in the Persian Gulf are destroyed ... then, I think, Saudi and Emirati regimes won't last for more than a few days," Marandi underlined.

The professor described a possible war with Iran as "idiotic," and yet argued that "when you have the likes of Bolton and Pompeo, who are abnormal people with twisted personalities, nothing is impossible."

"Especially when you have the US president who is so reliant on these people and so ignorant about global politics," he stressed.

However, Karim Pakzad, a researcher at the IRIS-France think tank and Middle East expert, argued that the majority of Trump administration officials, except Bolton and Pompeo, advised the US president to avoid military confrontation with Iran since the latter had an "extraordinary" military advantage.

"The US is stronger than Iran, Iran doesn't have air force, but Iran has extraordinary advantage. Iranian missiles could reach any goal in the Middle East, including Israel. So if under this or that pretext the US starts a war against Iran ... in these circumstances Iran will certainly use its missiles - firstly the oil fields in Saudi Arabia and UAE [United Arab Emirates]," Pakzad pointed out.

According to the researcher, despite the US deploying its anti-missile system to the Middle East, 2 or 3 percent of Iran's missiles launched "would be enough to produce enormous destruction."

"And there is also another thing. Iran has its allies, for example in Iraq, which also has US troops on its territory. In case of war against Iran its allies will not stay neutral. So the whole administration, including Republican senators, are against the war with Iran because the consequences will be incalculable. I think Trump will not make a decision to attack Iran," he noted.

FUTURE OF IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL UNCLEAR

On May 8, Iran said it would suspend the implementation of some of its commitments under the 2015 nuclear deal, exactly a year after the United States unilaterally withdrew from the accord. Tehran gave Europe 60 days to ensure that Iran's interests were protected under the agreement.

"I think that, at a given moment, we will come to the fact that this deal is not meaningful anymore. The US withdrew, Iran partially will do too, so the situation will be enabling new negotiations, and in these new negotiations everything will depend on the balance of power, whether Trump will still be president, whether Europe will be united, whether Russia and China will stand by Iran," Pakzad stressed.

The Press tv reported earlier on Tuesday that Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Tehran would not hold talks with the United States on the nuclear deal.

TENSIONS WITH IRAN MAY BE LINKED TO 2020 US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

The new US presidential election is scheduled for November 3, 2020. Dr. Seyed Ali Alavi, a teaching fellow in the Department of International Politics at the school of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, argued that the escalation of the situation seems to be linked to the upcoming US presidential election.

"The current administration tries to cover its unsuccessful negotiations with North Korea and its stalemate position towards China and Russia. This looks like a military display than actual planning for an all-out conflict. Although recent developments aim to provoke Iran," Alavi said, adding that the alleged US plan to deploy 120,000 troops goes against Trump's promises to reduce US military presence abroad.

He argued it was unlikely the United States would commit to deploying 120,000-strong personnel into the Middle East as this would be damaging for the US economy as well as stability in the region in general.