I'm not inclined to take Ahmadinejad's public predictions about U.S. foreign policy too seriously, but if the United States does end up launching attacks on (presumably) Iran and Syria and does so in cooperation with Israel, it would have to represent the biggest, most successful attempt at foreign policy misdirection in United States history. It's no secret that President Obama has been openly and ham-fistedly disdainful of Prime Minister Netanyahu and that he has been scrambling to show that he regards Israel as a good friend and ally of the United States and not as merely an obstacle to American interests in the Middle East. Again, I highly doubt Ahmadinejad's prediction will prove correct, but if it does, my estimation of President Obama's shrewdness and political ability will go through the roof.
Still, a question remains. Why is Ahmadinejad making this prediction when there is no overt sign the United States will take action? There is certainly the prospect of an Israeli surprise attack, and the Iranian government regards Israel as the Little Satan to the American Great Satan. So, by this logic, if Israel attacks Iran, it is doing so as an agent of the United States. As a point of fact, this line of logic doesn't hold (at most, the United States would be neutral on the subject, not hindering it as it went forward), but it is how the Iranian government views the U.S.-Isreali relationship (Walt and Mearsheimer(sp?), call your office).
Another possible reason for Ahmadinejad to make this prediction (and the one which seems most likely to me) is that Ahmadinejad is calling President Obama's bluff, effectively daring him to attack. The article ends with Ahmadinejad saying "The logic that they can persuade us to negotiate through sanctions is just a failure." He is declaring that not only will Iran not buckle under newly imposed sanctions, but that the United States knows this and is preparing to take military action as a result. If the attack does happen, the prediction costs Ahmadinejad nothing. If it doesn't happen, it allows him to declare that President Obama blinked and that he lacks the strength of will to prevent Iran achieving its nuclear objectives.
Of course, all of this is predicated on Ahmadinejad being believable in his assertions, so the effect will probably be negligible. Those who are inclined to believe him (i.e. his supporters) will believe him and be encouraged if the attack doesn't come. Those who are inclined to disbelieve him (i.e. just about everyone else) will be inclined to ignore him, and if an attack doesn't come, it will only mean that Ahmadinejad was engaging in more of his usual bluster.
Still, a question remains. Why is Ahmadinejad making this prediction when there is no overt sign the United States will take action? There is certainly the prospect of an Israeli surprise attack, and the Iranian government regards Israel as the Little Satan to the American Great Satan. So, by this logic, if Israel attacks Iran, it is doing so as an agent of the United States. As a point of fact, this line of logic doesn't hold (at most, the United States would be neutral on the subject, not hindering it as it went forward), but it is how the Iranian government views the U.S.-Isreali relationship (Walt and Mearsheimer(sp?), call your office).
Another possible reason for Ahmadinejad to make this prediction (and the one which seems most likely to me) is that Ahmadinejad is calling President Obama's bluff, effectively daring him to attack. The article ends with Ahmadinejad saying "The logic that they can persuade us to negotiate through sanctions is just a failure." He is declaring that not only will Iran not buckle under newly imposed sanctions, but that the United States knows this and is preparing to take military action as a result. If the attack does happen, the prediction costs Ahmadinejad nothing. If it doesn't happen, it allows him to declare that President Obama blinked and that he lacks the strength of will to prevent Iran achieving its nuclear objectives.
Of course, all of this is predicated on Ahmadinejad being believable in his assertions, so the effect will probably be negligible. Those who are inclined to believe him (i.e. his supporters) will believe him and be encouraged if the attack doesn't come. Those who are inclined to disbelieve him (i.e. just about everyone else) will be inclined to ignore him, and if an attack doesn't come, it will only mean that Ahmadinejad was engaging in more of his usual bluster.
