If Washington wants a war with Iran, there'll be a war with Iran. That's
the great lesson of the Iraq war; once the decision is made, there's no turning
So, why are the main-players; England, France and Germany stumbling over themselves
trying to placate Bush as though the conflict can be avoided? Threatening to
bring Iran before the Security Council won't alter the administrations plans
one bit. Like the Downing Street memo stated, "The facts and intelligence
were fit to meet the policy". It's the same here. No amount of groveling
from the EU-3 will appease Washington once Tehran is in its crosshairs. The
EU-3 would be better off sending arms and ammunition to Iran so the people can
defend themselves once bombs start to fly.
We should consider the implications of preemptive war against Iran before the
situation begins to escalate. The Islamic state has no nuclear weapons, no nuclear
weapons-program, and no verifiable evidence that it will be building nuclear
weapons in the future. In other words, the US is planning an attack against
a nation that does not even meet its minimal requirements for aggression. There
is no moral or legal justification for such a war, just as there was no moral
or legal justification for the invasion of Iraq. Nevertheless, I believe that
the decision to attack Iran was made long ago, perhaps even before the Iraq
war; and that that will be carried out in the very near future. The last obstacle
was the German election. The administration believed that Ms. Angela Merkel
would win a hands-down victory; putting a fellow neocon in the drivers-seat
of Europe's largest economy. It would be like having Maggie Thatcher in Bonn.
Merkel could be counted on to support the expansion of NATO (which is, to say,
the extension of American power), to dismantle the social-welfare system, energize
the privatization processes, quash the movement for an independent EU military,
strengthen ties with the US and Israel, and disrupt European solidarity. All
this fits within the Washington neocon vision of a balkanized, free-market Europe
operating as a subordinate to the US overlord.
If the US or Israel had attacked Iran before the German elections, Ms. Merkel,
who has promised to rebuilt the trans-Atlantic relationship, would have taken
a decisive nosedive in the polls. As it turns out, the election results were
inconclusive and will probably not affect the storm clouds that are gathering
The die is cast. There will be a war.
The media has already begun the steady drum-beat of specious charges directed
at the Islamic government. All of the major news-providers (New York Times,
AP, Washington Post, Night Ridder etc) are now describing Iran as "defiant"
or "thumbing their nose" at the world community, or, worse, "out
of compliance" with prior agreements. Their new Iranian president is described
as a "hardliner" who is "fiercely anti-American" These claims
are normally accompanied by quotes from unidentified sources who refer to a
fictional nuclear-weapons program that is just months away from developing the
It's all 100% bunkum. In fact, the world community is not troubled by Iran's
nuclear program at all. It is only the US who would like to use the allegations
that rattle-through the propaganda system to justify another preemptive war.
Unlike the US, Iran does not have a history of territorial aggression, is not
involved in massively-destabilizing colonial wars, does not abduct civilians
from other sovereign nations and torture them in foreign prisons, does not erect
monuments to human cruelty (Guantanamo) and fill them with members of a target-religion.
Iran has no nuclear weapons program. That is not simply my contention, but
the judgment of the foremost nuclear inspections team in the world; the IAEA.
(International Atomic Energy Agency) It was the IAEA that consistently disputed
the erroneous claims by the Bush administration that Saddam was developing a
nuclear weapons capacity. No such program existed and there is considerable
proof that the US knew the charges were false.
For the last two years, Iran has willingly undergone the strictest regime of
"go-anywhere see anything" inspections of any nation in the history
of the IAEA. Even now they are eager to admit the IAEA inspectors to all suspect
locations and allow them to set up their permanent video-cameras, so they can
assure the global community that they can be trusted to comply with the terms
of the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty)
What Iran refuses to do, and what every sovereign nation should refuse to do,
is accept rules mandated by the United States especially designed for Iran.
That, of course, is precisely what is happening at present. Iran is IN COMPLETE
COMPLIANCE WITH ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE TERMS OF THE NPT. What the Bush team
is demanding is that they forgo the conversion of nuclear fuel to be used for
peaceful purposes in the production of nuclear energy for power plants. (This
conversion process does not create Weapons-grade plutonium) This is their right
under the terms of the treaty. For Iran to accept less than what they agreed
upon destroys the meaning of the treaty, creates an apartheid-system of compliance,
and is a national humiliation.
Why would Iran accept such an obvious double-standard while the US is busy building
a new regime of bunker-busting nuclear weapons and threatening to use them preemptively
on Washington's myriad enemies?
The administration's goals in attacking Iran are simple and straightforward.
They hope to control Iran's vast petroleum and natural gas reserves, disarm
a regional rival to Israel, prevent Iran from opening its own market for trading
oil in petro-euros, and manage the global energy market to maintain US dominance
over rising powers like India and China. This can be successfully achieved by
putting the regions' resources under US control.
Whatever strategy the Pentagon has in mind, it certainly will not duplicate
the disaster that persists in Iraq. Israel will probably lead the assault taking
out the potential nuclear sites with the US in a mop-up role; bombing the 45
chemical, biological and conventional weapons facilities.
It won't be pretty and the margin for error is significant.
At the end of the day, the US will need to storm the oil-rich Ahwaz region
(perhaps, 90% of Iran's oil) and create the rationale for a long-term occupation.
There's no plan to subjugate the 70 million Iranians who live beyond that region,
although the air-strikes will probably attempt to "decapitate" the
regime, so they may need to find new leaders. Time is Running out
There are many signs that the US is drawing closer to a war with Iran. It's
clear from numerous reports that the administration is conducting routine fly-overs
of Iran, as well as providing support to the disparate terrorist organizations
(MEK) that are fomenting rebellion on the ground.
Just this week, Secretary Rumsfeld suggested that Iran was behind the street
violence that erupted in Basra when two undercover commandos were arrested by
Iraqi police. Rumsfeld snappishly opined that Iran's involvement was "not
Is the Secretary really insinuating that the riot that broke out after 10 British
tanks and armored vehicles crushed the walls surrounding the Basra jail, killing
7 Iraqis and releasing 150 prisoners; was Iran's doing? Weeks earlier, Rumsfeld
made similarly feeble allegations about arms that had been captured in house-to-house
searches. "It is true," he said, "that weapons clearly, unambiguously,
from Iran have been found in Iraq."
Clear to whom?
We don't need to reiterate the litany of Rumsfeld's fabrications to acknowledge
that his claims are suspect and probably designed to expand the regional war.
Why would Iran want to increase the ongoing chaos in Iraq? Does it help Iran
to have an unstable neighbor where, at any moment, the war could spill over
their borders? Or do the Mullahs simply have a death-wish to be nuked by the United States?
Rumsfeld's claims are absurd. Iran does not want a war.
Cheney's Nuclear Review
A leaked document from the CIA attracted considerable attention two months
ago. Under orders from Vice president Dick Cheney STRATCOM (Strategic Command)
drew up contingency plans for a "large scale air assault on Iran employing
both conventional an nuclear weapons." Understandably, the document caused
quite a flap leaving many to conclude that the administration was considering
a preemptive nuclear strike on Iran. Surprisingly, however, the "leak"
never produced any reaction or recriminations from the White House, who simply
ignored its appearance in public.
Was it a planned leak?
Similarly, just last week all the major news outlets ran stories about the
Pentagon's draft of a US nuclear doctrine that spells out conditions under which
US commanders might seek approval to "preemptively" use nuclear weapons.
The document entitled "Doctrine
for Joint Nuclear Operations" was prepared for the Joint Chiefs of
Staff and sent shock-waves through the country.
Would the Pentagon really execute a first-strike initiative against a non-nuclear
country? What country would be the likely target of such an attack? The answer is almost too obvious to mention.
Iran. (The document by the way, has been mysteriously "disappeared"
from the Pentagon site)
Both of these examples suggest that Washington is trying to send a strong message
to Tehran that the US will respond with overwhelming (nuclear) force if Iran
retaliates after the upcoming "surgical-strikes". It is a clever strategy
that offers nearby Israel (who will presumably lead the attack) some insurance
that Iran will not strike back.
But, Iran will strike back; that much is certain. And, of course, Iran has
every right to retaliate if it is bombed in an unprovoked act of aggression.
The principles involved in an Iranian response are clear enough but they are
worth reviewing none the less.
Whatever one may think of the repressive Islamic regime, its right to defend
itself against unprovoked hostilities cannot be challenged. Thus, Iran will
be defending the principles of sovereignty, self-determination, borders, and
the right to live in peace with their neighbors without the threat of attack.
These principles are the foundation-blocks upon which the current world order
rests. They are worth fighting and dying for, as we shall soon discover.
I believe that the Mullahs will honor their obligation to defend their people
if they are attacked and will act accordingly.
The history of warfare is a dismal chronicle of fatal blunders. The administration
can avoid this catastrophe, but I don't think they will.