|
Let's Stop a US/Israeli War on Iran
By BILL and KATHLEEN CHRISTISON
Former CIA analysts
12/29/05 "Counterpunch"
-- -- The peace movements of the entire
world should be in crisis mode right now, working non-stop to
prevent the U.S. and Israel from starting a war against Iran. (See
the James Petras article in CounterPunch on December 24, 2005 titled
Iran in the Crosshairs for the best summary of the present
situation.) The reckless and unnecessary dangers arising from such a
war are so obvious that one wonders why normal political forces in
the two aggressor countries -- both of whom love to glorify
themselves as democracies -- would not prevent such a war from
happening.
But the "normal political forces" in both the U.S. and Israel have
become badly distorted. Democracy has been seriously undermined in
both. The cowboy-like personalities and aggressive tendencies of
both countries' leaders tend to feed on each other. Domestic
political difficulties and coming elections in both countries
probably add to the macho inclination of the ruling elites to use
force to remove any problems facing them. The glue binding these
tendencies together is the ever-strengthening institutional link
between defense establishments and military-industrial complexes in
both countries, as well as, in the U.S, the growing power and
influence of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)
over both major political parties. The entire mix increases the
probability, against all common sense, that this absurd war will
actually happen.
Nothing else more dangerous to the world, to the Middle East, to the
oppressed Palestinians, or to the true interests of the United
States is happening today -- anywhere. Americans who do not want an
eruption of a new world war, started by our own government, ought to
be strongly lobbying the Bush administration and all members of
Congress against supporting any military action by the U.S. and
Israel against Iran. Globally, people who oppose such a war should
be lobbying their own governments in similar fashion.
Background
It is worthwhile to discuss briefly the broader context of why a war
with Iran today seems a real possibility. During his all-out public
relations effort in late 2005 to regain support for his policies in
the Middle East, Bush has made it clear that he plans to continue
his drive for complete victory in the "War on Terrorism," without
making significant changes in his own, very aggressive, foreign
policies. Those policies will make this planet a less safe, more
unjust place to live for most people around the world, as well as
for most of us living in the U.S. The special relationship between
the U.S. and Israel has long played an important role in these
aggressive policies.
Outside the United States, it is widely understood that one of the
true motives -- not the exclusive motive but a real and significant
one -- behind the Bush administration's 2003 invasion of Iraq was
the desire of the neocons in Washington to conquer Iraq in order to
benefit Israel. Although a few of the big-name neocons (Paul
Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Lewis "Scooter" Libby) have left
high-visibility positions for various reasons, many remain, and it
is clear that Bush himself, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice have taken as
their own the main tenets of neocon beliefs.
Inside the U.S., on the other hand, the pressure of the neocons for
war on Israel's behalf, or any hint that Bush himself participates
in that pressure, is hardly ever mentioned. This taboo on discussing
the Israeli link to the war in Iraq, enforced by the threat of being
labeled anti-Semitic, introduces major distortions into practically
every effort to examine and change policies that are causing massive
hatred of the U.S. around the world.
But right now, three of the long-existing "problems" in the Middle
East (i.e., situations that have been made problems largely by our
own actions) have reached critical stages that may, if Washington's
policies do not change quite quickly, result in our losing even the
remnants of stability and peace that remain in that region today.
The world could face instead nuclear warfare or, at a minimum, a
practically unending "clash of civilizations" and conventional
warfare at a much higher level than exists now. The first, and the
most important right now, of the three problems is the main subject
of this article: the problem that arises from the determined U.S.
and Israeli policy of preventing Iran from ever acquiring nuclear
weapons. The second and third problems, also situations brought on
by the U.S. itself, have to do with Syria and the Palestinians. In
the long run, they are also very important, but they are less urgent
for now. These other problems will be considered briefly at the end
of this article.
As was the case with the U.S. invasion of Iraq, one of the
underlying causes of all these "problems" in the Middle East has
been the success of the neocons in persuading the Bush
administration to support aggressively the goals of the Israeli
government throughout the area. And here again, the fear of being
charged with anti-Semitism causes many Americans quietly to accept
the taboo on discussing the Israeli link to the Bush
administration's foreign policies. This is an absurd situation.
Criticizing Israeli (or U.S.) policies and urging specific changes
in those policies is not anti-Semitic (or anti-American). The
arrogance of anyone who suggests the contrary is appalling. The
following paragraphs contain suggestions on how we should work to
remedy those aspects of this absurdity that bear on Iran and nuclear
weapons.
What should be done to change U.S. policy on Iran's nuclear program?
First of all, don't fall into the trap of accepting Iran's public
claims that it is not attempting to acquire nuclear weapons. Many of
the nations that now have such weapons made similar claims while
they were developing the weapons. Israel did so throughout the first
half of the 1960s, engaging in elaborate subterfuges even when
dealing with U.S. inspectors who occasionally came looking for
weapons work. The Israeli claims were so much garbage (see Israeli
author Avner Cohen's book, Israel and the Bomb). Then, after it
acquired its first nuclear explosive device almost 40 years ago now,
Israel simply adopted a well publicized policy of ambiguity and
stopped talking publicly about whether it had any weapons. India and
Pakistan also both claimed not to be working on weapons when in fact
they were. Their claims were garbage too, which they quickly threw
away once they joined the nuclear club and possessed their own
deterrent. Iran almost certainly intends to do the same, and its
public claims to the contrary are also almost certainly worthless.
The principal point to start with is that, unless the U.S. and
Israel (and other nations as well) all agree to work seriously
toward eliminating their own nuclear weapons, any Iranian government
will consider that it has as much right as the rest of us to such
weapons. Essentially, even if Iran, under pressure, were to sign new
agreements, now or in the future, to forgo nuclear weapons, the new
agreements would be meaningless unless the U.S., Israel, and other
nuclear nations ended their own monumental hypocrisy of insisting
that they can keep and expand their nuclear arsenals, while
non-nuclear nations may not acquire such arsenals. In the eyes of
most Muslims around the world and many other people too, Iran, with
a population of close to 70 million, has at least as much right as
Israel, with a population less than one-tenth as large, to have
nuclear weapons
Most supporters of the global peace movements by definition oppose
the solving of international problems through warfare, and they also
oppose the further proliferation of nuclear weapons. Most are also
aware that the critical bargain reached in the 1970 Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) -- the bargain that made the treaty
possible -- was a trade-off: the acceptance of continued
non-nuclear-weapons status by states without those weapons, in
return for the simultaneous agreement by states possessing nuclear
weapons to pursue good-faith negotiations on nuclear, and complete
and general, disarmament. This latter provision had no teeth, and
certainly many "realists" in the U.S. foreign policy establishment
expected that it would not and could not be enforced. Nevertheless,
the existence of this provision was necessary to the NPT's
ratification by numerous countries, and it gives any state
dissatisfied with progress toward nuclear disarmament an excuse to
abrogate or ignore the treaty.
Most people will not bother to make the niceties of international
law an issue in this matter, but the question of which is more
important, stopping the further proliferation of nuclear weapons to
Iran or stopping our own side from instigating a war against Iran,
is vital. The answer should be clear: The single most urgent
objective we should have right now is to prevent a war, possibly
nuclear, from being started by the U.S. and/or Israel against Iran.
To repeat, such a war would be disastrous, and we should be doing
whatever we can, with the highest possible priority, to prevent it
from ever happening.
Every peace activist on the globe ought to be in the streets and
elsewhere lobbying in support of something very simple: do not
attack Iran, even if this means allowing Iran to develop its own
nuclear weapons. We should put out the message that it is simply not
worth a war, with consequences impossible to foresee, to prevent
Iran from obtaining such weapons. From 1945 until we invaded Iraq in
2003, we never once took military action to prevent other nations
from developing nuclear weapons. We relied instead on deterrence and
containment (to prevent other nations from using such weapons after
they had been developed). These may not be perfect policies, but
they have a successful track record and can probably be applied more
successfully than other policies to subnational groups as well as
nation-states. The point is that these are still better policies
than the recklessness of preemption, and we should use these
policies in lobbying against U.S involvement of any kind in military
actions or coup attempts against Iran. We should also very
definitely support an effort to tie future U.S. aid to Israel to
Israel's not engaging in military action against Iran.
We are talking here about supporting (by our silence), or opposing
(by vociferous lobbying), what could become major, serious warfare
-- warfare that could easily become global, and also could easily
cause greater difficulties for the peoples of the Middle East than
any they have yet faced from U.S. policies. With an election
campaign intensifying the political volatilities of Israeli
politics, with possibly fast-moving new uncertainties and
vulnerabilities arising among both Republicans and Democrats
jousting for advantage in a U.S. election year, and with a new,
inexperienced president in Iran who, so far at least, believes
aggressive speech strengthens his political position, the dangers in
the situation are evident. As each week passes and no movement
occurs anywhere -- particularly in Washington -- to reduce tensions
by changing policies, the risk grows of a mistake that will lead to
new hostilities, and possibly nuclear warfare. How many Iranians
might we and the Israelis kill? How many Israelis might die? How
many Americans?
How should the U.S. change its policies with respect to Syria?
The issues of Syria and Palestine are related to U.S. policy toward
Iran. Policy on Syria today is to put constant pressure on that
country's ruler, Bashar al-Assad, with the ultimate objective of
ousting and replacing him with someone (not yet named by the
Americans) who would be even more subservient to U.S. and Israeli
desires. Assad himself has moved a considerable way toward
subservience, giving the U.S. considerable help on intelligence
matters and accepting certain U.S. prisoners "rendered" to his
regime for purposes of torture, but the U.S., unsatisfied, keeps
intensifying the pressure. The U.S. and Israel have succeeded in
making it more difficult for Syria to provide support for the
Palestinian resistance against Israel's occupation, but Damascus
still provides some refuge for Hezbollah personnel.
The recent assassinations of anti-Syrian leaders in Lebanon have
provided new opportunities for the Bush administration to ratchet up
its criticism of Syria still further, although the evidence of
Syrian involvement in the assassinations is weak. It is at least
possible that other groups, such as the Israel's Mossad or the CIA,
are responsible.
Whatever the truth behind events in Lebanon, the events themselves
could offer a U.S. president who is in some trouble at home the
possibility of a low-cost, low-risk foreign policy victory if he
could pull off, perhaps with the help of Mossad, a quick covert
action that ousted Assad. Act II of a grand show might then proceed
-- another U.S. occupation installed, another nation in the Middle
East "democratized," elections held a year or two later and a puppet
government set up, step-by-step takeovers of the economy implemented
by U.S. and Israeli interests, further isolation of the Palestinians
from other Arabs -- all in all, another great victory for the U.S-Israeli
partnership.
Or so Bush, at least, might believe. In reality, the situation might
turn into another morass like Iraq. But months might pass and the
U.S. congressional election of November 2006 might be history before
we knew that for sure. Might not a man like Bush who revels in
chance-taking consider this a pretty good gamble? Meanwhile, how
many Syrians would we kill? How many badly wounded Americans would
come home to a questionable quality of life because bulletproof
vests saved their lives? If Israeli military units moved into Syria
(to help us, of course), how many Israelis would die?
We should all be lobbying members of Congress not to cast any votes
in favor of aggressive U.S. policies toward Syria. Such votes cannot
help, and will only take resources from, a majority of the world's
peoples and a majority of Americans. Syria (and Lebanon) are not
places where the United States benefits in any way from being a
global policeman. While the neocons and probably some present top
Israeli officials do see benefits to be gained from U.S.
intervention in Syria, other senior and many ordinary Israelis do
not. We also should urge members of Congress to tie further aid to
Israel to Israel's not becoming involved in any military actions
against Syria.
How should the U.S. change its policies with respect to the
Palestinians?
We should make it as clear as we possibly can to members of Congress
that the Palestine-Israel problem is the most central long-term
issue to the peoples of the Middle East. Most Arab leaders have been
so co-opted by the U.S. that they no longer object to our support
for Israel's oppression of the Palestinians, but the peoples of the
area are a different story. They do care about and object
strenuously to that oppression.
Regardless of what happens anywhere in the Middle East, we will
never end the "War on Terrorism" without, first, a solution to the
Palestine-Israel issue that provides as much justice to the
Palestinians as to the Israelis. Although many supporters of Israel
try to compare the several-centuries-long U.S. conquest of American
Indians to the Israeli attempt to conquer the Palestinians, there is
no valid comparison. Quite apart from the immorality of any attempt
to emulate the U.S. atrocity against its indigenous population,
there are practical reasons why the comparison cannot be made. The
population balances, for instance, are entirely different; there are
proportionately far more Palestinians than there were American
Indians.
Nevertheless, Israeli and U.S. policy in the West Bank, semi-hidden
by a bogus withdrawal from Gaza, continues to seek permanent
conquest of more and more territory. The daily injustices and
cruelties imposed by Israel and the U.S. on Palestinians in the
occupied West Bank are today worse than they have been in the
previous 38 years of occupation. This is not only a major human
rights issue facing the United States. It is also a very large cause
of the hatred against the U.S. throughout the Arab and Muslim
worlds.
What is new in the last few months is Israeli intensification of
settlement activity in the West Bank, particularly in East
Jerusalem; intensification of land-confiscation (with no recompense
to Palestinians); a speed-up in construction of the separation wall
and of new "Israeli-citizens-only" roads, both of which also require
more land-confiscation; more demolitions of Palestinian houses; and
new, harsh Israeli measures of other types aimed specifically at
forcing Palestinians out of areas, in which they have lived for
generations, in and near Jerusalem.
All of this takes place with little Western media attention; the
media devoted considerably more attention to the carefully televised
"suffering" of the relatively few Israeli settlers forced to move
from their luxurious homes in Gaza. The Israelis, with heavy U.S.
financing, are busily establishing more "facts on the ground" that
will make any peaceful solution providing equal justice to both
sides less possible. That does not mean that Israel will "win."
Given the determination and inexhaustibility (and large numbers) of
Palestinians, it just means more terrorism, killing, and cruelty on
both sides. It is a shocking waste of lives, and the U.S. is
prolonging it by its one-sided support of Israel. Let's put it
baldly. U.S. policy on Israel and Palestine is simply immoral in its
one-sidedness. It should take no one who investigates what is
actually happening to Palestinians in the West Bank more than 30
seconds to decide that the oppression and cruelties that can be seen
there daily should be stopped. Here too, further U.S. aid to Israel
should be directly tied to Israel's stopping the oppression and
cruelties to Palestinians.
The position we should take in lobbying members of Congress is
simple and obvious: Stop the one-sidedness. It is a blot that will
stain all our other activities and policies in the Middle East, and
probably elsewhere, for years to come. The longer we avoid changing
this situation, the larger the blot will become.
Conclusion
All of these issues -- Iran, Syria, and Palestine-Israel -- are
interrelated, and each issue enhances the perception around the
world that the U.S. is hypocritical, oppressive, and interested only
in advancing Israel's interests. All grow out of the one-sided U.S.
support for Israel, and none will be resolved without a change in
the U.S.-Israeli relationship. To put it baldly again, the
widespread perception of the U.S. as immoral and unjust interferes
in a quite serious way with the conduct of U.S. foreign policy.
Neither we nor Israel "wins" if U.S. policy continues on the same
path.
Bill Christison was a senior official of the CIA. He served as a
National Intelligence Officer and as Director of the CIA's Office of
Regional and Political Analysis.
Kathleen Christison is a former CIA political analyst and has worked
on Middle East issues for 30 years. She is the author of Perceptions
of Palestine and The Wound of Dispossession.
They both can be reached at
christison@counterpunch.org .
Translate
this page
(In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to
those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational purposes.
Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the
originator of this article nor is Information Clearing House
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.) |
