|
The Countdown to War with Iran
By Mike Whitney
01/13/06 "ICH"
-- --
Iran must defend itself if it is attacked by the United States
or Israel.
Defending one’s country against unprovoked aggression is
sanctioned under international law and is a requirement of true
leadership. We would expect no different if either the United
States or Israel was attacked.
The Sharon and Bush administrations’ have done an admirable job
of poisoning public opinion against Iran; interpreting President
Ahmadinejad’s comments as a potential danger to Israel’s
welfare. But such statements, however offensive, are commonplace
in the Middle East and cannot be construed as a credible threat.
In fact, Iran has not demonstrated any territorial ambitions nor
is it involved in the occupation of any foreign country as is
true of both the United States and Israel.
Media-Hype; beating the war drums, again
The media has assumed its traditional role of fanning the flames
for war by providing ample space for the spurious allegations of
administration officials, right-wing pundits, and disgruntled
Iranian exiles, while carefully omitting the relevant facts in
Iran’s defense.
As always, the New York Times has spearheaded the propaganda war
with an article by Richard Bernstein and Steven Weisman which
lays out the sketchy case against Iran. In the first paragraph
the Bernstein-Weisman combo suggest that Iran has restarted
“research that could give it technology to create nuclear
weapons.”
Nuclear weapons?
Perhaps, the NY Times knows something that the IAEA inspectors
don’t? If so, they should step forward and reveal the facts.
More likely, however, they are simply following in the tradition
of mentor Judith Miller whose scurrilous front-pages articles
misled the nation to war with Iraq.
There is no evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program.
None.
Not even George Bush would make that claim.
There’s also no evidence that Iran has the centrifuges necessary
to enrich uranium to weapons-grade material. These are the two
issues which should be given greatest consideration in
determining whether or not Iran poses a real danger to its
neighbors, and yet, these are precisely the facts that are
absent from the nearly 2,500 articles written on the topic in
the last few days .
IAEA chief Mohammed Elbaradei has repeatedly stated that his
team of inspectors, who’ve had the opportunity to “go anywhere
and see anything”, has found nothing to corroborate the
assertions of the US or Israel.
On the other hand, we know that the U.S. has developed a new
regime of low-yield “usable” nuclear weapons to destroy
underground bunkers. We also know that the militarists in the
Pentagon have threatened to use nuclear weapons in a “first
strike” preemptive attack, and that the main players in the
Defense Dept. unanimously believe that nuclear weapons should be
used as part of America’s strategy for global security.
Iran claims that developing nuclear weapons runs counter to
their religious beliefs, while the Bush administration (as per
the Nuclear Posture Review) believes that nuclear weapons are an
integral part of the war on terror. Rumsfeld has even shaken up
the Pentagon to further surround himself with like-minded people
who support this basic thesis.
Perhaps, our fear of Iran is misplaced?
Presently, the administration is trying to bring Iran before the
UN Security Council for violations that date back more than 2
years. Since then, there have been no violations and Iran has
willingly complied with strict enforcement of its treaty
obligations under the NPT (Nuclear Proliferation Treaty) as well
as other “confidence-building” measures which it freely accepted
as a sign of good-will.
In truth, Iran is entitled to enrich uranium under the terms of
the NPT and has agreed to do so in a manner that is consistent
with the strict rules of the IAEA. Iran will not, however, give
up its “inalienable right” to convert uranium for peaceful
purposes, such as making fuel for use in nuclear power plants.
No other nation except Iran has been asked to forgo its rights
under the NPT. The Bush administration expects the UN to annul
parts of the treaty simply to accommodate its unfounded
suspicions. But, why should Iran agree to be treated like an
underling just to satisfy Bush? After all, Iran initially signed
the NPT as a way of reducing nuclear weapons while Israel, the
U.S., and other nations were busy building a new generation of
nukes.
Besides, the conversion process takes place in front of IAEA
inspectors and cameras that are set up to film the entire
procedure. The IAEA is required to report any violations to the
UN Security Council for punitive action. The watchdog agency was
very successful in analyzing the true state of Iraq’s “alleged”
nuclear program. There’s no need to suspect that they won’t
succeed here as well. (Israel, Pakistan and India all avoided
this regimen and developed nuclear weapons secretly)
The Last Straw
Britain’s Foreign Minister Jack Straw, who played such a
critical role in disseminating the lies that preceded the Iraq
war, has been equally disingenuous regarding Iran.
“For two and a half years, we’ve been working with Iran and the
rest of the international community to bring Iran into
compliance with its very clear obligations not to do anything
that leads to suspicions they are developing a nuclear weapons
capability.”
Straw knows, of course, that Iran has not violated its treaty
obligations for over two years and has been in full compliance
since then. His statement only confirms what reasonable people
already know; Washington wants another war.
The Bush administration knows that there’s no hope of passing a
Security Council resolution for sanctions against Iran. Neither
Russia nor China would agree to penalties nor is there any proof
of wrongdoing. The case will simply be used to increase public
suspicion and fear while Israel-Washington put the final touches
on their battle plans.
It is worth noting, however, that Iran will be attacked without
a shred of evidence that they have nuclear weapons, a nuclear
weapons program, or even a long-range plan for hostilities
against the US or Israel. In other words, they are completely
innocent.
Now that the administration has abandoned the internationally
recognized benchmark of an “imminent threat”, it has also
disposed of any other reasonable claim to justify unprovoked
aggression. Iran will be attacked without pretext and without
congressional or UN authorization invoking the executive
authority to prosecute the war on terror by “all necessary and
appropriate means”.
The determination to attack Iran goes back more than a decade to
now famous policy documents (PNAC) which support the idea of
integrating Iranian resources into the global system while
eliminating potential adversaries of Israel in the region. This
first phase is intended to defang the regime and leave it
vulnerable to future invasion or regime change.
The forthcoming attack will probably unfold as surgical strikes
by Israel on perhaps as many as 12 facilities and weapons sites.
Both Israel and the US have signaled to Iran that retaliation
will escalate quickly into nuclear war. In fact, the Pentagon
hawks may desire such a conflict to deter future adversaries in
Latin America and Asia.
If Iran does respond with force, there’s no telling how things
will play out. The markets could nosedive, the dollar could fall
precipitously, and vital oil shipments could be indefinitely
disrupted. (Read the business page and see how jittery many
analysts are) If the conflagration goes nuclear, then we can
expect that China, Russia and Venezuela will take firm steps to
demonstrate their disapproval. Oil shipments from Venezuela may
be cut off while China stages a destructive sell-off of its $769
billion in foreign-exchange.
Then, of course, there’s the likelihood that the attacks will
draw the Iraqi Shiites into an alliance with the Sunni-backed
resistance making occupation of Iraq even more tenuous. Or,
perhaps the Mullahs will deploy state-sponsored jihadiis across
the globe targeting American energy facilities and commercial
interests. In any event, there could be hefty price to pay for
Washington’s recklessness.
Whatever the cost, the attack will be carried out sometime on or
before March 2006 when Iran plans to open its new oil bourse.
The new exchange which directly challenges the continued
dominance of the greenback in the oil trade (the largest
commodity traded in the world) poses an “existential threat” to
the well-being of western financial institutions and elites.
Beyond the media subterfuge of “nuclear weapons” and
“non-compliance”, the empire is marching resolutely to war;
voluntarily risking nuclear holocaust to preserve the system of
privilege and concentrated wealth.
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.) |
