War Without Win - A White Paper On Iran
By William John Cox
03/15/07 "ICH" -- -- The ancient Greek name for Iran was Persis,
which was usually spoken with fear - for good reason. At the
beginning of the Fifth Century BC, the Persian Empire under
Darius the Great was the most threatening force on Earth and was
poised to conquer the democratic city states of Greece and,
perhaps, the embryonic Roman republic beyond. But for a series
of unfortunate events (for the Persians) modern study of the
classics would be concentrated on the Persian language, history
and literature, rather than upon Greek and Latin.
Iran, the last remnant of the Persian Empire, is presently
threatened by the greatest super power in history - the Unites
States of America. The conclusion of this article is that,
rather than attack, the United States should immediately
reestablish diplomatic relations with Iran, negotiate
unconditionally, and ensure its protection from armed attack by
Israel or any other nation under a comprehensive policy that
seeks to avoid the expansion of nuclear weapons to Iran and all
other nations and to disarm all nations within ten years. To
arrive at this solution, we and those who purport to lead us
must appreciate the history of the Iranian people and have a
clear understanding of the facts leading to this crisis.
A BRIEF BUT ESSENTIAL HISTORY
In 499 BC, the Persian Empire extended from India in the east to
Asia Minor and Egypt in the west. After Athens aided some of the
Greek Ionian cities to revolt, Darius crushed the rebellion and
became determined to subject all of the Greek city states to his
rule. He dispatched 600 ships across the Hellespont in 492 BC;
however half were destroyed in a sudden storm. Two years later,
Darius landed on the plain of Marathon near Athens. In a
brilliant maneuver, the outnumbered Athenians fell back in the
center allowing their stronger wings to tightly surround the
Persians, depriving them of the use of their bows and arrows.
6,400 Persians fell to the long Greek spears, while only 192
Greeks died.
Following the assassination of Darius in 480 BC, his son King
Xerxes attacked the Greeks, and he sacked Athens and burned the
Acropolis. It appeared that the war was won since Xerxes' navy
outnumbered the Athenian ships three to one and had them
contained between the island of Salamis and the coast of Attica.
In yet another brilliant maneuver, the Persians were lured into
the narrow straits by a false report that the Greeks were
retreating. The lighter Greek ships rammed the heavier and
clumsy Persian ships, sinking more than 200 and capturing
others.
The power of the Persian Empire was broken. It was ultimately
conquered by Alexander the Great in a series of battles
commencing in 334 BC ushering in the Hellenistic Age, followed
in time by the Christian Byzantine Empire. Remnants of Persian
power continued under the Susanids, who lost a series of battles
with Byzantine in the early Seventh Century AD.
Following the death of Muhammad on June 8, 632, a dispute over
succession left the Caliphs (deputies of the Prophet) in control
of the political and military authority of Islam. They were
opposed by those who believed in the tribal tradition known as
Ridda in which the contract of allegiance was terminated by the
death of Muhammad. Following consolidation under the Caliphs,
the Arab armies defeated the Byzantines in July 636. The Persian
army was defeated the following year, and the entire area of
Iraq was occupied; however, resistance continued on the Persian
plateau of Iran for many years.
The dispute over succession continued. In 656, the Caliph Uthman
was murdered by Egyptian mutineers in Medina, and for the first
time a descendant of Muhammad, Ali, was appointed Caliph. An
internal war within Islam ensued; however, Ali was betrayed and
assassinated by a supporter, and a non-descendant again became
Caliph. Ali's son, Hussein and 72 believers were slaughtered in
680 at Karbala (in modern Iraq) to prevent his challenging the
caliphate; however, Hussein's son, Ali, survived. Followers
continue to commemorate the killing of Imam Hussein each year in
March by a period of mourning and pilgrimages to Karbala.
The traditional, or Sunni, branch became the dominate force in
Islam; however, the majority of Muslims in southern Iraq
remained true to Ali and established the Shiite branch of Islam.
They expect the imminent return of the "Mahdi," the hidden imam,
who will save the world in the end of days.
With the invasion of Genghis Khan's Mongolian army in 1219, all
that remained of Persia was destroyed, along with its irrigation
works. There was a brief economic revival in the later part of
the century; however, it wasn't until the rule of Tamerlane in
1381 that Persia was united into the area of modern Iran.
Tamerlane sponsored poetry and architecture and included
Iranians in his administration. His empire disintegrated
following his death and the area was ruled by various Mongol
tribes including the Uzbeks and Tukomans.
Commencing in 1501, the Safavid dynasty established the first
native Iranian rule in almost 1,000 years. Tracing their descent
from one of Shia Islam's Imams, the Safavids established Iran as
a geographic entity under the leadership of a "Shah," and they
declared Shiite Islam as the state religion and used force and
proselytization to convert most Muslims in Iran to their sect.
Iran became a theocracy in which the Shah exercised both
religious and governing authority.
The Safavids were confronted with border challenges from the
Uzbeks in the north and from invasion by the Sunni Ottomans in
the west, who had secured control over southern Iraq. In the
early 17th Century, Iran managed to defeat the Uzbeks and the
Ottomans, extending its borders to include Iraq, Georgia and
Bahrain. Although there were some reverses, the Safavid Empire
ultimately included Armenia, the Iranian coast on the Caspian
Sea and control over Afghanistan. In 1739, a military campaign
against India resulted in the pillage of Delhi. The Safavids
established commercial ties with English, Dutch and other
Western traders to export fine silks, carpets, porcelain and
other artistic products.
In the early 19th Century, Iran lost two wars with Russia and
had to give up much of its Caucasus and Central Asia territory.
Iran turned to England for protection against Russia and paid
the price by having to surrender its claim to Afghanistan.
Although England pushed Iran into making some economic
concessions and government reforms, corruption and disorder
ultimately resulted in the establishment of a constitutional
monarchy in 1906 with an elected parliament. After an attempt to
bomb the parliament and arrest the deputies, the Shah went into
exile, and England and Russia divided Iran into spheres of
influence in 1907. Thereafter, England and Russia prevented Iran
from developing basic industry and technology, such as
railroads, in order to protect their expanding frontiers.
THE PAHLAVI DYNASTY
Iran sought to avoid involvement in World War I by declaring its
neutrality; however, it quickly became a battleground for
German, English, Russian and Turkish interests. Following the
end of the war and the Russian revolution, England attempted to
impose a defacto protectorate over Iran with the Anglo-Persian
Agreement of 1919. However, the Iranian parliament refused to
ratify the agreement and in 1921, Reza Khan, an Iranian military
officer, seized power in Tehran, In 1926 he was crowned as the
new Shah.
Reza Shah Pahlavi took effective control of the country by
relying on young European-trained administrators and military
officers. He instituted the draft, created a modern army, and
brought the independent tribes under government authority. Reza
Shah established an extensive system of public schools and
universities, expanded the economy, and corralled the power of
the Shiite Imams by establishing secular law and courts. He
opened schools and employment to women and abolished the veil.
To accomplish these goals, he reduced the role of parliament and
increased the power of the bureaucracy. Taxes were increased,
the Shah became wealthy, and the poor suffered. Reza Shah ended
the economic favoritism of England, including its oil
concession, and increasingly viewed the Soviet Union with
suspicion. German commercial enterprise was encouraged, and
Germany became Iran's largest trading partner.
Iran again declared its neutrality in World War II; however
England and the Soviet Union simultaneously invaded on August
26, 1941 and each carved out spheres of interest. The Shah
abdicated in favor of his son, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, who
signed an agreement with England and the Soviet Union to provide
nonmilitary assistance and to allow the shipment of war supplies
across its borders. The two countries agreed to remove their
troops within six months of the War's end.
Iran declared war on Germany in 1943 and became a founding
member of the United Nations. At the end of the war, the Soviet
Union carved out two autonomous republics in northern Iran.
Soviet troops remained in Iran and prevented government forces
from restoring control, even as English and American troops
evacuated as agreed. As a result of American and English
pressure, the Soviet Union finally evacuated, and in 1947, the
United States and Iran signed military agreements.
Following the war, Iran began to develop its agriculture and
manufacturing resources and increasingly looked to the sale of
its oil reserves for finance. In 1951, the Iranian parliament
voted to nationalize the oil industry and England imposed an
embargo on the purchase of Iranian oil in retaliation. Friction
arose between the Shah and his popular and nationalistic prime
minister, Mohammed Mossadeq, who demanded more control over the
government. Urged on by British intelligence, the CIA arranged
strategic bombings and political harassments of religious
leaders leading to the overthrow of Mossadeq. A new oil
agreement was concluded in 1953, followed by mutual defense
agreements between the U.S. and Iran.
The Shah's plans for internal development paid for by oil
revenues resulted in economic inflation and widespread
discontent; however, a series of prime ministers and renewed
development plans failed to satisfy the needs of the people. In
1963, a national referendum approved the Shah's "White
Revolution," which nationalized forests and pastures, imposed
profit sharing in private enterprise, the establishment of a
Literacy Corps, women voting, and increased political
opposition. However, clerical leaders, including Ayatollah
Khomeini, opposed land reform and female suffrage, and his
arrest sparked violent riots. Protests to the passage of a law
granting diplomatic immunity to U.S. miliary personnel, and
their staff and families, resulted in the exile of Khomeini. The
prime minister was assassinated by members of a radical Islamic
group associated with Khomeini.
The Shah appointed Amir Hoveyda as prime minister, who presided
over a 12-year period of economic growth and political
stability. He revised the tax law, created a new civil service
code and appointed highly qualified civil administrators.
Hoveyda created a new Ministry of Higher Education and greatly
increased the number of colleges and universities. The Shah
improved relations with the Soviet Union and the surrounding
countries. With the support of the Nixon Administration, the
Shah used oil revenues to vastly improve his military in order
to police the Persian Gulf. President Nixon allowed Iran to
purchase any conventional weapon in the United States arsenal.
Commencing in 1957, Iran signed a series of agreements with the
United States to provide uranium and technical assistance in the
development of an Iranian nuclear power program, and in 1967
Iran received both weapons grade uranium and plutonium. Iran
signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty on the first day it
was opened for signature on July 1, 1968. Scientists were
trained in the United States, and Iranians developed the ability
to extract plutonium from spent uranium fuel using chemicals.
In 1975, the United States and Iran signed an agreement in which
the U.S. was to build eight nuclear power plants and to provide
the fuel. It was subsequently agreed that Iran would be
permitted to reprocess the spent fuels into plutonium and to
invest in the U.S. enrichment facilities. Iran also signed
contracts with France and Germany for the construction of
nuclear power plants, as the Shah was planning to construct as
many as 23 plants by 1994.
Although political parties had been allowed to develop, the Shah
relied upon his secret police, SAVAK, to dampen political
opposition. The secular Iran Freedom Movement joined with
moderate clerics in using Islam for political mobilization.
Ayatollah Khomeini went further in writing that a monarchy was
abhorrent to Islam in proposing a theocracy in which the
leadership belonged to the Islamic jurists. More and more
younger Iranians joined underground groups committed to violent
revolution.
The military buildup and ambitious development programs began to
cause severe economic and social disruption, and by the
mid-to-late 70s there was growing public disorder. In an attempt
to quell dissent, the government nationalized private schools
and committed to providing free secondary education and health
care. However, the presence of large numbers of foreigners,
primarily Americans involved in military training and advice,
combined with the Westernization of society led many to believe
that the Shah's programs were threatening Islam and causing a
deterioration in Iranian cultural values.
After the Shah established a one-party state in 1975, concern
over the suppression of basic freedoms attracted international
attention, including that of the Carter Administration, which
brought pressure. The Shah began to release political prisoners
and appointed a new prime minister, who quickly became unpopular
as he attempted to slow down the economy. After the government
planted a newspaper article accusing Khomeini of being an
English spy, widespread riots swept the country led by religious
leaders.
The Shah replaced the prime minister and attempted to conciliate
the clerics; however the riots continued to grow until the Shah
imposed marital law in Tehran and other cities in 1978, and
Khomeini was exiled to France. The strikes and riots continued
and Khomeini called for the removal of the Shah and the
establishment of a democratic and Islamic government. The Shah
again replaced the prime minister, this time with the commander
of the Imperial Guard. He promised to correct past mistakes,
released political prisoners and arrested many former leaders
and government officers.
THE ISLAMIC REVOLUTION
Strikes continued across the country virtually shutting down the
government, and the leader of the National Front, Shapour
Bakhtiar, agreed to form a new government if the Shah left the
country. On January 16, 1979, the Shah left on a "holiday" from
which he never returned. Bakhtiar released political prisoners,
moved to disband SAVAK, lifted press restrictions and promised
free elections; however, Ayatollah Khomeini denounced Bakhtiar's
administration as being illegal and strikes continued.
Khomeini returned to Iran on January 26, 1979 and established an
alternative provisional government with power shared between
revolutionary committees and religious authorities. With the
encouragement of the United States, the military ceased all
movement against the revolution and pledged its support.
Khomeini became the "supreme leader" of Iran; however, there was
no central government. Semi-independent revolutionary committees
were formed in the towns and cities and various religious
clerics formed competing political parties. Revolutionary courts
condemned hundreds to death, including Hoveyda who had presided
over 12 years of progress. The interim government failed, a
cleric was appointed to head the Revolutionary Council which
supervised the various revolutionary committees, and Khomeini
authorized formation of an Islamic Revolutionary Guard force.
Resistance against the revolutionary government came from the
Khuzestan, Turkoman and Kurdish indigenous tribal areas, and
Khomeini deployed the army in putting down the resistance. The
religious clerics began to deploy armed groups of hezbollahis
(partisans of the party of God) against moderate and secular
political opponents. The Revolutionary Council nationalized and
appropriated much of the private sector, including insurance
companies, major industries, banks and urban land.
A national referendum approved a new government in which the
only choice was an Islamic Republic, which was established on
April 1, 1979. A new constitution replaced the monarchy with a
president; however, it ensured religious control of the
government and was approved by another national referendum.
Khomeini's appointed prime minister met with President Carter's
national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, in November;
however with the admission of the seriously ill Shah into the
United States for medical treatment, all hope of restoring
friendly relations with the United States dissolved.
On November 4, 1979, as thousands marched in Tehran demanding
the Shah's extradition, and students occupied the United States
embassy and detained the diplomats and employees. Carter
authorized Brzezinski to use Jordan's King Hussein as an
intermediary to encourage Saddam Hussein to invade Iran in
response to a purported call for assistance from rebelling
officers of the Iranian army; however Khomeini was informed of
the conspiracy by the Russians and the officers were arrested.
Authorized by the United States, Saddam invaded Iran on
September 22, 1980, claiming that Iran had attempted to
assassinate his foreign minister.
Carter's failure to end the student occupation contributed to
his defeat by Ronald Reagan during the 1980 election. However,
acting behind Carter's back, vice presidential candidate George
H. W. Bush secretly agreed with Iranian agents to delay the
release of the hostages until after the election when Bush and
Reagan were sworn into office. In return, Reagan agreed to pay
$52 million, unfroze Iranian bank accounts and allowed Iran to
secretly obtain U.S. military supplies through Israel.
THE IRAQ - IRAN WAR
Saddam started the war believing that the Sunnis of Iran would
join with his forces; however, in a display of nationalistic
fervor, most of the Iranian Sunnis fought against Iraq. Although
Iraq possessed superior military equipment, Iran sent thousands
of volunteers to the front to stop the invasion and ultimately
to push the Iraqi army back across the border. By 1982, the war
had been won by Iran; however, it formally dragged on for six
more years due to Iran's insistence upon the elimination of
Saddam and the destruction of his Baathist government.
Iraq repeatedly bombed Iranian cities and attacked civilian
passenger trains and aircraft. Iran retaliated by launching
missiles against Baghdad. Iraq deployed chemical weapons, some
of which had been supplied by the United States, against Iranian
forces, and in 1987 against the city of Sardacht. Unconcerned by
these violations of the Geneva Protocol, the Reagan
administration provided intelligence used by Iraq to calibrate
its attacks. More than 100,000 Iranians died as a result of
Iraq's use of chemical weapons. The United States also secretly
allowed other countries to transfer United States heavy weapons
to Iraq in violation of the Arms Export Control Act, and in
December 1983, Donald Rumsfeld met with Saddam Hussein to
reassure him of U.S. friendship and materials support.
Both Iran and Iraq began to attack oil tankers in the Persian
Gulf, including those of neutral nations. More than 500
commercial vessels were damaged in what became known as the
"Tanker War," with Iran directing most of the attacks against
Kuwaiti vessels. Many of these tankers were reflagged as
American ships, including those calling on Iraqi ports, and the
U.S. Navy began to provide protection.
In 1982, Reagan made a finding that the United States "could not
afford to allow Iraq to lose the war" and that he would do
"whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent the loss. After
one of its frigates was damaged by an Iranian mine and a tanker
was stuck by an Iranian Silkworm missile, the U.S. retaliated by
destroying two Iranian ships and by attacking Iranian oil
platforms. On July 3, 1988, the U.S. Navy shot down a civilian
Iranian airliner killing all 290 people on board, including 66
children.
Iran finally agreed to a ceasefire on August 20, 1988, having
suffered more than 1,000,000 casualties.
THE CURRENT CRISIS
Khomeini died in 1989 and was replaced by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei,
who had served as the president of Iraq.
In early 1996, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives,
Newt Gingrich publicly demanded the overthrow of the Iranian
government, and the C.I.A. established an $18 million program to
accomplish that objective. After Iran responded with its own
intelligence effort and likely arranged for the bombing which
killed 19 American Air Force personnel in Khobar, Saudi Arabia
in June 1996, the Clinton administration considered bombing
Iran; however, the Pentagon concluded there were no successful
options. Instead, President Clinton secretly warned Iran and
took effective covert action against its intelligence
operatives.
The Iranian intelligence offensive ended, and a moderate
president, Mohammad Khatami was elected in 1997. His election
created tensions between his reform government and the
conservative clergy resulting in massive protests in 1999.
Khatami was reelected in 2001; however, his reforms were blocked
by the religious authorities. Liberal candidates were
disqualified for election and newspapers were banned. An
ultraconservative who fought in the Iran-Iraq War, Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad, was elected in 2005.
As president, Ahmadinejad has very limited powers. The
government places the "Supreme Leader of the Revolution in
control of foreign policy, and a "Council of Guardians,"
consisting of six clerics and six judges has a veto over any
secular law that violates Islamic Law. A 31-member "Expediency
Council" advises the Leader on national policy and mediates
disputes between the Guardians and the elected Parliament, which
has the freedom to debate government policy. The president's
influence was reduced even further in the December 2006 local
elections in which voters overwhelmingly chose reform candidates
over those supported by Ahmadinejad.
As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty in 1968,
Iran is entitled to develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes;
however, it renounced its right to develop nuclear weapons and
agreed to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA).
Iran began to operate a nuclear research reactor provided by the
United States in 1967, and in 1974, the Shah stated that Iran
had "no intention of acquiring nuclear weapons, but if small
states began building them, then Iran might have to reconsider
its policy."
Construction also went forward on two nuclear power stations by
a German company and both were more than half completed in 1979
when, following the revolution, a decision was made to terminate
the nuclear power program. During the war, Iraq bombed both
locations repeatedly destroying the core areas. Following the
war, Iran decided to complete the reactors; however, under
pressure from the United States, Germany refused to complete the
project or even to ship the equipment that had been paid for.
Subsequently, a consortium of companies from Argentina, Germany
and Spain proposed to complete one of the reactors; however, the
United States again blocked the agreement.
In 1990 and 1995, Russia signed agreements to complete the
reactor and to construct two additional nuclear power stations.
Russia also agreed to discuss construction of a gas centrifuge
uranium enrichment facility in Iran, and China began to provide
uranium hexafluoride gas which is used for enriching uranium.
All of this was done under IAEA safeguards.
The Clinton administration tried to convince Russia to back out
of the agreement, and when it refused, fears were raised that
the plutonium residue could be used for nuclear weapons.
However, Iran and Russia were also negotiating for the storage
of the nuclear waste in Siberia. Nonetheless, under pressure
from Israel, the U.S. began to allege that, even if the nuclear
power plants could not be used for the production of nuclear
materials, they would result in trained engineers and scientists
who could help develop nuclear weapons in the future.
Parallel to these efforts which were done openly, Iran also
began a secret program in 1985 to enrich uranium, relying upon
plans for the construction of centrifuges obtained on the black
market from Dr. Abdul Khan, the developer of Pakistan's nuclear
weapons. However, the program was exposed in 2002 when it was
revealed that Iran was converting yellowcake to uranium gas at a
facility in Isfahan and was constructing an uranium enrichment
plant at Natanz.
Commencing in October 2003, Iran allowed inspectors from IAEA to
inspect the enrichment project, including Natanz and dozens of
other atomic sites. Inspectors were even allowed to visit
military sites and to take environmental samples. No unusual
activities were observed and the detection of traces of highly
enriched uranium contamination were satisfactorily explained to
the IAEA, which concluded they were of foreign origin. Moreover,
the IAEA could find no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons
program.
In February 2006, following threats of sanctions and pressure
from the United States and Europe to curtail its program, Iran
drastically reduced access of inspectors to Natanz and dozens of
other atomic sites to the minimum required by its agreements and
refused to answer questions.
Pressured by the United States, the United Nations Security
Council voted in December 2006 that Iran should suspend "all
enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including
research and development; and work on all heavy-water related
projects, including the construction of a research reactor
moderated by heavy water." The Council decided that "all States
should prevent the supply, sale or transfer for the use by or
benefit of Iran, of related equipment and technology." In
addition, certain funds associated with or providing support for
Iran's proliferation sensitive nuclear activities or the
development of nuclear weapon delivery systems" were ordered
frozen. The Security Council is presently working on a draft
resolution imposing additional sanctions, including travel bans,
inasmuch as Iran has not suspended its enrichment processing.
Iran has made repeated proposals to resolve the issues
including: allowing intrusive inspections; allowing continuous
on-site presence of inspectors at conversion and enrichment
facilities; introducing legislation to permanently ban the
development, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons; refraining
from reprocessing or producing plutonium; limiting enrichment
below weapons grade; immediately converting all enriched uranium
into fuel rods and limiting production to actual needs; and
accepting foreign partners in its enrichment program.
Iran is believed to be currently operating approximately 362
centrifuges and may have as many as 1,000 ready to run. Iran
proposes to have 3,000 machines operating by May 2007, of a
planned total of 54,000. Iran acknowledges having achieved an
enrichment level of 3.6 percent, which is all that is needed to
make electricity. However, thousands of centrifuges are required
to enrich enough uranium to the 80-90 percent purity necessary
for nuclear weapons, and the construction of a workable warhead
is an entirely different matter.
The National Intelligence Estimate issued in 2005 concluded that
Iran would not be able to produce enough highly enriched nuclear
material to produce a nuclear weapon until "early to mid-next
decade," conveying a consensus that 2015 would probably be the
earliest.
On February 2, 2006, John Negroponte, then Director of National
Intelligence, testified that Iran probably does not have a
nuclear weapon nor the necessary fissile material for a weapon.
He stated that if Iran continued on its current path it "will
likely have the capability to produce a nuclear weapon within
the next decade."
In May 2006, Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of IAEA stated,
"Our assessment is that there is no immediate threat," He went
on to say, "We should not jump the gun. We should be very
careful about assessing the information available to us." He
believes that a majority of the Iranian leadership was still
interested in a negotiated solution and normal relations with
the world.
On September 30, 2006, President Bush signed the Iran Freedom
Support Act which imposed sanctions against any country aiding
Iran's nuclear programs, including those to which Iran is
legally entitled under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The
act openly proclaims the goal of effecting regime change and
directs Bush to spend $10 million in support of groups opposed
to the Iranian government.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has issued a fatwa forbidding the
production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons and Iran has
repeatedly offered to reinstate full inspections, if the United
Nations will drop the sanctions and return the matter to the
IAEA. Moreover, Khamenei's chief foreign policy advisor recently
stated that suspending uranium enrichment is not a "red line"
and that the religious leaders might be ready to agree to some
kind of suspension.
There are indications that Bush's recent decision to "surge" the
military in Iraq by at least 22,000 troops is intended to
increase pressure on Iran as much as to stabilize Baghdad. The
deployment is also planned to improve the U.S.'s ability to
respond to retaliatory Shiite attacks on its troops following a
military strike against Iran. Bush has stated that the United
States will not sit down with Iran until after the U.S. had
gained "leverage."
THE THREAT OF WAR
Bush has had Iran in his sights since at least January 2002 when
he included it as one of the "Axis of Evil" during his State of
the Union speech. By the time he failed in his mission in
Afghanistan by allowing Osama bin Laden and other top al Qaeda
members to escape and as he was withdrawing troops to support
his illegal attack on Iraq, plans were already being made to
engineer a regime change in Iran.
As early as February 2003, the Pentagon was circulating a draft
of a top secret Presidential Directive regarding Iran, calling
it "a house of cards ready to be pushed over the precipice." The
plan called for "using all available points of presssure on the
Iranian regime, including backing armed Iranian dissidents and
employing the services of the Mujahideen-e Kalq," a terrorist
gang operating out of Iraq against Iran. The Army began to
conduct an analysis for a full-scale war with Iran called
TIRANNT (theater Iran near term), and the U.S. joined with
British planners to conduct war games in the Caspian Sea.
In November 2003, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld signed
off on CONPLAN 8022-02 approving a preemptive strike strategy
against Iran, and a top secret "Interim Global Strike Alert
Order" was issued in 2004 establishing the military's readiness
to attack Iran using aircraft and missiles. In May 2004, Bush
also issued National Security Presidential Directive NSPD 35
authorizing the deployment of nuclear weapons.
In January 2005, Vice President Dick Cheney said that Iran was
at the top of the administrations trouble spots and that Israel
"might well decide to act first" by attacking Iran, letting "the
rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess
afterward."
The State Department is presently spending $66 million to
encourage regime change in Iran, and in March 2006, the Bush
administration declared that Iran was the number one security
threat to the United States.
America has already deployed "force protection" military teams
into Iran to gather targeting data and to establish contact with
local anti-government groups. It is also arming and supplying
the Mujahideen-e Khalq terrorists and Kurdish resistance groups,
such as the Party For Free Life in Kurdistan, to conduct
clandestine operations within Iran.
It appears that the United States has been secretly flying
surveillance drones over Iran for years and Iran probably shot
one down last year. Moreover, Iran's defense minister accused
the U.S. of having electronically jamming an Iranian plane
causing it to crash inside Iran with a number of senior military
leaders aboard. The Iranian Minister of Interior believes that
the U.S., Britain, and Israel are "seeking to destabilize Iran
through a coordinated plan."
In fact, Bush did establish the highly secret Iran Syria Policy
and Operations Group last year to coordinate efforts to
"contain" Iran and to project strength, rather than to seek
compromise or dialogue. Led by deputy national security advisor
Elliott Abrams and assisted by the Vice President's daughter,
Elizabeth Cheney, the Group's mission includes the demonization
and isolation of Iran, providing funds to groups seeking the
overthrow of its government, and transferring military hardware
to surrounding countries, including advance missile defense
systems.
Much like a bully with a chip on his shoulder, it appears that
Bush is looking for any excuse to attack Iran, either as a
diversion for his failures in Afghanistan and Iraq or in
deference to the wishes of Israel and Saudi Arabia. Bush's own
National Security Council Director for Iranian and Persian Gulf
affairs from 2001 to 2004, Hillary Mann Leverett, recently
accused Bush of "trying to push a provocative, accidental
conflict" with Iran as a pretext to justify "limited strikes"
against its nuclear and military infrastructures, rather than
"an all-out invasion like what happened in Iraq." Rather than
admit his failures in Iraq, Bush is now seeking to blame the
Iranians for the continued rebellion against his occupation, the
civil war engendered by his invasion, and the ineptitude of the
government he put in place in Iraq. Even though the vast
majority of the "insurgents" are Sunni and are supported by the
Saudis, Bush is now blaming Shiite Iran for training attackers
and supplying "explosively formed penetrators" used in roadside
attacks.
Although Secretary of State Rice and Secretary of Defense Gates
have stated that the U.S. has proof of Iranian government
responsibility for the supply of such weapons, the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Pace stated that he "would
not say by what I know that the Iranian government clearly knows
or is complicit."
Bush has authorized the arrest and killing of Iranians found in
Iraq and has stated, "If Iran escalates its military action in
Iraq to the detriment of our troops and/or innocent Iraqi
people, we will respond firmly." More than 500 Iranians have
been arrested in Iraq in recent months, many of them
humanitarian and aid workers, and U.S. soldiers attacked an
Iranian liaison office in Kurdistan and arrested five men
claimed to have diplomatic immunity by Iran.
The battle group led by the aircraft carrier USS John Stennis,
including additional minesweepers, recently joined the USS
Eisenhower battle group on patrol in the Persian Gulf. In
addition the large number of submarines operating in the Gulf
has increased the number of accidents involving civilian ships.
Most telling is Bush's recent appointment of Vice Admiral
William J. "Fox" Fallon as the replacement of General John
Abizaid as the head of Central Command. Fallon is a pilot
specially trained in naval and air operations.
The very presence of so many warships in the narrow Persian Gulf
is cause for concern. Senator Jim Webb, who formerly served as
the Secretary of the Navy, worries that the carrier's "turning
radius is pretty close, and ... the chance of accidentally
bumping into something that would start a diplomatic situation
was pretty high.,,, and with the tensions as high as they are,
I'm very worried that we might accidentally set something off in
there." The simplest provocation would result from a naval
vessel striking an unidentified floating mine, which could then
be blamed on Iran as an aggressive act of war.
It is unlikely that the war against Iran will be limited to a
"surgical strike" against Iran's 18 to 30 nuclear facilities.
The misguided plan developed by the Pentagon envisions a
sustained bombing campaign to humiliate the religious leadership
and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.
Hundreds of targets will be bombed, including 99 percent having
nothing to do with nuclear proliferation. Plans include the
destruction of the Iranian Air Force, more than 14 air bases,
Kilo submarines, fast torpedo boats, anti-ship missiles, the
newly deployed Russian TOR-M1 anti-missile defense systems,
command and control centers, and any ballistic missile
capability. As many as 2,300 high-value targets have been
identified.
Consideration has been given to the use of "bunker-buster"
tactical nuclear weapons against Iran's underground nuclear
sites, and F-16s capable of carrying these B61-11 atomic
mini-bombs are being redeployed at the Incirlik American Air
Force base in Turkey. The United States is also bringing its new
Air Force bases in Bulgaria and Romania on line to serve as
refueling stations for Stealth and B-2 bombers.
Israel has its own plans to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities
and is training two squadrons to use low-yield nuclear
"bunker-busters." The strategy is to use conventional
laser-guided bombs to open tunnels followed by "mini-nukes" to
explode deep underground. The plan is to destroy Natanz with one
attack. Other targets are the uranium conversion facility at
Isfahan and a heavy water reactor at Arak. Israel, which may
possess as many as 200 nuclear weapons, has warned repeatedly
that it will never allow nuclear weapons in Iran.
Israel also has two German diesel-powered Dolphin-class
submarines that have been equipped with U.S. supplied Harpoon
missiles with nuclear warheads. These boats, each carrying 24
missiles, are reported to be patrolling in the Gulf of Oman well
within the range of Iranian targets. Most recently, Israel has
been negotiating with the United States for permission to fly
over Iraq en route to attack the Iranian facilities. The plan is
for the United States to provide an "air corridor" should Israel
decide to take unilateral action.
In preparation for attacks on Iran by either Israel or the
United States, or both, the United States has begun to develop a
containment strategy with its Persian Gulf allies to deploy
sophisticated missile defense systems to protect against
anticipated Iranian retaliation. Both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia
already have Patriot antimissile batteries; however, the United
States is encouraging other Gulf countries to deploy them in
light of Iran's ballistic missile capability.
Although Bush's top military officers are strongly opposed to an
attack on Iran, as their "Commander in Chief," Bush believes he
can order an attack on a moment's notice, including the use of
nuclear weapons, without any declaration of war or any other
Congressional approval. Bush has established a special group in
the Joint Chiefs of Staff that can implement a bombing campaign
within 48 hours of his command. Using the justification that
Iran is responsible for the violence and civil war in Iraq, Bush
may rely upon Congress's September 2001 Authorization for Use of
Military Force (against the war on terrorism) to attack Iran,
although a resolution is being drafted in Congress to prohibit
him from doing so. Or, he may simply attack and rely upon the
War Powers Resolution of 1973, which gives a president up to 90
days to commit forces to combat without the consent of Congress.
What if he does?
FOR THEY SOW THE WIND, AND THEY REAP THE WHIRLWIND
No matter the severity of the naval and air attack, the U.S.
will never be able to occupy Iran, and no matter Bush's wishful
thinking, the people of Iran will not turn against their elected
government and welcome deliverance by the United States. Not
only should Bush have learned this lesson from his own invasion
of Iraq, it appears that Bush be unaware of Saddam Hussein's
experience in his own invasion of Iran.
Even if the United States destroys its military infrastructure,
Iran with 70 million people will not surrender. Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei has warned, "U.S. policy makers and analysts know that
the Iranian nation would not let an invasion go without a
response. Enemies of the Islamic system fabricated various
rumors about death and health to demoralize the Iranian nation,
but they did not know that they are not dealing with only one
person in Iran. They are facing a nation."
In the fog of war it is never possible to predict what will
happen from day to day or even moment to moment, and it has been
said that no plan lasts longer than the first encounter with the
enemy; however, it strongly behooves commanders to attempt to
the greatest extent possible to envision the logical
consequences of tactical and strategic decisions. Bush's top
military leaders oppose an attack against Iran for good reason.
Given what we know about the Iranians, what will they do if Bush
orders an attack on their country by American forces? Will they
be "shocked and awed" into submission?
Undoubtedly, the bombing attack will be resisted by all
available means. Unlike Iraq, where anti-aircraft sites had been
systematically destroyed during the Gulf War and by subsequent
"No Fly" raids, Iran's defenses are intact, and attack planes
will be shot down and their air crews and pilots will be killed
and captured. What will we do or say as our fighters and bombers
are being downed by missiles supplied by Russia?
The naval attack will be opposed by anti-ship missiles, fast
missile craft and suicide bombers in small boats. Thousands and
thousands of Iranian youths died a martyrs death resisting
Saddam's invasion; can we expect any less of a commitment to an
attack by the "Great Satan?" In a replay of the Battle of
Salamis, the American Battle Groups could be sitting ducks in
the narrow Persian Gulf.
American has little or no strategic reserve in combat troops and
there are no plans to occupy Iran on the ground. What will Bush
do when the Iranian army invades southern Iraq? Iran's army has
345,000 soldiers, a reserve of 350,000, and a Revolutionary
Guard force of 120,000. Iran has a military draft, and there are
almost 900,000 eligible males coming of age every year. The U.S.
military does not even have the present reserve capacity to
overcome the ever-strengthening insurgencies in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
What will Bush do when the tiny British garrison at Basra is
attacked and overrun by hoards of Iranian zealots, and land
access to Iraq's Persian Gulf harbors is shut off? Does Bush
intend to supply U.S. troops in Baghdad, Anbar Province and
Mosul by air, or will he contract the job out to Haliburton?
What will he do when the Iraqi Shiites join in the fighting? One
retired U.S. general said that "the Iranians could take Basra
with ten mullahs and one sound truck."
How secure will the Americans be in the "Green Zone" in Baghdad
when the Iraqi army and police forces, primarily composed of
Shiites, turn on the occupiers? What will the Americans do when
the civilian workers at their military bases become the enemy?
Thus far, the majority of suicide bombers have been Sunnis from
other countries, but what if the millions of Shiites are
suddenly motivated to become martyrs and their targets are
Americans?
Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran have the first, second, and third
largest oil and natural gas reserves in the world, and every day
40 percent of the world production passes through the Strait of
Hormuz, the 20-mile-wide bottleneck at the mouth of the Persian
Gulf. We saw during the "Tanker War" how vulnerable shipping is
in this area. Imagine the result if Iran was attacked? Although
the U.S. Navy has increased its deployment of minesweepers in
the Gulf, the oil supply is vulnerable to more than floating
mines. What if a couple of tankers are fortuitously sunk at the
entrance?
Or, what if Shiite zealots attacked production sites in Saudi
Arabia and other oil producing countries, and Iran turned off
its own production and quickly shut down the flow of Iraqi oil?
Or, what if our own bombs accidently destroy Iran's oil
production? America's strategic oil reserves would be depleted
in 60 days, the price of crude oil could quickly exceed $100 a
barrel, and the U.S. could not depend upon alternative
suppliers, such as Venezuela. Is America ready for $10 a gallon
gasoline?
Iran could do more than organize increased attacks on Americans
in Iraq. Bush's decision to reduce forces in Afghanistan has
left the troops there vulnerable to an Iranian alliance with
warlords in western Afghanistan, where Iranian support could
empower the Taliban resistance and endanger U.S. troops.
America has been supplying and encouraging Kurdish resistance in
northern and western Iran, and has allowed the Iraqi Kurds to
establish their own independence in northern Iraq. What will
Bush do when these Kurds increase their support of Turkish
Kurds, and Turkey, which has 290,000 troops on the border,
cracks down? Will the U.S. stand by and allow Turkey to occupy
northern Iraq?
Through Hezbollah, Iran has the global ability to strike back,
including against targets within the United States. As was just
seen during the failed Israeli attempt to destroy it in Lebanon,
Hezbollah is a far superior fighting force than al Qaeda.
Hezbollah is more than a political organization, it has an
ideological base that can motivate its martyrs to strike at
Americans anywhere in the world.
There is a substantial risk that another attack on an Islamic
country will act as a rallying cry for all Muslims, both Sunnis
and Shiites, and engender even greater hatred of America. Since
the United States invaded Iraq, terrorist attacks have increased
sevenfold worldwide. Given the successful al Qaeda attacks in
Spain and England, it is highly unlikely that the United States
will escape devastating retaliation.
Even if the war is not brought to its homeland, it is certain
that the United States will suffer severe and bloody losses, and
Bush will probably respond with intensified bombing to degrade
the will of the Iranian people to fight. Civilian infrastructure
targets, such as electricity, water and sanitation, could be
wiped out, along with bridges, roads and government buildings.
It is not unforeseeable that Bush would consider the deployment
of nuclear weapons against Iranian cities if the United States
was directly attacked. Thousands and thousands of noncombatants,
including women, children, and the elderly, would die and
America would loose all respect and credibility forever.
Three high ranking retired military officers, Army Lt. General
Robert Gard, Marine Corps General Joseph Hoar, and Navy Vice
Admiral Jack Shanahan, recently issued a public statement urging
President Bush to open talks with the Iranian government
"without preconditions" in a bid to find a diplomatic solution.
They warned that an attack on Iran "would have disastrous
consequences for security in the region, coalition forces in
Iraq and would further exacerbate regional and global tensions."
Bush, Cheney and the other neocon draft dodgers believe that
they can play with the mighty military power of the United
States like a toy in the world sandbox without having to ever
suffer any consequences. As leaders of the only superpower, they
believe they can act alone without any consideration of world
opinion, that they can shock and awe lesser nations into
submission and establish an "American Empire" that controls the
rest of the world. They have no empathy for the hundreds of
thousands who could fall victim to their ambitions, not even
including the sons and daughters of their own countrymen, and
certainly not the children of their "enemy," or anyone else who
stands in their way.
An attack against Iran could morph into a regional geopolitical
confrontation that could spin out of control. Iran has been
invited to full membership in the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization (SCO) consisting of China, Russia, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgystan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. The organization denied
observer status to the United States and rejected its
democratization agenda in calling for a reduction of its
military presence in Central Asia. SCO has hinted it would
consider a concerted effort to reduce the geopolitical presence
of the U.S. in Central Asia.
Iran has substantially increased its commercial ties with these
potential allies. Last year, it signed a $100 billion deal with
China to develop the huge Yadavaran oilfield and will sell 250
million tons of liquefied natural gas to China over the next 25
years. Iran is also working on delivering natural gas through a
pipeline to Pakistan and India.
It is not inconceivable that Russia and China might not just
veto any Security Council military action against Iran, they
might consider uniting in its defense. Or, what if these nations
agreed to abandon the dollar and to create a euro-denominated
exchange in oil, as has been proposed by Iran? Such an exchange
could quickly dry up the demand for dollars and create havoc in
the U.S. economy. What if China began to dump its billions of
reserve dollars?
What would it take to start another world war? An ignorant and
mentally deranged president with more power than good sense, one
who will never admit he is wrong and who refuses to negotiate.
A TIME FOR NEGOTIATION
Even though the United States had done everything in its power
to isolate Iran after breaking diplomatic relations in 1979, the
Iranians immediately rallied to the support of America following
the 9-11attacks. Iran was already supporting Afghan guerrillas
who were fighting against the Taliban in western Afghanistan,
and the Iranians were critically important to the stabilization
of Afghanistan after the Taliban were defeated.
As one of the 18 coalition countries, Iran participated in the
talks in Bonn which planned the interim Afghan government. The
role of the Iranian representative, Javad Zarif, a graduate of
the University of Denver, was pivotal in obtaining the agreement
of the Northern Alliance to allow Hamid Karzai, a southern
Pashtun tribal leader, to head the new government.
In December 2001, Iran pledged $500 million toward the
reconstruction of Afghanistan, which at the time was twice that
being offered by the United States. For all of these efforts on
behalf of the United States, Iran was rewarded one month later
by being labeled as a member of the "Axis of Evil" by Bush
during his State of the Union address.
In early 2003, as the United States prepared to invade Iraq, it
again sought the assistance of Iran should pilots from damaged
U.S. aircraft end up in Iran and to help with the anticipated
flood of refugees who would cross the border. After the
invasion, the Iranians suggested trading some of the al Queda
operatives it had in custody for some of the Mujahedin-e Khalq
terrorists detained by the U.S. in Iraq. The United States
declined the bilateral extradition, partially because the
terrorists might be useful against Iran in the future.
At about the same time, the Iranians transmitted a two-page
proposal for negotiations with the United States through the
Swiss ambassador in Tehran who represented the U.S. interests
there. The proposal, which had been cleared at the highest
levels of the Iranian government, was sent by fax to the State
Department and another copy was directly delivered to Karl Rove
at the White House.
The Iranians offered to negotiate compromises on its nuclear
program, to suspend its support of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, to
convert Hezbollah into a purely socio-political organization,
and to support a Palestinian peace agreement with Israel - all
part of a comprehensive resolution of its relations with the
United States.
Official consideration of the proposal was blocked by a "secret
cabal" of neocons led by Cheney, with the blessing of Bush.
Former Secretary of State Powell says, "My position ... was that
we ought to find ways to restart talks with Iran, but there was
a reluctance on the part of the president to do so." The present
Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, denies having ever seen
the proposal even though she was Bush's National Security
Advisor at the time.
In November 2005, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani visited Iran
with a proposal for the United States to participate in
bilateral talks about Iraq. Iran agreed to talk on the
conditions that the discussions be private and that they involve
all outstanding issues between the two countries.
Iran conducted a quiet diplomatic campaign to communicate its
readiness to negotiate with the United States on broad security
issues, and in April 2006, Iranian President Ahmadinejad
publically offered to negotiate.
In May 2006, Ahmadinejad sent a public letter to Bush in which
he proposed "new solutions for getting out of international
problems and the current fragile situation of the world." He
asked, "How much longer can the world tolerate this situation?
Where will this trend lead the world to? How long must the
people of the world pay for the incorrect decisions of some
rulers? How much longer will the specter of insecurity - raised
from the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction - hunt the
people of the world? How much longer will the blood of the
innocent men, women and children be spilled on the streets, and
people's houses destroyed over their heads? Are you pleased with
the current condition of the world? Do you think present
policies can continue?" U.S. intelligence analysts decided that
the letter was an important diplomatic opening; however the Bush
administration dismissed it.
Iran followed the letter with explicit requests for direct talks
on its nuclear program made through a number of intermediaries,
including Mohamed ElBaradei, Indonesia, Kuwait, and U.N.
Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Administration neocons continued
to reject talks; however, other government experts thought that
America should at least respond. The United States refused
requests from other powers to give explicit security guarantees
to Iran that it would not intervene politically or militarily in
its internal affairs, and it refused to rule out military
action.
In June 2006, the five permanent members of the U.N. Security
Council, plus Germany, proposed: to allow Iran to upgrade its
civilian air fleet through purchases from Boeing; to waive trade
sanctions; to allow Iran to join the World Trade Organization;
and to commit to the building of light-water reactors through
joint projects with other countries, if Iran returned to a
freeze on its enrichment of nuclear fuel.
The Iranians sought clarification over terms, timing and
duration of the suspension; however, the offering countries
placed a three-week deadline on a decision and demanded that
Iran immediately suspend its uranium-enrichment activities
before formal negotiations began. Ahmadinejad stated, "My
colleagues are carefully considering the package of proposals of
the six countries, and in due time they will give a response."
On May 14, 2006, Bush dismissed calls for direct talks with
Iran, saying the United Nations was the better forum.
Secretary-General Annan urged the United States to enter into
direct talks with Iran. Ahmadinejad said he was ready to talk to
any country, except Israel, but not under the threat of force.
Bush continued to harden his position by revoking instructions
to his ambassador in Baghdad to talk with Iran, just as the
other five nations were meeting again to discuss a new offer. A
national security council spokesman stated, "We will assess the
situation and see when talks with the Iranians about the
situation might be useful." Bush began to push for sanctions
instead of negotiations.
Under pressure from its allies and many past and present
officials in its own government, the United States agreed at the
end of May 2006 to conduct direct talks with Iran if it first
agreed to suspend its programs to enrich uranium and reprocess
spent nuclear fuel. Asked if Bush was willing to forego the
military option temporarily if Iran accepted negotiations, Rice
answered, "The president is not going to take any of his options
off the table, temporarily or otherwise."
Not unforeseeably, Iran dismissed Bush's offer saying it would
not bow to pressure, and limited sanctions were imposed by the
United Nations Security Council in December 2006. Differences
quickly developed between European governments and the United
States, which is demanding quick action curtailing exports to
Iran and freezing its assets.
Mohamed Elbaradei, the winner of the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize for
having been right about the nonexistence of weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq, has called for the resumption of
negotiations: "My priority is to keep Iran inside the system.
... My worry right now is that each side is sticking to its
guns. The international community is saying 'sanctions or bust.'
Iran is saying 'nuclear enrichment capacity or bust' and we need
somebody to reach out and be able to find a solution."
Thus, the impasse: The United States refuses to negotiate with
Iran until it suspends its nuclear fuel enrichment and
reprocessing programs, and Iran is unwilling to give up the only
bargaining chip it has without some showing of reciprocity.
Rebuffed in its repeated attempt to resolve all outstanding
issues, the Iranian government decided that it needed some
leverage, and one was to increase its negotiating strength by
going forward with its nuclear program.
Unfortunately, the possibility of Iran becoming a regional
power, particularly one with nuclear knowhow, will interfere
with the U.S. neocons' scheme to transform the Middle East and
Central Asia into an outpost of American power, and an empowered
Iran sitting at the geo-political center of things cannot be
allowed to exist.
Bush and Cheney have accumulated dictatorial power. They have no
sense of history or the ability to comprehend a global policy
which recognizes the rights and concerns of other people. They
have no empathy for the lives or well being of those they govern
or threaten. They are deceiving the people of the United States
into starting a war which cannot be won by the United States, or
by Iran. Every conceivable result is a failure - a disaster for
everyone!
There is an urgent need to negotiate, but even more important,
it is essential that the United States formulates a policy that
is designed to succeed, one that resolves the global problem of
nuclear weapons and not just its immediate concerns about Iran's
nuclear enrichment program.
A COMPREHENSIVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS POLICY
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was opened for
signature on July 1, 1968 and entered into force on March 5,
1970, after ratification by the United Kingdom, the Soviet
Union, the United States and 40 other signatory states,
including Iran. The treaty has now been ratified by 188
sovereign states, including the other two Security Council
members, China and France.
Three nations which currently possess nuclear weapons, India,
Pakistan, and Israel, have never signed the treaty, and one
nation, North Korea, has withdrawn from the treaty and developed
nuclear weapons. India and Pakistan developed the ability to
enrich uranium to weapons grade; however, Israel and North Korea
have apparently relied upon the refinement of energy-grade
uranium into plutonium for their weapons.
South Africa developed nuclear weapons in collaboration with
Israel and then destroyed them, and several of the former
nations of the Soviet Union destroyed or transferred to Russia
those nuclear weapons they inherited upon the dissolution of the
U.S.S.R.
Libya was found to be in violation of the NPT in October 2003.
It has since admitted that it possessed an illegal nuclear
weapons program and has committed itself to ending the program
and destroying all existing weapons of mass destruction, subject
to verification by unconditional inspections.
According to the treaty, only the five permanent members of the
United Nations Security Council, currently the U.S., Russia,
England, France, and China, are permitted to own nuclear
weapons. These nations pledge themselves to not transfer nuclear
weapons or the technology to other states, and they have agreed
to pursue plans to reduce and liquidate their stockpiles in
pursuance of a treaty "on general and complete disarmament under
strict and effective international control."
The non-nuclear nations pledge that they will not seek or
develop nuclear weapons. All states have the inalienable right
to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, which allows them
to either refine nuclear fuel for use in nuclear reactors for
energy generation or to purchase it on the international market.
The treaty has been supplemented by the IAEA Statute, which
includes a NPT Safeguards agreement requiring signatories to
disclose civilian uranium enrichment programs and to accept IAEA
inspections.
All signatory nations are guaranteed the right to withdraw from
the treaty after giving three-months notice of good cause, if
they feel that "extraordinary events, related to the subject
matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of
its country."
Although the NPT prohibits the nuclear weapons powers from using
nuclear weapons on nations which do not have them, the United
States, England and France have all publicly indicated that they
would use nuclear weapons in violation of the treaty to respond
to a non-conventional attack by "rogue states." In addition, the
United States has designed and deployed nuclear "bunker busting"
bombs for use on non-nuclear states such as Iran.
Although the United States and the former Soviet Union signed
Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties in 1991 and 1993, and the
United States signed the Strategic Offensive Reduction Treaty
with Russia in 2002, there has been little progress by the five
nuclear weapons powers to implement that portion of the NPT
which called for a treaty "on general and complete disarmament
under strict and effective international control."
In 2002, contrary to treaty obligations, Bush called for a
"revitalized nuclear weapons complex ... to design, develop,
manufacture, and certify new warheads in response to new
national requirements; and maintain readiness to resume
underground testing." The U.S. spent (in today's dollars) an
average of $4.2 billion per year for nuclear weapons during the
Cold War. The proposed U.S. budget for 2008 requests $6.4
billion for nuclear weapons, including the "design concept
testing" of two new nuclear warhead designs for deployment on
submarine-launched ICBMs.
Also in violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of the
treaty, the National Nuclear Security Administration has
articulated an "infrastructure planning scenario for a nuclear
weapons complex able to meet the threats of the 21st century,"
which is estimated to cost a minimum of $150 billion.
In 2003, Iran was found to have violated the NPT Safeguards
agreement by having failed to disclose its civilian uranium
enrichment program. Iran's claim that it has no intention of
developing nuclear weapons is met with some skepticism because
of its secret activities and because of the ease of refining
energy-grade fuel into weapons-grade material.
However, one has to wonder if Iran would be justified in
lawfully withdrawing from the treaty and openly developing
nuclear weapons. Are there "extraordinary events" which have
"jeopardized" its "supreme interests?" Iran is surrounded by
nuclear weapons states: India, Pakistan, China, Russia, and
Israel. In addition, the United States is currently targeting
hundreds of ship-based nuclear missiles on Iran and is seriously
considering using tactical nuclear weapons in a "surgical
strike" to destroy a program that Iran is currently entitled to
pursue.
If we have an appreciation of the history and culture of the
people of Iran, if we accept and respect the rights and
obligations of all parties to the dispute, and if we recognize
the threat to the safety of all nations and their citizens, what
can the United States do to avert a human tragedy of
catastrophic proportions?
Reaffirm Commitment to Nuclear Disarmament. The United States
must accept that the possession of nuclear weapons by any
nation, including itself, poses a threat to all other nations
and to humanity in general. Unilaterally, it should immediately
discontinue its programs to upgrade and increase its nuclear
arsenal.
The United States should negotiate with all nuclear weapon
nations to sign the NPT and to agree to eliminate all nuclear
weapons in pro rata steps within a decade. All nuclear weapons
should be outlawed after a certain date.
Commit to The Defense of All Nations Which Agree to Not Develop
and Deploy Nuclear Weapons. Mohamed ElBaradei has stated that 40
countries could develop nuclear weapons if they wanted to.
Moreover, given the huge number of loosely-controlled tactical
nuclear weapons left over in former Soviet Union, any nation
feeling sufficiently threatened could probably obtain such
weapons on the black market and withdraw from the treaty. The
greatest problem today is to reduce the anxiety of non-nuclear
weapon nations by guaranteeing their protection.
The United States should negotiate with all nuclear weapon
nations to amend the NPT to provide for the common defense of
any non-nuclear nation which suffers a nuclear attack. Even
without the agreement of other nuclear states, the United States
could unilaterally commit itself to the defense of any
non-nuclear nation, specifically including Iran, attacked by
nuclear weapons by any nation, including Israel.
Reaffirm Rights of Other Nations to Use Nuclear Energy. The
United States should negotiate with all signatories to amend the
NPT as follows: The production of nuclear energy fuel could be
concentrated under the auspices of an international non-profit
NPT corporation directed by the five permanent members of the
U.N. Security Council, subject to inspections by the IAEA. The
corporation should be allowed to operate only within the five
member nations desiring to process and enrich uranium.
All signatories should agree to avoid reprocessing of fuel rods
and to outlaw plutonium. The NPT corporation should accept
responsibility for the return and disposal of fuel rods by the
signatories they supply. Solutions to disposal could include
reusing the rods to produce electricity by non-reactor means or
by designing and constructing simple, ultra-safe rockets to
shoot the spent materials into the sun.
All members should agree to the development of safe standard
designs for nuclear reactors and to make the plans and
technology available to all member nations. Strike A "Grand
Bargain" With Iran. Although it may not agree with the manner in
which Iran's government is organized, the United States must
accept that Iran is a functioning democracy. The United States
must stop ignoring Iran's attempts to negotiate, and it must
recognize that President Ahmadinejad is not the voice of Iran's
foreign policy.
Ayatollah Khamenei has not only issued a fatwa against nuclear
weapons, he has also indirectly told Ahmadinejad to stay out of
all nuclear matters. Moreover, the United States and Israel must
listen when Ayatollah Khamenei states that Iran endorses the
Arab League position on Israel-Palestine, which supports normal
relations with Israel, if it accepts a two-state settlement.
Like every nation, Iran wants respect. The United States should
immediately agree to negotiate with Iran without conditions on
the basis of Iran's 2003 proposal. Negotiations should lead to a
grand bargain in which the United States recognizes Iran,
pledges to defend it against nuclear attack from any source,
including any and all of its neighbors, and in return Iran
agrees to discontinue the enrichment of uranium and any
reprocessing that leads to the production of plutonium.
The United States is currently meeting in Baghdad with
representatives of Iraq's neighboring states, including Iran,
the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, the Arab
League and the Islamic Conference to discuss ways to control the
violence in Iraq. There is no indication that the U.S. and
Iranian delegates will meet privately; however, participation by
the U.S. is seen as an adjustment in Bush's thinking.
The United States should followup by meeting with these
neighboring states and organizations, and all who are interested
in a role in the future of Iraq. Assuming the peaceful
intentions of all participants, it is not difficult to imagine
the immediate replacement of U.S. troops by temporary
peacekeepers from Iraq's neighbors, especially if the United
States agrees to pay for the costs. The monetary savings to
Americans would be tremendous. More importantly, the savings of
Iraqi lives, particularly that of their children and other
innocents, would be heartfelt - and might some day lead to
forgiveness.
In any case, there is plenty of time for the United States to
engage in a long-term policy of patient engagement with Iran.
There are many in Iran who retain a favorable opinion of the
United States and who are opposed to the theocratic regime. We
must give them time and encouragement - not threats of imminent
death and destruction.
CONCLUSION
The soil of Iran is soaked with the blood shed by its people who
have defended their homes and culture for thousands of years.
The threats of the American neocons, who believe that Iran and
its oil is theirs for the taking, are expressions of hypocrisy
in the extreme. Iran has repeatedly demonstrated its desire to
obtain and maintain friendly relations with the United States.
The American people, who will pay the price in the future for
the failures of their elected representatives today, must act
immediately to prevent mixing the blood of their children with
that of those who will defend Iran to their deaths, should Bush,
Cheney and their cronies unleash the instruments of death and
destruction against the people of Iran.
Blinded by ambition and lacking empathy, these arrogance
"leaders" of the United States will continue to make stupid
mistakes and to suffer defeats, until the scales are lifted from
their eyes and they learn to listen. War is not inevitable.
Peace is possible, but time is short and the moment for courage
and wisdom is now.
William John Cox, a graduate of the New Mexico Military
Institute, is currently a supervising prosecutor for the State
Bar of California. As a professional police officer he authored
the Policy Manual of the Los Angeles Police Department and the
Role of the Police in America for a National Advisory Commission
during the Nixon administration. Acting as a public interest,
pro bono, attorney, he filed a class action lawsuit in 1979 on
behalf of every citizen of the United States petitioning the
Supreme Court to order the other two branches of the federal
government to conduct a National Policy Referendum; he
investigated and successfully sued a group of radical right-wing
organizations in 1981 that denied the Holocaust; and he arranged
in 1991 for the publication of the suppressed Dead Sea Scrolls.
His book, You're Not Stupid! Get the Truth: A Brief on the Bush
Presidency is reviewed at
http://www.yourenotstupid.com, and his political writings
are collected at
http://www.thevoters.org.Click here
to comment on this and other articles
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 ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
|
