|
Middle East Madness
By Stephen Lendman
09/04/07 "ICH" -- --- Administration rhetoric is heated and
the dominant media keep trumpeting it. It signals war with
Iran of the "shock and awe" kind - intensive, massive and
maybe with nuclear weapons. Plans are one thing, action
another, and how things play out, in fact, won't be known
until the fullness of time that may not be long in coming.
For now, waiting and guessing games continue, and one
surmise is as good as another. The more threatening they
are, the less likely they'll happen, or at least it can be
hoped that's so.
It's not media critic, activist and distinguished professor
emeritus Edward Herman's view. He writes "the situation now
is even more menacing than we faced in 2002-2003 when the
Bush gang was readying us for the invasion (and) occupation
of Iraq. There is strong evidence that Bush-Cheney and
company are about to attack Iran (and) the groundwork is
being set with a flood of propaganda, helped by the media
and Democrats." It may be "his last (crazed) hope for
immortality" and possible attempt to revive "Republican
strength through this classic maneuver of cornered-rat
politicians."
Most frightening is that the Bush administration doesn't
have enough of a bad thing and may want more of it. This
time, however, the stakes are incalculable, the risks over
the top, and the chance for success (from an American
perspective) almost nil if post-WW II history is a good
predictor. Distinguished historian Gabriel Kolko notes in
all its conflicts since 1950, America never lost a battle
and never won a war. It's a world class bumbler, never
learns from its mistakes, and only succeeds, in Kolko's
words, in making an "unstable world far more precarious"
than if it left well enough alone.
Enter Iran with George Bush having a way with words about
the Islamic Republic. They're hotting up and sending ominous
signals. At the American Legion Reno convention August 28,
Bush, with typical bluster, accused Iran of threatening the
Middle East with a nuclear holocaust and said he authorized
US military commanders in Iraq to "confront Tehran's
murderous activities." He accused the Ahmadinejad government
of supporting violent Iraqi forces he calls "radicals and
extremists....Either the forces of extremism (or freedom)
succeed. Either our enemies advance their interests in Iraq,
or we advance" ours.
Earlier in the month, Bush threatened Iran stating: "When we
catch you playing a non-constructive role, there will be a
price to pay." He added recent US-Iranian meetings in
Baghdad were "to send a message that there will be
consequences for....people transporting, delivering EFPs
(roadside bombs)....that kill Americans in Iraq."
This type language points to a widened Middle East war with
Iran the target in mind and sanity of those planning it in
question. Or maybe not? Questions remain in the run-up to
the September 11 Iraq progress report General Petraeus and
Ambassador Crocker will deliver to Congress. Packaging is
everything, and the date chosen was planned to heighten
public fear of the event on that day that may help explain
what's going on - not attacking the Islamic Republic but
shoring up flagging support for a war gone sour and worry
later about more of it with Iran.
Or maybe not, according to a report called "Considering a
war with Iran: A discussion paper on WMD in the Middle
East." On August 28, the Raw Story web site published a
summary of what two respected figures wrote. They are:
British scholar and arms expert Dan Plesch, Director of the
Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy of the School
of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) at the University of
London and Martin Butcher, former Director of the British
American Security Information Council (BASIC) and former
adviser to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European
Parliament.
Their work compliments others saying war with Iran is
coming, and things are too far along to stop it. Their
analysis is detailed, elementary in their opinion, and very
frightening. They conclude the Pentagon has plans for a
"massive, multi-front, full-spectrum" shock and awe-type
attack on Iran short of a ground invasion. In involves
destroying enough of the country's military capacity and
armed forces, nuclear energy sites, economic infrastructure
and more to destabilize and oust its regime or reduce its
status to "a weak or failed state." It continues saying:
-- 10,000 sites are targeted using bombers and long range
missiles;
-- the US has enough ground, air and Marine forces in the
region to devastate Iran on short notice;
-- covert US (and possibly UK) and armed popular resistance
activities are already ongoing in the Iranian provinces of
Azeri, Balujistan, Kurdistan and the country's major oil
producing region of Khuzestan in the southwest bordering
Iraq and the Persian Gulf.
-- nuclear weapons are deployed but unlikely to be used
short of clear evidence Iran already has them, may in short
order, or if its believed only these weapons can destroy its
hardened Natanz nuclear facility;
-- the Bush administration has avoided publicizing its war
preparations leading Plesch and Butcher to believe
confrontation is more likely;
-- no information is available on possible Iranian WMD
weapons, but the authors state its military "has missiles
and probably some chemical capacity;" those aren't WMDs and
many other nations also have them; at least eight of them
(not Iran) have nuclear ones as well, several are prepared
to use them, and the US states it as first-strike policy;
-- significant "risks and impediments" exist but eliminating
Iran as a regional power and regime change are stated goals
in the administration's National Security Strategy (updated
in 2006);
-- except for the UK and Israel, no other nations are known
to support US plans;
-- according to anonymous UK military sources, the Bush
administration switched its main focus to Iran after March,
2003 even when its forces became bogged down in Iraq;
-- region-based Marines outside Iraq are deployed to protect
oil tankers, shipping lanes in the Gulf, the Straits of
Hormuz and be able to confront and destroy Iranian forces;
-- US Special Forces will continue covert search and destroy
missions in Iran and efforts to incite internal uprisings
against the Iranian government;
-- there's no assurance Iraqi Shias will support their
Iranian allies; their leaders may act in their own best
interests inside Iraq that may preclude backing Iran under
US attack;
-- US 2008 presidential candidates are posturing to see who
can be toughest on confronting a potential Iranian threat
even though there is none; Europeans are puzzled that
political expediency trumps reality especially concerning a
wider Middle East war; the Bush administration may worry
most about an "Iran of the regions" and may attack the
Islamic Republic to avoid it;
-- if an attack on Iran succeeds (with long odds against it)
and the US is better able assert "its global military
dominance....then the risks to humanity....and to states of
the Middle East are grave indeed."
Enter the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
IAEA's August 30 report on Iran was bad news for the Bush
administration based on what its Director, Mohamed
ElBaradei, told the press: "This is the first time Iran is
ready to discuss all outstanding issues which triggered the
crisis in confidence. It's a significant step. There are
clear guidelines, so it's not, as some people are saying, an
open-ended invitation to dallying with the agency or a ruse
to prolong negotiations to avoid sanctions....I'm clear at
this stage you need to give Iran a chance to prove its
stated goodwill."
The Bush administration was dismissive to enraged in
response with statements claiming the agreement is
inadequate and Tehran must suspend all (its perfectly legal)
nuclear enrichment, or else. State Department spokesman Tom
Casey disdainfully said: "There is no partial credit here.
Iran has refused to comply with its international
obligations, and as a result of that the international
community (meaning the US and other nations it can bully,
bribe or threaten) is going to continue to ratchet up the
pressure."
The message is clear and all known information confirms it.
Washington wants regime change in Iran. The open question is
by what means and when. It doesn't matter that Iran is a
signatory to the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT), is in full compliance with it, and in 1974 entered
into an agreement with the IAEA "for the application of
safeguards in connection with the Treaty on the
Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons" to remain in force as
long as Iran is so obligated under NPT provisions. The
agreement stipulates all Iranian "source or special
fissionable materials" and activities relating to them are
subject to IAEA Safeguards "with a view to preventing
diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful purposes."
IAEA reported Iran's uranium enrichment program slowed, is
operating well below capacity, and isn't producing nuclear
fuel in significant amounts. As of August 19, it had 1968
centrifuges operating and 656 others in various stages of
assembly or testing. IAEA verified this level of enrichment
is well below what's needed to build a nuclear bomb. IAEA
also said an outstanding issue related to plutonium
experiments was satisfactorily resolved.
Iran and IAEA also announced a timetable to resolve by year
end "all outstanding questions" regarding the implementation
of Iran's Safeguards Agreement as well as other non or less
relevant questions. They include: lab experiments involving
minute amounts of plutonium and plutonium-210 and the source
of the enriched uranium micro-contamination at a technical
University in Tehran. Although not obligated to do so, Iran
also agreed to resolve other minor issues as a show of good
faith. As it's now proceeding, Iran is on track to verify
total compliance with its Safeguard Agreement obligations by
yearend. That should make it less vulnerable to a US attack,
but don't bet on it. Bush administration officials are never
short on reasons to justify its plans and facts on the
ground won't deter them.
They've already denounced the IAEA report as an Iranian ploy
to buy time and seems to imply IAEA partnered with Iran
against Washington. ElBaradei's response to this was: "My
responsibility is to look at the big picture. If I see a
situation deteriorating
(and) it could lead to war, I have to raise the alarm or
give my advice." Earlier he said: "I have no brief other
than to make sure we don't go into another war or that we go
crazy into killing each other. You do not want to give (an)
additional argument to the new
(Bush administration) crazies who say 'let's go and bomb
Iran.' "
Bush Administration Strategy: Usually Wrong but Never in
Doubt
In the run-up to its March, 2003 attack on Iraq, the Bush
administration proved it didn't lack tricks and schemes to
justify war. Iran now faces the same threat with one
provocative act from Washington after another. In an
unprecedented and outrageous move against a sovereign state,
the New York Times and Washington Post reported August 15
the administration plans to designate Iran's Revolutionary
Guard Corps (a major branch of its military) a "global
terrorist" organization. It's based on unsubstantiated
claims IRGC's elite Quds Force is arming, training and
directing Shiite militias involved in attacking US Iraqi
troops.
It contradicts Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki,
however, that Iran's role in the region is constructive.
That comment runs counter to Bush claiming Iran as "the
world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, (is) active(ly)
pursui(ng)....technology that could lead to nuclear weapons
(and) We will confront this danger before it is too late."
Washington further insists IRGC is helping Taliban fighters
in Afghanistan, interfering in various other ways in Iraq,
and is aiding US-designated "terrorist" groups like
Hezbollah and Hamas. It has no evidence, reports are CIA
confirms it, but no matter. All that counts is Washington
claims it, case closed. That's how schoolyard bullies run
playgrounds and global godfathers do it everywhere.
In the long-running US-Iran saga, it remains to be seen how
events will play out. Expect more heated rhetoric, and don't
ignore Dick Cheney's influence. Barnett Rubin's recent
comments about him from his Global Affairs blog are all over
the internet. Cheney's already unofficially on record urging
war on Iran and presently proposes bombing suspected Quds
Force sites in Iraq. Earlier reports were he and other
administration hard-liners considered air attacks against
Quds Force headquarters near Tehran. If they come, it risks
all-out war so, for now, they were tabled.
Barnett now says he has a message from a well-connected
insider that "the Office of the Vice-President (plans) to
roll out a campaign for war with Iran in the week after
Labor Day" to be backed by hawkish think tanks and similar
elements in the dominant media. It will involve a "heavy
sustained assault on the airwaves" to win over public
support that will be considered successful at "35 - 40
percent."
It's already begun on-air and on the pages of the lead and
most influential proponent for war on Iraq in the Judith
Miller days, The New York Times. It may now be playing the
same role promoting war with Iran with one example showing
up in Michael Slackman and Nazila Fathi's September 3
article: "On Two Fronts, One Nuclear, Iran Is Defiant." Its
headlined tone
(differing from explanatory comments buried below)
contradicts IAEA evidence and claims "to reaffirm the
country's refusal to back down to pressure from the United
States over its nuclear program and its role in Iraq."
That came after an opening salvo that "Iran's leaders issued
dual, defiant statements on Sunday (September
2)." It continued saying President Ahmadinejad claimed the
nation had 3,000 active centrifuges to enrich uranium (IAEA
inspections confirm 1968), and "the top ayatollah (Ali
Khamenei) appoint(ed) a new Islamic Revolutionary Guards
commander who once advocated military force against
students." This is just a sampling of what's ahead from the
Times and other dominant media elements. They're enlisted,
like in
2002, to beat the drums of war and maybe get one for their
efforts.
Then there's Congress on both sides of the aisle and
presidential candidates hawkishly posturing for whatever
they imagine it gains them. The public overwhelmingly
opposes more war and wants the Iraq one ended. But those
ideas are nowhere in sight on the campaign trail or Capitol
Hill where the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007 will
likely pass easily now that Congress is reconvened. It
cleared the House Foreign Affairs Committee 37 to 1 June 28
and after passing both Houses will become effective January
1, 2008. It hardens the existing Iran Sanctions Act by
closing loopholes in it with the intent to thwart all
foreign investment in Iran and strangle the country
economically.
It also prohibits nuclear cooperation between the US and any
nation aiding Iran's commercial nuclear program and requests
the White House designate Iran's IRGC a "terrorist" group
and block assets of any nation, organization or group
supporting it. As summer wanes, fall approaches and the
administration touts progress in Iraq it claims will
continue (with Bush's grandstanding six hour visit for a
staged performance at Al Asad Air Base in Al Anbar province
part of it), the prospect for more "progress" Iraqi-style
awaits Iran. That's unless public pressure builds and/or
cooler heads in Washington and other capitals denounce what
some distinguished analysts believe may ignite WW III if it
comes. That's incentive enough for us all to become engaged
and stop this rush to madness in the Middle East not likely
to be contained where it starts.
Stephen Lendman lives in
Chicago and can be reached at
lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net .
Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to
The Steve Lendman News and Information Hour on
TheMicroEffect.com Saturdays at noon US central time.
Click
on "comments" below to
read or post comments
Comment
Guidelines
Be succinct, constructive and
relevant to the story.
We
encourage engaging, diverse and
meaningful commentary. Do not
include personal information such
as names, addresses, phone
numbers and emails. Comments
falling outside our guidelines
– those including personal
attacks and profanity – are
not permitted.
See our complete
Comment
Policy and
use
this link to notify us if you
have concerns about a comment.
We’ll promptly review and
remove any inappropriate
postings.
Send Page To a Friend
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.)
|
