What Putin Hopes to Gain from Iran
Monday's news that Iran has postponed Moscow talks, scheduled to start Thursday, on having its uranium enriched in Russia, and has instead resumed its own enrichment activities, was hardly stunning — except, perhaps, to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Putin had expected a cash windfall from Iran for the Russia-supplied nuclear capacity; the laurels of a global power-broker for defusing the Iranian nuclear crisis; and the praise of his increasingly nostalgic citizens for restoring the lost empire's glory.
Instead, he looks hapless before the specter of a nuclear-armed militant clerical regime that looms beneath the veil of a peaceful nuclear energy project. Putin's massive supplies of conventional weapons to Iran, including air defense missiles and armor, have strengthened that specter — much to Russia's own peril.
For months, Russia and China have been stalling the West's efforts to refer Iran's nuclear program to the UN Security Council. Last week, Russia finally backed an IAEA resolution to do so, only upon the condition that the Council doesn't take up the issue until March. Meanwhile, pundits believe, Putin had hoped to defuse the crisis by persuading Iran to shift its uranium-enrichment to Russia, which would deny it the ability to use such facilities on its own soil to produce weapons-grade material.
From his own experience, Putin should have known better: Back in 2000, the Russian president had told a G-8 summit in Japan that he had convinced North Korean leader Kim Jong Il to abandon his missile program. Sounded good, until Kim explained he was joking. This time, Putin seems to be the butt of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's practical joke.
Putin's policies were best summed up last Saturday by Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri commenting on Putin's pledge last week to invite the radical Palestinian group to Moscow: "It will represent a division in the Western position led by the U.S."
"A division in the Western position" helped fuel Saddam Hussein's defiance over the years, finally leading to war. In the long run, Putin's policies will do Hamas or Iran no better than they did Saddam, but they do risk badly hurting Russia.
The regime seems incapable of having long-term strategies. And its short term tactics are driven by cash, whether it be in jailing the oil magnate Mikhail Khodorkovsky and taking over his billions, or endorsing Iran's nuclear ambitions. Russia's projected income from just supplying seven nuclear reactors to Iran runs into $10 billion — and way more for maintenance, fueling, etc.
From 1990 through 1996, Russia supplied over $5 billion worth arms to Iran. Then, Russia heeded a U.S. request to stop military supplies, but resumed them in 2000, just as Putin became president. Last October, Moscow and Tehran signed a deal on military supplies worth $300 million annually. Russia will also supply $700 million worth of surface-to-air missiles. The Iranian arms market now promises Russia some $10 billion over next several years.
These tantalizing riches risk falling into the same chasm, however, as the unpaid billions owed to Russia by Saddam Hussein's regime, and other Moscow-backed rogue regimes. Russia risks ending up unpaid, friendless — and facing a volatile nuclear neighbor, connected to terrorist groups and armed with Russian weapons, right on her unstable southern border. Some return to glory, indeed.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Up to 10,000 may die if George Bush attacks Iran
I think there is at least a 50:50 risk of some sort of real crisis, probably with military action, in Iran before the end of next year.
A major US attack on Iran’s nuclear sites would kill up to 10,000 people and would lead to war in the Middle East.
There is always the possibility that the Israelis do it. I don’t think you can rule that out. For the Israelis, having an Iran which is getting anywhere close to a nuclear weapons capability is simply not acceptable.
Any bombing of Iran by US forces, or by their Israeli allies, would have to be part of a surprise attack on a range of facilities including urban areas that would catch many Iranians unprotected.
Precision bombing could put Iran’s weapons programme back five to ten years. But within a month the situation would become an extremely dangerous conflict.
Britain could be drawn into the conflict if the prime minister allowed B2 bombers, which can carry 40,000 pounds of precision bombs, to use bases at Fairford, Gloucester, and on the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia.
A US military attack on Iranian nuclear infrastructure would be the start of a protracted military confrontation.
It could eventually lead to a lengthy confrontation involving many other countries in the region, could mean the closure of the Gulf.
And it would probably have a formidable impact on oil prices, as well as spurring new attacks by radicals on Western interests.
Such a confrontation would probably involve Iraq, Israel and Lebanon, as well as the US and Iran. There is a distinct possibility of the Arab Gulf states getting involved as well.
Military deaths in the first wave of attacks against Iran would be expected to be in the thousands.
Civilian deaths would be in the many hundreds at least. If the war evolved into a wider conflict, primarily to pre-empt or counter Iranian responses, the casualties would eventually be much higher.
It is worth noting that an attack by the US or Israel on Iran would probably spur Tehran to work as rapidly as possible toward developing a nuclear military option.
A ground offensive in Iran would not be feasible, as it would require at least 100,000 troops – and US forces are already overstretched with 130,000 soldiers in Iraq and 18,000 in Afghanistan.
In reality any attack would have a powerful unifying effect within Iran, bolster the Iranian government, and mean any future US relationship with Iran would be based on violence.
Simply put, a military response to the current crisis is a particularly dangerous option and should not be considered further. Alternative approaches must be sought, however difficult these may be.
Paul Rogers is professor of peace studies of the University of Bradford. To read his study of the threat to Iran go to www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk
I think there is at least a 50:50 risk of some sort of real crisis, probably with military action, in Iran before the end of next year.
A major US attack on Iran’s nuclear sites would kill up to 10,000 people and would lead to war in the Middle East.
There is always the possibility that the Israelis do it. I don’t think you can rule that out. For the Israelis, having an Iran which is getting anywhere close to a nuclear weapons capability is simply not acceptable.
Any bombing of Iran by US forces, or by their Israeli allies, would have to be part of a surprise attack on a range of facilities including urban areas that would catch many Iranians unprotected.
Precision bombing could put Iran’s weapons programme back five to ten years. But within a month the situation would become an extremely dangerous conflict.
Britain could be drawn into the conflict if the prime minister allowed B2 bombers, which can carry 40,000 pounds of precision bombs, to use bases at Fairford, Gloucester, and on the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia.
A US military attack on Iranian nuclear infrastructure would be the start of a protracted military confrontation.
It could eventually lead to a lengthy confrontation involving many other countries in the region, could mean the closure of the Gulf.
And it would probably have a formidable impact on oil prices, as well as spurring new attacks by radicals on Western interests.
Such a confrontation would probably involve Iraq, Israel and Lebanon, as well as the US and Iran. There is a distinct possibility of the Arab Gulf states getting involved as well.
Military deaths in the first wave of attacks against Iran would be expected to be in the thousands.
Civilian deaths would be in the many hundreds at least. If the war evolved into a wider conflict, primarily to pre-empt or counter Iranian responses, the casualties would eventually be much higher.
It is worth noting that an attack by the US or Israel on Iran would probably spur Tehran to work as rapidly as possible toward developing a nuclear military option.
A ground offensive in Iran would not be feasible, as it would require at least 100,000 troops – and US forces are already overstretched with 130,000 soldiers in Iraq and 18,000 in Afghanistan.
In reality any attack would have a powerful unifying effect within Iran, bolster the Iranian government, and mean any future US relationship with Iran would be based on violence.
Simply put, a military response to the current crisis is a particularly dangerous option and should not be considered further. Alternative approaches must be sought, however difficult these may be.
Paul Rogers is professor of peace studies of the University of Bradford. To read his study of the threat to Iran go to www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
The things that are really at stake in the Iranian crisis
The conflict among the big powers on the Iranian issue continues. Since December 2002, the United States has accused Iran of trying to acquire the atomic bomb, which would violate the Treaty of Non Proliferation (TNP). Thus, the United States is trying to have the UN Security Council condemn Iran as a pretext to attack the Islamic Republic [1].
If Washington succeeds in controlling Iran, it would also have the military control of the eastern coast of the Gulf and the southern coast of the Caspian Sea, its oil and gas reserves, both regarded as the second largest in the world [2].
The United States already has the military control of part of the Caspian basin and the corridor that allows for communication between that area and the Indian Ocean (Afghanistan and Pakistan). Most of the Gulf (Saudi Arabia and Iraq) is also under the US's military control. Thus, at the end of this operation, Washington would own the most important current hydrocarbon exploitation areas and the main reserves still to be exploited. The world economy would then be in the hands of the United States, which would have absolute power.
In the current stage of the conflict, the powers are divided as to the US's accusations. The United Kingdom, France and Germany are convinced of the military nature of the Iranian nuclear project. They base their opinion on reports from US intelligence services, which affirm, in official documents, that Tehran is carrying out a Green Salt Projectto develop and to launch nuclear warheads. On the contrary, Russia, China and India believe that Iran's nuclear program has peaceful purposes [3]. They base their opinion on a ruling by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Hoseini Jamenei condemning the production, possession and use of the atomic bomb as contrary to the Islamic ethics.
Objectively, the difference established by the Treaty of Non Proliferation (TNP) between authorized civil nuclear technology and forbidden military nuclear technology is no longer suitable under the current conditions. The know-how and civil facilities can be easily and quickly adapted to military purposes. The strict interpretation of the TNP would imply the prohibition, for all states, of the development of a civil nuclear industry while, a liberal interpretation would open the doors to a generalized proliferation. As this issue has not been solved, it is impossible to solve it in the Iranian case. This lack of definition is the factor that the United States hopes to use to launch a war. [4].
However, there is a way to clear things up. A specific method of uranium enrichment, previously known in a partial way, apparently can serve to establish a difference between military and peaceful use .Russia developed this method and thus intends to let Iran - and the international community - use it. This seems to be one of the threemain proposals that President Putin will take to the G8 summit, a meeting that he himself will preside over this summer in Saint Petersburg.
It will be necessary to prove the feasibility of this project. Russia would then produce the nuclear fuel, in its own territory, in factories jointly built with the beneficiary states and under the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). It would also be necessary to create detailed protocols to guarantee the interests of all parties. The implementation of this project would represent a radical change in international relations. The energy security that Russia would give to the world would eclipse the authority of the United States, a country that currently satisfies its own energy security needs to the detriment of the rest of the world.
Iran has turned its project of civil nuclear development a symbol of its independence in front of the Anglo-Saxon colonialism that has brought so much suffering to its people [5]. Contrary to an idea widely spread by the Atlantist media, this project does not belong only to a Iranian power elite but it is an element of consensus of the entire Iranian society. In addition, the Islamic Republic abandoned its dream of expanding the Jomeinist revolution and today aims at becoming the driving force of the Movement of Non Aligned Countries, which is currently in a revitalization stage. Iran wants to share its current demand with others and to succeed in exercising their right to develop a civil nuclear industry, not only for its own people but also for all the others.
Thus, far from being exclusively linked to Iran's future, the current political game has to do with international balance and the US ambitions, confirmed during President Bush's most recent speech on the State of the Union, to control the world.
In 2004 and 2005, the different actors of this game carried out several maneuvers. A European troika (France, United Kingdom and Germany) supposedly played a mediating role between Washington and Tehran; they asked the Iranians to freeze the situation and ended up leaning to the US side. After having accepted a two-and-a-half-year moratorium for research work, Iran resumed it on January 10, 2006,saying that it had waited enough as to show its good will while the Europeans had not made any serious offers. In the meantime, the Russian position was sort of undecipherable as the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs suggested that they could side with their western counterparts before he was publicly put in his place by Presiden Putin who expressed his interest in reaching a peaceful solution. Finally, during the last weeks, many trips allowed Iranian, Chinese and Russian diplomats to design a common strategy.
The issue had a sudden evolution after the United Kingdom organized on January 30th, 2006, a "private ministerial meeting" where the British, French, German, Russian, American and Chinese foreign ministers held a meeting. During the gathering, Britain's Jack Straw suggested that the IAEA should present the issue before the UN Security Council, the first stage of the process towards war. His Chinese and Russian counterparts noted that, in the current situation, a decision of this type would not have any judicial foundation.
Due to their confidence in the feasibility of its own uranium enrichment project, the Russian Federation only wanted to "let time pass by" in order to prepare a protocol with Iran, which would only take one or two months according to experts. The guests ended the dinner setting an agenda that both parties see as a victory: next week. The IAEA Board of Governors will not transfer the Iranian file to the Security Council as it does not have the authority to do it butit will give it a report asking for the adoption of measures thatstrengthen its own authority to be able to do it in the future.
This commitment allows the Europeans and the Americans to keep the pressure while the Russians and the Chinese can make use of time. Saying who won that evening would be like determining if a glass is half empty or half full when water is in the middle.
In practice, supposing that the Security Council gives that prerogative to the IAEA Board of Governors, the latter could not exercise this prerogative until its next meeting, on March 9th.
The Iranians pretended to interpret the shady deal as if the Russians had abandoned them. However, it is possible that they obtained a written commitment from the Russian Federation that it will use its veto at the Security Council in the event that a resolution to authorize war is presented.
Anyway, the Iranians immediately resorted to their colleagues of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries. President Mahmud Amadineyad spoke over the phone with his South African counterpart, Thabo Mbeki, who gave him his support (although the apartheid regime produced the atomic bomb along with Israel, South Africa later renounced to it).For its part, Indonesia issued several pacifying statements while Venezuela and Malaysia will soon welcome the Iranian president.
Simultaneously, Iran is preparing "a world without Israel and the United States." Tehran hopes to create an oil stock market that will not accept the dollar. It is already working on an experimental basis.
Although no country has officially announced its participation, many will encourage the participation of firms that will serve as intermediaries. As the dollar is very overvalued because it is the exchange currency in oil transactions, [6] a stock market of this kind, even if it covered only 10% of the oil market, would cause a collapse of the dollar compared only to that of 1939. The US power would then be dragged by the devaluation and Israel itself would be doomed to bankruptcy.
Thus, Washington has no other choice than using all its influence over the international economic actors to break up with Tehran. In the absence of a war, the United States at least has to isolate Iran in the economic aspect.
Paradoxically, none of these options seems realistic. Reasonably, the US Air Force and the Israeli army can not attack the Iranian nuclear facilities as there are Russian advisors and technicians there. To attack Iran would also mean to declare war on Russia. In addition, such an attack would be followed by an Iranian response that would use the devastating Thor M-1 missiles – acquired in Russia – against Israel, not to mention that the Shiites of Iraq would make life even more difficult for the occupation forces. In the event that the United States tries to use an economic blockade, Iran could easily get around it through its agreement of privileged partner with China. However, it would deprive the "West" of part of its oil supply, thus causing a300% increase in the price of the barrel of oil and a deep economic crisis.
In sum, the result of this game depends on the ability of each participant to adapt its own calendar to the others' while the Bush administration insists on dragging them into a conflict although it does not have the necessary resources and it takes the risk of losing its authority.
The conflict among the big powers on the Iranian issue continues. Since December 2002, the United States has accused Iran of trying to acquire the atomic bomb, which would violate the Treaty of Non Proliferation (TNP). Thus, the United States is trying to have the UN Security Council condemn Iran as a pretext to attack the Islamic Republic [1].
If Washington succeeds in controlling Iran, it would also have the military control of the eastern coast of the Gulf and the southern coast of the Caspian Sea, its oil and gas reserves, both regarded as the second largest in the world [2].
The United States already has the military control of part of the Caspian basin and the corridor that allows for communication between that area and the Indian Ocean (Afghanistan and Pakistan). Most of the Gulf (Saudi Arabia and Iraq) is also under the US's military control. Thus, at the end of this operation, Washington would own the most important current hydrocarbon exploitation areas and the main reserves still to be exploited. The world economy would then be in the hands of the United States, which would have absolute power.
In the current stage of the conflict, the powers are divided as to the US's accusations. The United Kingdom, France and Germany are convinced of the military nature of the Iranian nuclear project. They base their opinion on reports from US intelligence services, which affirm, in official documents, that Tehran is carrying out a Green Salt Projectto develop and to launch nuclear warheads. On the contrary, Russia, China and India believe that Iran's nuclear program has peaceful purposes [3]. They base their opinion on a ruling by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Hoseini Jamenei condemning the production, possession and use of the atomic bomb as contrary to the Islamic ethics.
Objectively, the difference established by the Treaty of Non Proliferation (TNP) between authorized civil nuclear technology and forbidden military nuclear technology is no longer suitable under the current conditions. The know-how and civil facilities can be easily and quickly adapted to military purposes. The strict interpretation of the TNP would imply the prohibition, for all states, of the development of a civil nuclear industry while, a liberal interpretation would open the doors to a generalized proliferation. As this issue has not been solved, it is impossible to solve it in the Iranian case. This lack of definition is the factor that the United States hopes to use to launch a war. [4].
However, there is a way to clear things up. A specific method of uranium enrichment, previously known in a partial way, apparently can serve to establish a difference between military and peaceful use .Russia developed this method and thus intends to let Iran - and the international community - use it. This seems to be one of the threemain proposals that President Putin will take to the G8 summit, a meeting that he himself will preside over this summer in Saint Petersburg.
It will be necessary to prove the feasibility of this project. Russia would then produce the nuclear fuel, in its own territory, in factories jointly built with the beneficiary states and under the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). It would also be necessary to create detailed protocols to guarantee the interests of all parties. The implementation of this project would represent a radical change in international relations. The energy security that Russia would give to the world would eclipse the authority of the United States, a country that currently satisfies its own energy security needs to the detriment of the rest of the world.
Iran has turned its project of civil nuclear development a symbol of its independence in front of the Anglo-Saxon colonialism that has brought so much suffering to its people [5]. Contrary to an idea widely spread by the Atlantist media, this project does not belong only to a Iranian power elite but it is an element of consensus of the entire Iranian society. In addition, the Islamic Republic abandoned its dream of expanding the Jomeinist revolution and today aims at becoming the driving force of the Movement of Non Aligned Countries, which is currently in a revitalization stage. Iran wants to share its current demand with others and to succeed in exercising their right to develop a civil nuclear industry, not only for its own people but also for all the others.
Thus, far from being exclusively linked to Iran's future, the current political game has to do with international balance and the US ambitions, confirmed during President Bush's most recent speech on the State of the Union, to control the world.
In 2004 and 2005, the different actors of this game carried out several maneuvers. A European troika (France, United Kingdom and Germany) supposedly played a mediating role between Washington and Tehran; they asked the Iranians to freeze the situation and ended up leaning to the US side. After having accepted a two-and-a-half-year moratorium for research work, Iran resumed it on January 10, 2006,saying that it had waited enough as to show its good will while the Europeans had not made any serious offers. In the meantime, the Russian position was sort of undecipherable as the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs suggested that they could side with their western counterparts before he was publicly put in his place by Presiden Putin who expressed his interest in reaching a peaceful solution. Finally, during the last weeks, many trips allowed Iranian, Chinese and Russian diplomats to design a common strategy.
The issue had a sudden evolution after the United Kingdom organized on January 30th, 2006, a "private ministerial meeting" where the British, French, German, Russian, American and Chinese foreign ministers held a meeting. During the gathering, Britain's Jack Straw suggested that the IAEA should present the issue before the UN Security Council, the first stage of the process towards war. His Chinese and Russian counterparts noted that, in the current situation, a decision of this type would not have any judicial foundation.
Due to their confidence in the feasibility of its own uranium enrichment project, the Russian Federation only wanted to "let time pass by" in order to prepare a protocol with Iran, which would only take one or two months according to experts. The guests ended the dinner setting an agenda that both parties see as a victory: next week. The IAEA Board of Governors will not transfer the Iranian file to the Security Council as it does not have the authority to do it butit will give it a report asking for the adoption of measures thatstrengthen its own authority to be able to do it in the future.
This commitment allows the Europeans and the Americans to keep the pressure while the Russians and the Chinese can make use of time. Saying who won that evening would be like determining if a glass is half empty or half full when water is in the middle.
In practice, supposing that the Security Council gives that prerogative to the IAEA Board of Governors, the latter could not exercise this prerogative until its next meeting, on March 9th.
The Iranians pretended to interpret the shady deal as if the Russians had abandoned them. However, it is possible that they obtained a written commitment from the Russian Federation that it will use its veto at the Security Council in the event that a resolution to authorize war is presented.
Anyway, the Iranians immediately resorted to their colleagues of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries. President Mahmud Amadineyad spoke over the phone with his South African counterpart, Thabo Mbeki, who gave him his support (although the apartheid regime produced the atomic bomb along with Israel, South Africa later renounced to it).For its part, Indonesia issued several pacifying statements while Venezuela and Malaysia will soon welcome the Iranian president.
Simultaneously, Iran is preparing "a world without Israel and the United States." Tehran hopes to create an oil stock market that will not accept the dollar. It is already working on an experimental basis.
Although no country has officially announced its participation, many will encourage the participation of firms that will serve as intermediaries. As the dollar is very overvalued because it is the exchange currency in oil transactions, [6] a stock market of this kind, even if it covered only 10% of the oil market, would cause a collapse of the dollar compared only to that of 1939. The US power would then be dragged by the devaluation and Israel itself would be doomed to bankruptcy.
Thus, Washington has no other choice than using all its influence over the international economic actors to break up with Tehran. In the absence of a war, the United States at least has to isolate Iran in the economic aspect.
Paradoxically, none of these options seems realistic. Reasonably, the US Air Force and the Israeli army can not attack the Iranian nuclear facilities as there are Russian advisors and technicians there. To attack Iran would also mean to declare war on Russia. In addition, such an attack would be followed by an Iranian response that would use the devastating Thor M-1 missiles – acquired in Russia – against Israel, not to mention that the Shiites of Iraq would make life even more difficult for the occupation forces. In the event that the United States tries to use an economic blockade, Iran could easily get around it through its agreement of privileged partner with China. However, it would deprive the "West" of part of its oil supply, thus causing a300% increase in the price of the barrel of oil and a deep economic crisis.
In sum, the result of this game depends on the ability of each participant to adapt its own calendar to the others' while the Bush administration insists on dragging them into a conflict although it does not have the necessary resources and it takes the risk of losing its authority.
ATTACKING IRAN WILL PUT THE US AT RISK AS NEVER BEFORE
Word that Iran has plans to retaliate abroad with secret commando units should give pause to the neo-con hotheads in the Bush administration who are slavering for war against the Middle East's most formidable military power.
The fantasy prevailing in the White House and the Pentagon (and among some pandering Democrats in Congress) is that the U.S. can cripple Iran's nascent nuclear weapons development program by aerial bombardment of its enrichment facilities and scientific centers, and that this can be done at little cost or risk to the U.S.
In fact, the doctrine of legitimate response to attack gives Iran a wide range of responses to any attack, which should make Americans very leery about playing such games.
If the U.S. were to bomb an Iranian nuclear power facility, Iran would have the legal right to do the same to vulnerable American nuclear facilities. And while the U.S. might do its attacking with B-52 bombers, stealth aircraft or missiles, Iran could accomplish the same thing with trained commando units. Furthermore, under the international laws of war, if the commandos wore uniforms during their assault on U.S. facilities, they would have to be considered legitimate soldiers fighting for their country. The president would not be able to simply call them enemy combatants and order their fingernails ripped out.
Nor would he be able to accuse them of war crimes for spewing nuclear fallout across vast stretches of the United States, if our own attack on Iranian nuclear facilities did the same thing there.
Well, let me correct that. This president has made it abundantly clear that he doesn't give a rat’s ass about international law, so he could declare captured Iranian commandos terrorists, deny them POW status, and start the torture he is so fond of, but he'd only make more enemies by so blatantly flaunting international law.
Meanwhile, Iran would not be limited to attacking U.S. nuclear facilities. If the U.S. were to attack Iranian territory, it would be as much an act of war as was the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and it would enable Iran to respond in kind against any legitimate U.S. target, which could include U.S. shipping (including the targeting of oil tankers in the Persian Gulf bound for the U.S. or for U.S. allies), port facilities, transport centers like airports and rail stations, factories, oil storage facilities, chemical plants, etc. Civilian casualties? Well, as the Pentagon is wont to say, those are just unfortunate side effects—collateral damage, you might say. Iran could also turn the U.S. occupation force in Iraq into sitting ducks for attack by its allies, the Shiites in Iraq, whose forces already demonstrated their courage and capabilities in an earlier uprising against U.S. forces early in the occupation. This time, they'd have overt Iranian assistance and weapons.
During the days leading up to the Iraq war, the same warning was made about Iraq, but clearly, the Iraqi government, hobbled by years of sanctions, and massively unpopular at home, was in no position to mount such a counterstrike campaign against the U.S. The whole White House story about Iraq’s posing a threat to America was a big lie. But Iran is another story. Not only does it have a battle-tested army of some 800,000 people, and plenty of arms and money, thanks to its being the second largest oil exporter in the world. It also has a democratically elected government that--whether we like it or not-- has the support of a large segment of the population.
Add to that the fact of Iranian nationalism. Where Iraq is basically a hodgepodge of tribes and ethnicities cobbled together by British colonial rulers and then held together by the use of state terror and brute force, Iran is an ancient civilization and culture with an intense sense of national pride and identity. Attack Iran, and the U.S. will instantly galvanize most Iranians--even those who may despise the current theocratic leadership--into blood enemies of America.
That is the kind of enemy that can successfully mount covert campaigns against this country.
Surely no one wants to see yet another country in an unstable region acquiring nuclear weapons, but the solution is not the Bush default of war, which Iraq and Afghanistan have shown us tends to follow the law of unintended consequences.
This is an administration of chickenhawk policymakers and leaders who have never met a war they didn’t weasel their way out of, and who seem to be trying to compensate for their youthful cowardice and lack of patriotism by displays of wanton violance and aggression. If they aren't stopped, they could well be responsible for losing a few more American cities by the time Bush's second term mercifully ends.
Word that Iran has plans to retaliate abroad with secret commando units should give pause to the neo-con hotheads in the Bush administration who are slavering for war against the Middle East's most formidable military power.
The fantasy prevailing in the White House and the Pentagon (and among some pandering Democrats in Congress) is that the U.S. can cripple Iran's nascent nuclear weapons development program by aerial bombardment of its enrichment facilities and scientific centers, and that this can be done at little cost or risk to the U.S.
In fact, the doctrine of legitimate response to attack gives Iran a wide range of responses to any attack, which should make Americans very leery about playing such games.
If the U.S. were to bomb an Iranian nuclear power facility, Iran would have the legal right to do the same to vulnerable American nuclear facilities. And while the U.S. might do its attacking with B-52 bombers, stealth aircraft or missiles, Iran could accomplish the same thing with trained commando units. Furthermore, under the international laws of war, if the commandos wore uniforms during their assault on U.S. facilities, they would have to be considered legitimate soldiers fighting for their country. The president would not be able to simply call them enemy combatants and order their fingernails ripped out.
Nor would he be able to accuse them of war crimes for spewing nuclear fallout across vast stretches of the United States, if our own attack on Iranian nuclear facilities did the same thing there.
Well, let me correct that. This president has made it abundantly clear that he doesn't give a rat’s ass about international law, so he could declare captured Iranian commandos terrorists, deny them POW status, and start the torture he is so fond of, but he'd only make more enemies by so blatantly flaunting international law.
Meanwhile, Iran would not be limited to attacking U.S. nuclear facilities. If the U.S. were to attack Iranian territory, it would be as much an act of war as was the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and it would enable Iran to respond in kind against any legitimate U.S. target, which could include U.S. shipping (including the targeting of oil tankers in the Persian Gulf bound for the U.S. or for U.S. allies), port facilities, transport centers like airports and rail stations, factories, oil storage facilities, chemical plants, etc. Civilian casualties? Well, as the Pentagon is wont to say, those are just unfortunate side effects—collateral damage, you might say. Iran could also turn the U.S. occupation force in Iraq into sitting ducks for attack by its allies, the Shiites in Iraq, whose forces already demonstrated their courage and capabilities in an earlier uprising against U.S. forces early in the occupation. This time, they'd have overt Iranian assistance and weapons.
During the days leading up to the Iraq war, the same warning was made about Iraq, but clearly, the Iraqi government, hobbled by years of sanctions, and massively unpopular at home, was in no position to mount such a counterstrike campaign against the U.S. The whole White House story about Iraq’s posing a threat to America was a big lie. But Iran is another story. Not only does it have a battle-tested army of some 800,000 people, and plenty of arms and money, thanks to its being the second largest oil exporter in the world. It also has a democratically elected government that--whether we like it or not-- has the support of a large segment of the population.
Add to that the fact of Iranian nationalism. Where Iraq is basically a hodgepodge of tribes and ethnicities cobbled together by British colonial rulers and then held together by the use of state terror and brute force, Iran is an ancient civilization and culture with an intense sense of national pride and identity. Attack Iran, and the U.S. will instantly galvanize most Iranians--even those who may despise the current theocratic leadership--into blood enemies of America.
That is the kind of enemy that can successfully mount covert campaigns against this country.
Surely no one wants to see yet another country in an unstable region acquiring nuclear weapons, but the solution is not the Bush default of war, which Iraq and Afghanistan have shown us tends to follow the law of unintended consequences.
This is an administration of chickenhawk policymakers and leaders who have never met a war they didn’t weasel their way out of, and who seem to be trying to compensate for their youthful cowardice and lack of patriotism by displays of wanton violance and aggression. If they aren't stopped, they could well be responsible for losing a few more American cities by the time Bush's second term mercifully ends.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)