The Inevitable War with Iran  

By Mike Whitney

Al-Jazeerah, September 24, 2005

 

“Since the result of any referral of the Iran issue to the Security
Council is all but guaranteed, the push by the EU-3 to have the IAEA refer
Iran to the Security Council, while rooted in the language of diplomacy, is
really nothing less than an act of war.” Scott Ritter; Chief
Weapons-inspector

If Washington wants a war with Iran, then there’ll be a war with Iran.
That’s the great lesson of the Iraq war; once the decision is made, there’s
no turning back.

So, why are the main-players; England, France and Germany stumbling over
themselves trying to placate Bush as though the conflict can be avoided?
Threatening to bring Iran before the Security Council won’t alter the
administrations plans one bit. In fact, it will probably only strengthen
their case. Bush will use the flimsiest of reasons for initiating
hostilities, so, the EU-3 should skip the frantic diplomacy and stop doing
Washington’s bidding. Like the Downing Street memo stated, “The facts and
intelligence are being fit to meet the policy”. It’s the same here. No
amount of groveling from the EU-3 will appease Bush once Tehran is in its
crosshairs. The Big-3 would be better off sending arms and ammo to Iran so
the people can defend themselves once the bombs start dropping.
The implications of a preemptive war against Iran are appalling. The
Islamic state has no nuclear weapons, no nuclear weapons-program, and
there’s no proof that it plans to develop nuclear weapons in the future. In
other words, the US is planning an attack against a nation that does not
even meet its minimal requirements for preemptive war. Iran is no threat to
anyone. It does, however, sit on vast reserves of oil and natural gas; a
consideration that may have factored heavily into the battle-strategy.
There is no moral or legal justification for such a war, just as there
was no moral or legal justification for the invasion of Iraq.

Nevertheless, I believe that the decision to attack Iran was made long
ago, perhaps even before the Iraq war; and that that will be carried out in
the very near future. The last obstacle was the German elections.

The German elections?

The administration believed that Ms. Angela Merkel would win a hands-down
victory; putting a fellow neocon in the drivers-seat of Europe’s largest
economy. It would be like having Maggie Thatcher in Bonn. Merkel could be
counted on to support the expansion of NATO (which is, to say, the extension
of American power), to dismantle the social-welfare system, energize the
privatization processes, quash the movement for an independent EU military,
strengthen ties with the US and Israel, and disrupt European solidarity. All
this fits within the Washington neocon vision of a balkanized, free-market
Europe operating as a subordinate to its US overlords.

If the US or Israel had attacked Iran before the German elections, Ms.
Merkel, who has promised to rebuild ties with America, would have taken a
nosedive in the polls. As it turns out, the election results were
inconclusive and will probably have no affect the storm clouds that are
gathering over Tehran. Events can be expected to move swiftly from this
point on.

The media has already begun the steady drum-beat of specious charges aimed
at the Islamic government. The major news-providers (New York Times, AP,
Washington Post, Night Ridder etc) are describing Iran as “defiant” and
“thumbing their nose” at the world community, or, worse, “out of compliance”
with prior agreements. Their new Iranian president is described as a
“hardliner” who is “fiercely anti-American” These claims are normally
accompanied by quotes from unidentified sources who refer to a fictional
nuclear-weapons program that is just months away from developing the bomb.
It’s all 100% bunkum. In fact, the world community is not troubled by
Iran’s nuclear program at all. It is only the US who would like to use the
allegations that rattle-through the propaganda system to justify another
preemptive war.

Unlike the US, Iran does not have a history of territorial aggression, is
not involved in massively-destabilizing colonial wars, does not abduct
civilians from other sovereign nations and torture them in foreign prisons,
does not erect monuments to human cruelty (Guantanamo) and fill them with
members of a target-religion.

Iran has no nuclear weapons program. That is not simply my contention,
but the judgment of the foremost nuclear inspections team in the world; the
IAEA. (International Atomic Energy Agency) It was the IAEA that consistently
disputed the erroneous claims by the Bush administration that Saddam was
developing a nuclear weapons capacity. No such program existed and there is
considerable proof that the US knew the charges were false.

For the last two years, Iran has willingly undergone the strictest regime
of “go-anywhere see anything” inspections of any nation in the history of
the IAEA. They have consistently received a clean bill-of-health from the
chairman of the watchdog agency, Mohammed ElBaradei. Even now Iran is eager
to admit the IAEA inspectors to all suspect locations; allowing them to set
up their permanent video-cameras, so they can assure the global community
that they are complying with the terms of the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty)
What Iran refuses to do, and what every sovereign nation should refuse to
do, is accept rules mandated by the United States especially designed for
Iran. That is precisely what is happening at present. Iran is IN COMPLETE
COMPLIANCE WITH ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE TERMS OF THE NPT.(according to the
IAEA) The Bush team is demanding is that they forgo the conversion of
nuclear fuel to be used for peaceful purposes in the production of nuclear
energy for power plants. (This conversion process does not create
Weapons-grade plutonium) This is their right under the terms of the treaty.
For Iran to accept less than what they agreed upon destroys the meaning of
the treaty, creates an apartheid-system of compliance, and is a national
humiliation.

Why would Iran accept such an obvious double-standard while the US is
busy building a new regime of bunker-busting nuclear weapons and threatening
to use them preemptively on Washington’s myriad enemies?

The Pretext for War

Presently, the Bush administration is busy working the diplomacy track
to see if they can obtain some fig-leaf of legitimacy for their war plans.
Operating behind their allies in the EU-3, the US is using a two-pronged
strategy. One the one hand, they are trying to “persuade the 35 member IAEA
to adopt a consensus resolution singling out Iran for censure by the
Security Council in New York”. On the other hand, they are attempting to
persuade the IAEA to endorse an EU draft that Iran is in noncompliance with
the NPT. Both “censure” and “noncompliance” have been blocked by a newly
formed coalition of Russia, China, India and many of the non-aligned nations
that refuse to allow the resolutions to move forward. Washington’s shabby
attempt at diplomacy has run into a rock wall and looks to be going nowhere.
Whether the administration will continue in this vein is anyone’s guess, but
the mad-scramble for international legitimacy has temporarily fallen on hard
times.

Mission Objectives

The administration’s goals in attacking Iran are simple and
straightforward. They hope to control Iran’s vast petroleum and natural gas
reserves, disarm a regional rival to Israel, prevent Iran from opening its
own market for trading oil in petro-euros, and manage the global energy
market to maintain US dominance over rising powers like India and China.
These can be achieved by putting the regions’ resources under US control.
Whatever strategy the Pentagon has in mind, it certainly won’t duplicate
the disaster it created in Iraq. Israel will probably lead the assault
taking out the potential nuclear sites with the US close behind in a mop-up
role; bombing the 45 chemical, biological and conventional weapons
facilities. This will ensure that Iran will be effectively de-fanged well
into the future. Needless to say, the margin for error is significant.
At the end of the day, the US will need to invade the oil-rich Ahwaz
region (perhaps, 90% of Iran’s oil) and create the rationale for a long-term
occupation of the area. There’s no plan to deal with the 70 million Iranians
who live beyond that region, although there will probably be an attempt to
decapitate the leadership via cruise missiles or air-strikes.
Time is Running out

There are many signs that the US is drawing closer to a war with Iran.
Numerous reports indicate that the military is conducting routine fly-overs
of Iran, as well as providing support to the disparate terrorist
organizations (MEK) that are fomenting rebellion on the ground.
Just this week, Secretary Rumsfeld suggested that Iran was behind the
street violence that erupted in Basra when two undercover commandos were
arrested by Iraqi police. Rumsfeld snappishly opined that Iran’s involvement
was “not helpful”.

Rumsfeld’s claims are absurd. The riot that broke out when 10 British
tanks and armored vehicles crushed the walls surrounding the Basra jail had
nothing to do with Iran. It was a purely spontaneous reaction to the misuse
of force.

Weeks earlier, Rumsfeld made similar allegations about arms that had
been captured in house-to-house searches. “It is true,” he said, “that
weapons clearly, unambiguously, from Iran have been found in Iraq.”

Clear to whom?

We don’t need to reiterate the litany of Rumsfeld’s fabrications to
acknowledge that his claims are suspect and probably designed to expand the
regional war.

Why would Iran want to increase the ongoing chaos in Iraq? Does it help
Iran to have an unstable neighbor where, at any moment, the war could spill
over its borders?
Or do the Mullahs simply have a death-wish and long to be nuked by the
United States?
Rumsfeld’s is mistaken; Iran does not want a war.

Cheney’s Nuclear Review

A leaked document from the CIA attracted considerable attention two
months ago. Under orders from Vice president Dick Cheney STRATCOM
(Strategic Command) drew up contingency plans for a “large scale air assault
on Iran employing both conventional an nuclear weapons.” Understandably, the
document caused quite a flap leaving many to conclude that the
administration was considering a preemptive nuclear strike on Iran.
Surprisingly, the “leak” never produced the expected recriminations from the
White House. Bush and Cheney simply ignored its appearance as though it
never happened.

Was it a planned leak?

Similarly, just last week all the major news outlets ran stories about
the Pentagon’s draft of a US nuclear doctrine that spells out conditions
under which US commanders might seek approval to “preemptively” use nuclear
weapons. The document entitled "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations" was
prepared for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and sent shock-waves through the
country.

Would the Pentagon really execute a first-strike initiative against a
non-nuclear country?

What country would be the likely target of such an attack?
The answer is almost too obvious to mention.
Iran. (The document by the way, has been mysteriously “disappeared” from
the Pentagon site)

Both of these examples suggest that Washington is trying to send a strong
message to Tehran that the US will respond with overwhelming (nuclear) force
if Iran retaliates after the upcoming “surgical-strikes”. It is a clever
strategy that offers nearby Israel (who will presumably lead the attack)
some insurance that Iran will not strike back.

But, Iran will strike back; that much is certain. And, of course, Iran
has every right to retaliate if it is bombed in an unprovoked act of
aggression.

The principles involved in an Iranian response are clear enough but they
are worth reviewing none the less.

Whatever one may think of the repressive Islamic regime, its right to
defend itself against unprovoked hostilities cannot be challenged. Thus,
Iran will be defending the principles of sovereignty, self-determination,
borders, and the right to live in peace with its neighbors without the
threat of attack. These principles are the foundation-blocks upon which the
current world order rests. They are worth fighting and dying for, as we
shall soon discover.

I believe that the Mullahs will honor their obligation to defend their
people if they are attacked and will act accordingly.

The history of warfare is a dismal chronicle of fatal blunders. The
administration can avoid this catastrophe, but I don’t think they will

<