@@ WWIII or Bust: Implications of a U.S. attack on Iran @@
Arash
February 18, 2006
WWIII or Bust: Implications of a U.S. Attack on Iran
"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply
ridiculous... Having said that, all options are on the table" -- George W. Bush,
February 2005.
By Heather Wokusch
crgeditor[AT]yahoo.com
Witnessing the Bush administration's drive for an attack on Iran is like being a
passenger in a car with a raving drunk at the wheel. Reports of impending doom
surfaced a year ago, but now it's official: under orders from Vice President Cheney's
office, the Pentagon has developed "last resort" aerial-assault plans using
long-distance B2 bombers and submarine-launched ballistic missiles with both
conventional and nuclear weapons.
How ironic that the Pentagon proposes using nuclear weapons on the pretext of
protecting the world from nuclear weapons. Ironic also that Iran has complied with
its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), allowing inspectors to "GO
ANYWHERE and SEE ANYTHING", yet those pushing for an attack, the USA and Israel, have
not. [1] [2] [3]
The nuclear threat from Iran is hardly urgent. As the Washington Post reported in
August 2005, the latest consensus among U.S. intelligence agencies is that "Iran is
about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon,
roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years". [4]
The Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) estimated that while Iran
could have a bomb by 2009 at the earliest, the U.S. intelligence community assumed
technical difficulties would cause "significantly delay". [5]
The director of Middle East Studies at Brown University and a specialist in Middle
Eastern energy economics both called the State Department's claims of a proliferation
threat from Iran's Bushehr reactor "demonstrably false", concluding that "the
physical evidence for a nuclear weapons program in Iran simply does not exist". [6]
[7] [8]
So there's no urgency - just a bad case of déją vu all over again.
The Bush administration is recycling its hype over Saddam's supposed WMD threat into
rhetoric about Iran, but look where the charade got us last time: tens of thousands
of dead Iraqi civilians, a country teetering on civil war and increased global
terrorism.
Yet the stakes in Iran are arguably much higher.
Consider that many in the U.S. and Iran seek religious salvation through a Middle
Eastern blowout. "End times" Christian fundamentalists believe a cataclysmic
Armageddon will enable the Messiah to reappear and transport them to heaven, leaving
behind Muslims and other non-believers to face plagues and violent death.
Iran's new Shia Islam president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, subscribes to a competing
version of the messianic comeback, whereby the skies turn to flames and blood flows
in a final showdown of good and evil. The Hidden Imam returns, bringing world peace
by establishing Islam as the global religion.
Both the U.S. and Iran have presidents who arguably see themselves as divinely chosen
and who covet their own country's apocalypse-seeking fundamentalist voters. And into
this tinderbox Bush proposes bringing nuclear weapons.
As expected, the usual suspects press for a U.S. attack on Iran. Neo-cons who brought
us the "cakewalk" of Iraq want to bomb the country. There's also Defense Secretary
Rumsfeld, busy coordinating the action plan against Iran, who just released the
Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review calling for U.S. forces to "operate around the
globe" in an infinite "long war". One can assume Rumsfeld wants to bomb a lot of
countries. [9]
There's also Israel, keen that no other country in the region gains access to nuclear
weapons. In late 2002, former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Iran should be
targeted "the day after" Iraq was subdued. [10]
And Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the Likud Party, recently warned that if he wins
the presidential race in March 2006, Israel will "do what we did in the past against
Saddam's reactor", an obvious reference to the 1981 bombing of the Osirak nuclear
facility in Iraq. [11]
In the eyes of the Bush administration, however, Iran's worst transgression has less
to do with nuclear ambitions than with the petro-euro oil bourse Tehran is slated to
open in March 2006. Iran's plan to allow oil trading in Euros threatens to break the
dollar's monopoly as the global reserve currency, and since the greenback is severely
overvalued due to huge trade deficits, the move could be devastating for the U.S.
economy. [12]
So we remain pedal to the metal with Bush for an attack on Iran.
But what if the U.S. does go ahead and launch an assault in the coming months? The
Pentagon has already identified 450 strategic targets, some of which are underground
and would require the use of nuclear weapons to destroy. What happens then?
You can bet that Iran would retaliate. Tehran promised a "crushing response" to any
U.S. or Israeli attack, and while the country - ironically - doesn't possess nuclear
weapons to scare off attackers, it does have other options. Iran boasts ground forces
estimated at 800,000 personnel, as well as long-range missiles that could hit Israel
and possibly even Europe.
In addition, much of the world's oil supply is transported through the Strait of
Hormuz, a narrow stretch of Persian Gulf. In 1997, Iran's deputy foreign minister
warned that the country might close off that shipping route if ever threatened, and
it wouldn't be difficult. Just a few missiles or gunboats could bring down vessels
and block the Strait of Hormuz, thereby threatening the global oil supply and
shooting energy prices into the stratosphere.
An attack on Iran would also inflame tensions in the Middle East, especially
provoking the Shia Muslim populations. Considering that Shias largely run the
governments of Iran and Iraq and are a potent force in Saudi Arabia, that doesn't
bode well for calm in the region. It would incite the Lebanese Hezbollah, an ally of
Iran's, potentially sparking increased global terrorism. A Shia rebellion in Iraq
would further endanger U.S. troops and push the country deeper into civil war.
Attacking Iran could also tip the scales towards a new geopolitical balance, one in
which the U.S. finds itself shut out by Russia, China, Iran, Muslim countries and the
many others Bush has managed to piss off during his period in office. Just last
month, Russia snubbed Washington by announcing it would go ahead and honor a $700
million contract to arm Iran with surface-to-air missiles, slated to guard Iran's
nuclear facilities. And after being burned when the US-led Coalition Provisional
Authority invalidated Saddam-era oil deals, China has snapped up strategic energy
contracts across the world, including in Latin America, Canada and Iran. It can be
assumed that China will not sit idly by and watch Tehran fall to the Americans.
Russia and China have developed strong ties recently, both with each other and with
Iran. Each possesses nuclear weapons, and arguably more threatening to the U.S., each
holds large reserves of U.S. dollars which can be dumped in favor of Euros. Bush
crosses them at his nation's peril.
Yet another danger is that an attack on Iran could set off a global arms race - if
the U.S. flaunts the non-proliferation treaty and goes nuclear, there would be little
incentive for other countries to abide by global disarmament agreements either.
Besides, the Bush administration's message to its enemies has been very clear: if you
possess WMD you're safe, and if you don't, you're fair game. Iraq had no nuclear
weapons and was invaded, Iran doesn't as well and risks attack, yet that other "Axis
of Evil" country, North Korea, reportedly does have nuclear weapons and is left
alone. It’s also hard to justify striking Iran over its allegedly developing a secret
nuclear weapons program, when India and Pakistan (and presumably Israel) did the same
thing and remain on good terms with Washington.
The most horrific impact of a U.S. assault on Iran, of course, would be the
potentially catastrophic number of casualties. The Oxford Research Group predicted
that up to 10,000 people would die if the U.S. bombed Iran's nuclear sites, and that
an attack on the Bushehr nuclear reactor could send a radioactive cloud over the
Persian Gulf. If the U.S. uses nuclear weapons, such as earth-penetrating "bunker
buster" bombs, radioactive fallout would become even more disastrous. [13]
Given what's at stake, few allies, apart from Israel, can be expected to support a
U.S. attack on Iran. While Jacques Chirac has blustered about using his nukes
defensively, it's doubtful that France would join an unprovoked assault, and even
loyal allies, such as the UK, prefer going through the UN Security Council.
Which means the wildcard is Turkey. The nation shares a border with Iran, and
according to Noam Chomsky, is heavily supported by the domestic Israeli lobby in
Washington, permitting 12% of the Israeli air and tank force to be stationed in its
territory. [14]
Turkey's crucial role in an attack on Iran explains why there's been a spurt of
high-level U.S. visitors to Ankara lately, including Secretary of State Condoleeza
Rice, FBI Director Robert Mueller and CIA Director Porter Goss. In fact, the German
newspaper Der Spiegel reported in December 2005 that Goss had told the Turkish
government it would be "informed of any possible air strikes against Iran a few hours
before they happened" and that Turkey had been given a "green light" to attack camps
of the separatist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) in Iran "on the day in question".
[15]
It's intriguing that both Valerie Plame (the CIA agent whose identity was leaked to
the media after her husband criticized the Bush administration's pre-invasion
intelligence on Iraq) and Sibel Edmonds (the former FBI translator who turned
whistleblower) have been linked to exposing intelligence breaches relating to Turkey,
including potential nuclear trafficking. And now both women are effectively silenced.
[16] [17] [18] [19]
The U.S. public sees the issue of Iran as backburner, and has little eagerness for an
attack on the country at this time. A USA Today/CNN Gallup Poll from early February
2006 found that a full 86% of respondents favored either taking no action or using
economic/diplomatic efforts towards Iran for now. Significantly, 69% said they were
concerned "that the U.S. will be too quick to use military force in an attempt to
prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons". [20] [21]
And that begs the question: how can the U.S. public be convinced to enter a
potentially ugly and protracted war in Iran?
A domestic terrorist attack would do the trick. Just consider how long Congress went
back and forth over reauthorizing Bush's Patriot Act, but how quickly opposing
senators capitulated following last week's nerve-agent scare in a Senate building.
The scare turned out to be a false alarm, but the Patriot Act got the support it
needed.
Now consider the fact that former CIA Officer Philip Giraldi has said the Pentagon's
plans to attack Iran were drawn up "to be employed in response to another 9/11-type
terrorist attack on the United States". Writing in The American Conservative in
August 2005, Giraldi added, "As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional
on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United
States". [22]
Chew on that one a minute. The Pentagon's plan should be used in response to a
terrorist attack on the U.S., yet is not contingent upon Iran actually having been
responsible. How outlandish is this scenario: another 9/11 hits the U.S., the
administration says it has secret information implicating Iran, the U.S. population
demands retribution and bombs start dropping on Tehran.
That's the worst-case scenario, but even the best case doesn't look good. Let's say
the Bush administration chooses the UN Security Council (UNSC) over military power in
dealing with Iran. That still leaves the proposed oil bourse, along with the economic
fallout that will occur if OPEC countries snub the greenback in favor of petro-euros.
At the very least, the dollar will drop and inflation could soar, so you'd think the
administration would be busy tightening the nation's collective belt. But no. The
U.S. trade deficit reached a record high of $725.8 billion in 2005, and Bush & Co.'s
FY 2007 budget proposes increasing deficits by $192 billion over the next five years.
The nation is hemorhaging roughly $7 billion a month on military operations in
Afghanistan and Iraq, and is expected to hit its debt ceiling of $8.184 trillion next
month.
So the white-knuckle ride to war continues, with the administration's goals in Iran
very clear. Recklessly naļve and impetuous perhaps, but clear: stop the petro-euro
oil bourse, take over Iran's Khuzestan Province (which borders Iraq and has 90% of
Iran's oil) and secure the Straits of Hormuz in the process.
As U.S. politician Newt Gingrich recently put it, Iranians cannot be trusted with
nuclear technology, and they also "cannot be trusted with their oil". [23]
But the Bush administration cannot be trusted with foreign policy. Its military
adventurism has already proven disastrous across the globe. It's incumbent upon each
of us to do whatever we can to stop this race towards war.
* Originally from California, Heather Wokusch spent many years in Asia and Europe and
through her travels has developed a unique perspective on the world and its people.
With a background in clinical psychology, she works as a free-lance writer and
cross-cultural trainer. Her writing has been featured across the web and in
periodicals internationally.
Notes:
--------
[1] Text of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)
http://www.un.org/events/npt2005/npttreaty.html
[2] Dr. James Gordon Prather, an American nuclear weapons physicist, and former
nuclear bomb tester at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and former
technical director of nuclear bomb testing at Sandia National Laboratory, and also
former Chief scientist of the U.S. Army, explains in dozens of articles that Iran has
an absolute right under the NPT to do what it has been doing, and all the western
claims against Iran are lies, and the western medias are repeating those lies over
and over again. In fact Dr. Prather explains that the West is obligated under the NPT
to provide technological assistance to Iran, and by not doing that the West itself is
in violation of the NPT. Furthermore, Dr. Prather explains that all nuclear-armed
nations are in full violation NPT by not disarming.
http://www.antiwar.com/prather/
[3] "Article VI" of the NPT (containing the 13-steps) requires all nuclear-armed
nations to disarm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13_steps
[4]. Dafna Linzer. "Iran Is Judged 10 Years From Nuclear Bomb". Washington Post.
August 2, 2005.
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/f3876e7c0b3ca92b
[5]. David Albright & Corey Hinderstein. "Iran’s Next Steps: Final Tests and the
Construction of a Uranium Enrichment Plant". Institute for Science and International
Security. January 12, 2006.
http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iran/irancascade.pdf [PDF - 90KB]
[6]. William O. Beeman & Thomas Stauffer. "Is Iran Building Nukes? An Analysis".
Pacific News Service. June 26, 2003.
http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=1b68abecee07b0cb8cf9ed0bc9de5954
[7]. William O. Beeman & Thomas Stauffer. "Is Iran Building Nukes? An Economic
Analysis". Pacific News Service. June 27, 2003.
http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=7188562b68f4f8f71e7b57ee599db3f5
[8]. William O. Beeman. "U.S. Instigated Iran's Nuclear Program 30 Years Ago".
Pacific News Service. January 30, 2006.
http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=ac517cce4e1b80d6fa76f4089315a243
[9]. Ann Scott Tyson. "Ability to Wage 'Long War' Is Key To Pentagon Plan".
Washington Post. February 4, 2006.
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/fb8cff41d1bca73b
[10]. Stephen Farrell, Robert Thomson & Danielle Haas. "Attack Iran the Day Iraq War
Ends, Demands Israel". The Times UK. November 5, 2002.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1105-02.htm
[11]. Norman Solomon. "Israel's Future Leader?". AlterNet. January 6, 2006.
http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/30491/
[12]. William Clark. "The Real Reasons Why Iran is the Next Target: The Emerging
Euro-denominated International Oil Marker". Global Research. October 27, 2004.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CLA410A.html
[13]. Paul Rogers, "Iran: Consequences of a War". Oxford Research Group. February
2006.
http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/briefings/IranConsequences.htm
[14] Noam Chomsky. “Axis of Evil: Turkey, Israel, and United States". Armenian
National Committee Forum on U.S. Policy in West-Central Asia. June 7, 2002.
http://www.armenianreporteronline.com/old/29062002/ne-evil.htm
[15] "Is Washington Planning a Military Strike?" Der Spiegel. December 30, 2005.
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,392783,00.html
[16] Plame affair (CIA leak scandal)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair
[17] Valerie Elise Plame Wilson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame
[18] Sibel Dinez Edmonds
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibel_Edmonds
[19] Christian Nicholson. "Turkish espionage in America". International Relations
Center. October 17, 2005.
Widespread criminal activity involving Turkish nationals, linked by transnational
criminal networks and engaged in clandestine contraband of all sorts—including drugs,
weapons, and nuclear materials.
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/38a87c77196a87bc
[20]. Jim Lobe. In Public's Eyes, Iran Biggest Foreign Menace. Inter Press Service.
February 9, 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/38882ea86e74bead
[21].USA Todat/CNN Gallup Poll. February 13, 2006.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/2006-02-13-poll.htm
[22]. Philip Giraldi. "Deep Background". The American Conservative. August 1, 2005.
http://www.amconmag.com/2005_08_01/article3.html
[23]. "Interview: Newt Gingrich warns of war with Iran". Human Events magazine.
February 10, 2006
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=12188
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=WOK20060219&articleId=2002