@@ Why America will reap the worst in Iran @@
Arash
February 19, 2006
Why America will reap the worst in Iran
At a time when nuclear material—including red mercury and different forms of
uranium—were flowing in the streets of Pakistan, a high ranking Pakistani official,
working in the Iranian consulate, told this writer that Iran is obtaining smuggled
nuclear material from its field commanders in Afghanistan. It was well before the
nuclear testing by India and Pakistan took place. Keeping this fact in mind, it is
simply naïve to assume that the United States or Israel will launch an un-provoked
war of aggression on Iran, and Iran will remain a sitting duck and not retaliate with
what it must have refined and retooled since mid-nineties.
By Abid Ullah Jan
director[AT]icssa.org
Many anti-war analysts believe that Iran has no nuclear weapons program in place and
no one has ever produced a shred of credible evidence to the contrary. Yet they fear
that the Bush administration’s spurious accusations and subsequent war will lead to a
wider World War.
If Iran has no nuclear weapons, as concludes Mohammed El-Baradei the respected chief
of the IAEA, the war on Iran, in itself, will not lead to the speculated World War 3.
It will only worsen the situation worldwide. Instead of directly ending up in a World
War, the war on Iran will only become a next phase in spreading the World War that is
already on without our realizing that we are passing through its initial phases. [1]
On the other hand, a false assumption that Iran has no nuclear weapons will, in fact,
quickly engulf many more countries and take the World War that is already on to a
quick climax. [2]
Under-estimating Iran’s nuclear capacity is pushing the extremists in Washington into
launching a war that the U.S. administration has been planning since a long time. The
IAEA’s inspections and confirmation that Iran has no nuclear weapons and there is no
nuclear program in operation are no different than the confirmation by the United
Nations weapons inspectors in Iraq that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction.
Confirmation of the absence of weapons actually led to the United States' final
decision to launch a war of aggression on Iraq.
This time around, the United States is in for a big trouble. It is attacking Iran,
not for the reason that it has, or it is planning to have nuclear weapons, but only
because it has assumed that Iran is years away from producing nuclear weapons.
Many analysts believe that an attack on Iran will turn into a World War because the
Iranian government has a long-range strategy for "asymmetrical" warfare that will
disrupt the flow of oil and challenge American interests around the world.
Certainly, if one is facing an implacable enemy that is committed to "regime change"
there is no reason to hold back on doing what is necessary to defeat that adversary.
However, the main reason for escalation of the conflict will be exactly the
assumption on the part of the United States, Israel and Britain that Iran cannot
respond with nuclear weapons.
At a time when nuclear material—including red mercury and different forms of
Uranium—were flowing in the streets of Pakistan, a high ranking Pakistani official,
working in the Iranian consulate, told this writer that Iran is obtaining smuggled
nuclear material from its field commanders in Afghanistan. It was well before the
nuclear testing by India and Pakistan took place. Keeping this fact in mind, it is
simply naïve to assume that the United States or Israel will launch an un-provoked
war of aggression on Iran, and Iran will remain a sitting duck and not retaliate with
what it must have refined and retooled since mid-nineties. [3]
Even if we assume that the Iranian government purchased nuclear material without any
intention of putting it to use, it is highly unlikely that it will still let this
material gather dust while it is being openly and seriously threatened by the United
States and Israel.
If scientists in Germany and the United States could work to develop nuclear weapons
from scratch during the World War II, how long will it take a nation pushed against
the wall and with all the ingredients available to put something workable together
and retaliate with a bang?
So, the practical chances of Iran’s retaliation with a nuclear weapon in the face of
a war of aggression imposed on it are far more than the theoretical assumptions that
Iranian Intelligence will plan covert operations which will be carried out in the
event of an unprovoked attack on their facilities.
It is true that a nuclear response from Iran would mean a definite suicide when
looked in perspective of the nuclear power of the United States and Iran. But it also
doesn’t make any sense that the United States would keep bombing Iran, the way it has
planned, into the Stone Age, yet despite being able to respond, Iran will simply turn
the other cheek.
This chain of inevitable reactions will in fact lead a wider conflagration that the
warlords in Washington and Tel Aviv have not even imagined.
Emboldened by their adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq, and deluded by the IAEA
conclusion that Iraq has no nuclear weapons, the warlords are set to go into a war
that will definitely lead to massive bloodshed in the Middle East and the downfall of
the United States as we see it.
Despite Bush and company’s claims that the world is not the same after 9/11, the
world remained more or less the same after 9/11. However, their world will surely
turn upside down with their miscalculation of going into a third war of aggression in
five years.
The Russian and Chinese stakes in this issue cannot be ignored altogether. Attacking
Iran would prove too much for Russia and China. Russia has 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 both China and Russia will not
sit idly by and watch Iran being annihilated by the United States.
If Iran is attacked with lethal force, it will retaliate with the utmost force
available at its disposal; that much is certain.
Remembering my discussion 9 year ago with a well informed source who was working for
the Iranian government, I am pretty sure that the utmost force in the hands of Iran
definitely includes nuclear weapons. One of the signs for that is the confidence with
which the Iranian government responds to U.S. threats.
Iranian leaders have acted responsibly and reasonably so far. It is always the
mistake of extremists to misjudge the behavior of reasonable men.
The Iranians tried to avoid purchasing nuclear material from the Pakistani black
market to avoid arousing unnecessary suspicion. They kept their nuclear program
limited to energy production. It is the United States and its allies which are
provoking it into reaction.
As a result, it has been a mistake of reasonable men in Iran to mistake the behavior
of extremists in Washington and not getting out of NPT or testing a few nuclear
devices to balance its power against its enemies.
Many analysts are predicting that attack on Iran will be provoked because a majority
of Americans are not in favor of a new war. Although setting up a pre-text for
domestic support cannot be ruled out, one can say with certainty from the track
record of Bush and company that they will hardly bother to engineer another terrorist
attack. [4]
In the fits of madness, they have already made themselves believe that they have
enough justification to wage a war or aggression on Iran.
The Washington Times has already started beating war drums and promoting "policy
experts" who believe the U.S. must go alone if needed. [5] Irrespective of any
pretext and going alone or in a coalition of barbarians, the signs tell us that the
warlords are not going to relinquish their totalitarian dreams.
It is very unfortunate on their part that they are putting their hands in hornet nest
where they may get stung with nuclear weapons. Their retaliation, for sure, will lead
to total disaster. A disaster, far worse than what the title "World War 3" can
convey.
* Abid Ullah Jan is a Canada-based noted analyst and author of "The End of Democracy"
and "A War on Islam?" He is affiliated with Independent Centre for Strategic Studies
and Analysis (ICSSA). Abid Ullah Jan's latest book, "The Musharraf Factor"
(http://icssa.org/musharraf_factor2.html) was released in December 2005. His book,
"Afghanistan: The Genesis of the Final Crusade" will be released shortly.
Notes:
---------
[1]. Beginning of the Final World War
http://icssa.org/ICSS%20-%20waronIslam.beginning_of_final.htm
[2]. The world war is on http://icssa.org/ICSS%20-%20waronIslam.world_war_is_on.htm
[3]. Mocking Pakistan's nuclear capacity http://www.icssa.org/mocking_pakistan.htm
[4]. WWIII or Bust: Implications of a U.S. attack on Iran
http://www.montrealmuslimnews.net/iranheather.htm
[5]. U.S. may have to go it alone in Iran
http://washingtontimes.com/upi/20060203-044418-1878r.htm