If one had been watching or (for those worshipers of relics) reading the news of late, one could easily be forgiven for being wholly unaware of the numerous signs pointing ominously to an eventual, if not imminent, preemptive, regime-changing attack by the United States and its proxies upon Iran. What with all of the legal maneuvering over where to bury Ana Nicole Smith's rapidly decaying body, combined with the rampant speculation as to Brittany's motivations for shaving her head, there simply hasn't been either time or space for such pedestrian fare as the latest preemptive war by the U.S. Nevertheless, if one were to read beyond the front page of any given news publication, and if one were inclined to connect the dots, one might find some startling, indeed dismaying clues of America's gradual but unmistakable preparations for war with Iran.
In January 2007, during his prime time address to the nation, ostensibly to sell the country on his 'surge' snake oil, President Bush declared that a second carrier group led by the USS John Stennis had been deployed to the Persian Gulf. This week, Newsweek is reporting that yet a third carrier strike group is bound for the Persian Gulf. Furthermore, and as reported by Seymour Hersh in the most recent New Yorker, the Pentagon is devising attack plans against Iran which can be implemented within twenty-four hours of Bush's command. And, as reported in the London Daily Telegraph, Israel is negotiating with the U.S. for permission to use Iraqi air space in order to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. Tellingly, Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert has also vested control of all military aspects of an attack on Iran with the head of the Israeli Air Force.
Finally, in a bit of news completely missed by the Fourth Estate, the U.S. Diplomatic Mission to Italy, reported something interesting on its webpage on February 22, 2007. On that date, Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried told reporters at the Washington Foreign Press Center that ten U.S. ballistic missile interceptors in Poland, as well as tracking radar positioned in the Czech Republic, are not targeting Russia. As it turns out, the intended target is Iran. According to Lieutenant General Henry Obering, director of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency, the U.S. wants to have ballistic missile defenses in place by 2013. Apparently, that is the earliest that the U.S. expects Iran to have missiles with sufficient range to pose a threat to the U.S.
The ramping up of military preparations to preemptively attack Iran is, of course, a perfectly anticipated response to Bush's own declarations, breathlessly stamped with the imprimatur of the venerable New York Times, that the 'highest levels' of the Iranian government are involved in supplying weapons used to kill and maim innocent and virtuous American soldiers in Iraq. In fact, as reported by the BBC earlier this month, a high-casualty attack on U.S. forces in Iraq would trigger a U.S. response if it were proven that Iran was involved. As noted by Rep. Dennis Kucinich in The Nation, such a scenario would, under the 1973 War Powers Resolution, provide Bush with the authority to attack Iran while circumventing a new but only slightly less acquiescent Congress.
The other trigger reported by the BBC - confirmation that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon.
Iran's Alleged Support of Iraqi Insurgents
Problems abound regarding both triggers identified by the BBC. As to the former, Bush's declarations to the contrary notwithstanding, there is no evidence that the Iranian government is arming or otherwise supplying Iraqi insurgents. In fact, Bush does not even have the support of his own Secretary of Defense who promptly backpedaled from Dubya's claims. Likewise, Lt. General Raymond T. Odierno, the officer in charge of daily operations in Iraq, told reporters on February 22, 2007, '[We] don't know if it [Iran's supplying of anti-American insurgents in Iraq] goes to the highest levels of the government.'
Any semblance of historical perspective appears to be lacking from the Bush administration's accusations about Iranian 'interference' in Iraq. (Also missing is any sense of irony. Can the invaders and occupiers of a sovereign nation legitimately complain that another country is 'interfering' therein?) Much is made of the allegation that some of the weapons used against U.S. forces in Iraq have borne Iranian serial numbers. Assuming such allegations are true, the presence of Iranian-made weapons in Iraq should come as no surprise given the eight year-long war between the two countries. The presence of such weapons should be even less surprising when one recalls that anti-Saddam forces received support from Iran for decades. Never mind the fact that the largest political parties in Iraq, and those that receive the backing of the Bush administration, are the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) and the Dawa Party. Both are Shiite and pro-Iranian. Indeed, the military arm of SCIRI, the infamous Badr Brigade, has been operating anti-Sunni death squads for years with U.S. acquiescence. The only Shia organization in Iraq that opposes the U.S. occupation is Muqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi Army, which, as Patrick Cockburn of The Independent explains, is traditionally anti-Iranian.
Furthermore, as noted recently by former U.S. Marine and U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter, the weapons for which Iran is allegedly responsible - explosively formed projectiles (EFPs) - have been employed in Iraq against the U.S. since 2003. Only now, however, has the Bush administration accused Iran of supplying such weapons. What's more, the use of EFPs dates at least as far back as the 1980s and the Irish Republican Army. Thus, for the Bush administration to try to depict EFPs in Iraq as some sort of new weapons development created by Iran is simply dishonest.
Skepticism of claims about Iranian-backed attacks against the U.S. is further bolstered by expert opinion and analysis. Michael Knights in last month's Jane's Intelligence Review, reported that while there was an organization in Basra engaged in the purchase and delivery of imported EFPs, it was comprised entirely of police officials and followed no specific Shiite faction. Indeed, all factions of Basra were represented in the smuggling organization. In short, Knights found no apparent official Iranian influence.
Knights also explained that, despite Bush's implications that EFP attacks are so rampant in Iraq that they could not occur without official Iranian sanction, the monthly average of EFP attacks has remained at 100. According to Knights, such a low average number could be easily accomplished by one or two bomb-makers in a single workshop. Based upon his three-year analysis of EFP's in Iraq, Knights concluded that Hezbollah and not Iran was far more likely to be behind the attacks. Indeed, as Knights pointed out, Hezbollah, not Iran, transferred EFP devices and components to Palestinian militants after the second Infitada began in 2000. Moreover, the same batch number of C-4 explosive found in an intercepted Hezbollah ship as found in southern Iraq links Shiite militias to Hezbollah, not Iran. All of this led Knights to conclude that Bush & Co. 'are taking a data point and blowing it out of proportion' in their policy-driven but factually weak anti-Iran campaign.
Similarly, as reported by McClatchy Newspapers in early February, the U.S. government's own data prove that Sunni insurgents, rather than Iran-backed Shiite militias, have been responsible for most American combat deaths in Iraq. In 2006 alone, more than forty percent of U.S. combat deaths occurred in the Anbar province, the Sunni heartland where Iran has little if any influence. This percentage was an increase over the previous year when about thirty six percent of U.S. combat deaths occurred in Anbar. In fact, according to Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution, the vast majority of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq are caused by improvised explosive devices set by Sunnis.
Diligently ignored by the Bush administration and its apologists is that the Sunni insurgency in Iraq receives significant backing from Saudi Arabia. Only after repeated questioning before the Senate Armed Services Committee in February did the new U.S. intelligence 'czar,' Mike McConnell, concede that Saudi Arabian sources are providing support for the Sunni insurgency in Iraq. Of course, McConnell would not go so far as to allege that the 'highest levels' of the Saudi government were involved. Such an accusation would be irresponsible.
Why is Saudi Arabia's 'interference' with America's imperial designs for Iraq ignored while Iran's gets elevated to casus belli? For the same reason that, despite the fact that nearly all of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, the U.S. attacked Afghanistan and Iraq instead. Quite simply, so long as it continues to provide us with oil, the U.S. will never do anything to alienate Saudi Arabia, much less attack it. It can't legitimately be argued that the Saudi leadership is vastly superior than Iraq's or Iran's, particularly from the standpoint of human rights and civil liberties. Such taints to the Saudis, however, are ignored as long as Americans can gas up their Hummers.
At any rate, Iran's alleged interference in America's colonization of Iraq makes little sense when considered from the point of view of Iran. First, Iran, like Iraq, is predominantly Shia. The U.S. and its partners are, for the most part, battling Sunni insurgents and al-Qaeda fighters, who also happen to be Sunni. In other words, other than a few clashes with the Shiite Muqtada al-Sadr and his followers, the Iraqi opposition is Sunni. Clearly, Iran would not be lending support to Sunni insurgents, no matter how sympathetic Iran might find their anti-American cause to be.
Second, there would be no benefit to Iran if the U.S. were to abruptly leave Iraq rioting and burning next door. Iran, being no more and no less self-interested than say the United States, does not want and would not benefit from an Iraq fractured and fragmented along ethnic and sectarian lines. Indeed, given the demographic composition of Iraq, Iran's interests would only be furthered if the U.S. succeeds in its forced imposition of democracy upon Iraq since it would mean a Shia Iraq.
Third, Iran wants a stable Iraq so as to avoid to a massive influx of Iraqi refugees as has happened in Syria and Jordan. Such an influx would not only be devastating to the already fragile Iranian economy, it would likely excite unrest among Iran's minority Kurdish and Arab populations. Moreover, as explained by the Middle East Institute, Iran has no interest in and would derive no benefit from a failed state in Iraq.
Finally, from an economic standpoint, Iran benefits from a stable ally in Iraq. While Saddam Hussein was in power, Iran was prevented from using Iraq as a trade route to other Arab countries. Iraq's de facto blockade of Iranian trade routes continues today due to Iraq's current chaotic state. Only through a stable Iraq can Iran link its railroads with those of Iraq and Syria, thereby restructuring the region's economic landscape.
This by no means implies that Iran wants the U.S. to remain in Iraq. Iran wants a long-term U.S. presence in Iraq about as much as the U.S. would want a Venezuelan presence in Mexico. For the U.S. to think that Iran would simply sit idly by while the U.S. attempts to foster a secular, pro-U.S. and anti-Iranian Iraqi government is naive. Just as the U.S. would oppose Venezuelan intervention in Mexico on the basis of national security, so too does Iran fundamentally oppose U.S. colonization of Iraq.
Besides, if one employs the fundamental principal of universality, U.S. allegations against Iran must simultaneously serve as admissions by the U.S. Take Israel's most recent invasion of Lebanon. It is undisputed that much, if not most, of the weaponry employed by Israel to kill civilians and destroy neighborhoods and civilian infrastructure were made and supplied by the U.S. Under the principal of universality, therefore, the U.S. 'interfered' in Lebanon and the 'highest levels' of the U.S. government participated in the slaughter of thousands of innocent civilians. Such accusations against the U.S. are, of course, dismissed out of hand.
Similarly, it is well-established that the U.S. is using allegations of Iranian interference in Iraq as a basis for whipping the public into a fever for war. However, as reported by Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker, and as corroborated by the London Daily Telegraph, the U.S. and Britain are funding militant separatist groups in Iran in an effort to destabilize the regime. Many of these militant groups employ terrorist methods. Again, under the principal of universality, if Iran's alleged 'interference' in Iraq is grounds for military action, then surely U.S. interference in Iran is grounds for Iranian military action against the U.S. Such arguments are, once again, clearly untenable from a U.S. perspective. Iran's Nuclear Capabilities
Falling back on its tried-and-true strategy of invoking mushroom clouds to generate support for a war of aggression, the Bush administration has taken every opportunity to ring the alarm regarding Iran's alleged nuclear capabilities. To hear Bush and his apologists tell it, Iran is on the verge of acquiring a (as in one) nuclear weapon. Of course, as before, Bush & Co. aren't at liberty to tell the American public exactly how they so confidently know that Iran could launch a nuclear strike at any given moment. As with Iraq's infamous WMD, Bush & Co. simply expect the public to take them on faith.
Fortunately, those at the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) are blessed with qualities lacking from the average American automaton - a healthy dose of skepticism and an insistence on evidence. As such, officials with the IAEA have declared that most of the U.S. intelligence provided to the IAEA regarding Iran's nuclear program has proven to be inaccurate. None of the 'intelligence' provided by the U.S. has led to any significant discoveries by the IAEA inside Iran. As reported in the Los Angeles Times in late February, all of the intelligence regarding Iran's nuclear capabilities that has been provided by the U.S. since 2002 has proven useless.
An example of such useless U.S. intelligence include documents the U.S. claims it recovered from a laptop supposedly stolen from Iran. According to the U.S., the documents included detailed designs for modifying ballistic missiles to carry nuclear warheads, as well as other potentially damning evidence of prohibited nuclear weapons activities by Iran. Very quickly, however, IAEA officials raised questions regarding the documents' authenticity. Apparently, the IAEA thought it odd that documents purportedly from Iran would be entirely in English rather than Persian.
If nothing provided by the U.S. intelligence community has led to any meaningful discovery of anything in Iran, one must wonder how Bush & Co. can so confidently portend nuclear annihilation by Iran.
There is no dispute that Iran has nuclear technology and is enriching uranium. Iran admits as much. However, Iran insists that its nuclear program is for energy purposes only. Propagandists for the Bush administration, most notably Dick Cheney, dismiss out of hand Iran's claims of needing nuclear energy. According to these propagandists, including much of the corporate press, Iran does not need nuclear energy since it has significant oil and gas reserves. As such, the story goes, Iran's claim that it needs nuclear technology for civilian energy purposes is mere pretense.
What is not told by the propagandists is that Iran has made identical arguments in support of its nuclear program since 1959. At that time, Shah Mohammad Pahlavi, having recently taken power after the U.S.-backed coup of the democratically elected Prime Minister Mossadeq, purchased a nuclear reactor from the U.S. The Shah planned to construct as many as 23 nuclear power stations across Iran by 2000, with U.S. assistance of course.
As explained by the Oxford Research Group in its recent report, Would Air Strikes Work?, since the U.S.-installation of the Shah in 1953, Iran has consistently argued that it needs nuclear power to accommodate its population's increasing appetite for energy. 'Driven by a young population and high oil revenues, Iran's power consumption is growing by around seven per cent annually and its capacity must nearly triple over the next fifteen years to meet projected demand.' In other words, Iran's claim that it needs nuclear power for peaceful energy purposes is not so outlandish as Bush and his apologists would have the public believe.
Nonetheless, many have suspicions that Iran might be developing nuclear weapons technology as well. Given that the nuclear technologies used in a civil nuclear program are identical to those used in a military program, such suspicions are not unfounded. Indeed, as El Baradei explained to the Financial Times, even if the Iranian program is for purely peaceful purposes, deterrence is undoubtedly at the back of their minds. Regardless, to date there has not been any evidence to support or refute such suspicions. Bush & Co. have also argued that Iran has failed to fully cooperate with the inspections regime. Again, however, less-than-full cooperation does not prove that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.
Think about it. Four years ago, the U.S. unequivocally declared that Iraq possessed, even stockpiled, chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. Such declarations were based entirely upon supposition and speculation. As is currently the case with Iran, there were plenty of doubts about Iraq's credibility when it declared that all of its WMD had been destroyed in the 1990s. Similarly, Iraq had never fully complied with the inspections regime. Nevertheless, as even Dick Cheney might now be willing to admit, Iraq had no WMD The WMD had been destroyed as Iraq had claimed. Iraq's lack of full cooperation did not prove it possessed WMD.
Simply put, the U.S. was wrong, inexcusably wrong, about Iraq's WMD. The U.S. was so wrong, in fact, that many find it difficult to believe that the U.S. was merely mistaken. And yet, despite the stinging rebuke on Iraq's WMD, the U.S. is once again invoking mushroom clouds based on mere suspicions and incomplete cooperation with inspections.
On Iraq, the U.S. dismissed, disparaged, and defamed the IAEA and its head, Mohamed El Baradei, for contradicting the U.S. propaganda. The IAEA and El Baradei were proven right. Perhaps, then, the U.S. should shut its mouth and listen to what the IAEA and El Baradei are saying about Iran.
According to the IAEA's most recent report on Iran, while Iran has not suspended its enrichment activities (something which Iran swore it would not do), there is no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons or their technology. In an interview with the Financial Times, El Baradei declared that Iran is still five to ten years away from developing a nuclear weapon. Furthermore, El Baradei explained that regardless of whether Iran ever obtains 3,000 centrifuges for uranium enrichment (a landmark for weapons development), so long as NPT safeguards are in place ( i.e., inspections and monitoring), Iran could never exceed enrichment levels of five percent.
El Baradei's predictions are supported by the nonpartisan Oxford Research Group (ORG) which notes that uranium must be enriched to concentrations of over ninety per cent to be suitable for nuclear weapons. For use as nuclear fuel, on the other hand, enrichment need not exceed five per cent. To date, the highest enrichment of uranium achieved by Iran has been 3.5 per cent. The ORG estimates that Iran would need to construct 'many thousands of gas centrifuges' to produce enough sufficiently enriched uranium to build 'a strategically significant number [five or six] of nuclear weapons.' Given that sixty percent of Iran's current gas centrifuges are technologically sub-standard, and that Iranian uranium is contaminated with significant amounts of heavy metals (which inhibits enrichment), Iran would not be able to develop nuclear weapons before 2014.
Of course, it is appropriate to criticize Iran for not being fully transparent with the IAEA or fully compliant with the NPT. The U.S., however, is in no position to level such criticisms. The U.S. Energy Department is working on the development of a nuclear 'bunker buster,' officially known as the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator. The Energy Department has also initiated an 'Advanced Concepts' research program whereby it is exploring new kinds of nuclear weapons technologies, specifically a low-yield (less than 5 kilotons) 'mini-nuke.' Such research was made possible when, at the request of the Bush administration, Congress in 2004 repealed a 1994 law that prohibited development of any low-yield weapons. To date, approximately $16.8 million has already been spent on bunker-buster research with an additional $8.5 million currently requested in Bush's budget.
As reflected by the foregoing, as well as in its Nuclear Posture Review of 2001, the United States endeavors to make nuclear weapons more 'usable' and envisions an enlarged range of circumstances in which they could be used, including against non-nuclear attacks or threats. On March 2, 2007, in fact, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) announced that it had approved the development of new nuclear warheads for the Navy's sea-based nuclear missiles. Under the Orwellian moniker of 'Reliable Replacement Warhead' (RRW), the NNSA promised that its new nuclear warheads would 'ensure long-term confidence in a more secure, smaller and safer nuclear weapons stockpile.'
Furthermore, despite the fact that the State Department declared in 2003 that the U.S. does not target any countries with nuclear weapons, the U.S. has repeatedly reserved the right to preemptively use nuclear and conventional weapons against nations or groups threatening to use of weapons of mass destruction.
All of the aforementioned U.S. activities are in express contravention of the NPT. No one, of course, would dare suggest that the U.S. be sanctioned, much less attacked or invaded, for its intransigence.
Nevertheless, the world's only nuclear aggressor, and a blatant violator of the NPT, condemns and threatens Iran for developing nuclear technology which, if is indeed peaceful in nature, would be permitted under the NPT. Should the U.S. continue to insist on sanctions or, as seems to be imminent, take military action against Iran, the opposite of Bush's stated objective would likely occur. As El Baradei explained, 'you cannot bomb knowledge.' Should the U.S. proceed militarily against Iran, it might succeed in damaging or destroying Iran's current nuclear facilities. Military action would not, however, eradicate Iran's knowledge regarding nuclear development. Indeed, threats and bullying may only drive Iran to actually develop nuclear weapons, or to do so at a more rapid pace. As El Baradei explained to the Financial Times, if Iran feels that force will be used against them, if it thinks that what happened in Iraq could happen in Iran, it 'would sure be a recipe for [Iran] to go down that route [of developing nuclear weapons].' Put differently, El Baradei believes that if the U.S. were to bomb Iran it would compel Iran to 'put it in high gear for developing a nuclear weapon.'
These are the precise conclusions reached by the ORG.
Questions of Intent
El Baradei's concerns seem reasonable and predict likely outcomes of the Bush administration's current Iran policy. Assuming that the Bush administration has at least considered El Baradei's projections as possible consequences of its policy, one is left to conclude that the U.S. is not sincerely interested in halting nuclear proliferation. Put differently, if attacking Iran would likely increase the likelihood that Iran would develop nuclear weapons, then U.S. plans to attack Iran are not intended to prevent Iran from developing such weapons.
The same was true regarding Iraq. The stated policy of the United States, dating as far back as the Clinton administration, was never to disarm Iraq. Rather, the express policy of the U.S. was regime change. All talk about WMD and mushroom clouds was mere pretext. The U.S. invasion of Iraq was never about disarming a tyrant (since he had already been disarmed). Bush admitted as much when, on the eve of invading Iraq, he issued one final ultimatum to Saddam: only if Saddam and his sons immediately fled Iraq would the U.S. and its 'coalition of the willing' forestall invading. Disarmament, in other words, was irrelevant.
Disarmament of Iran is equally irrelevant to the Bush administration. Regime change is what the U.S. is truly after. Iran and Iraq have the second and fourth largest reserves, respectively, of conventional crude oil in the world. Given the increasing scarcity of crude oil, coupled with explosive global demand, one need not be a conspiracy theorist to conclude that removing anti-American regimes in both Iran and Iraq would serve the U.S. 'national interest.' Can there really be any doubt that if Iran were ruled by a pro-U.S. government that was generous in its exporting of oil to the U.S. that there would be any controversy about Iran developing nuclear technology? It was the U.S., after all, that provided Iran's U.S.-installed Shah with nuclear technology in the first place.
All of the grandstanding, tough talk, threats, and deployments by the U.S. are not to disarm Iran. They are for regime change. They are, in short, to guarantee access to the world's second largest oil reserves.
