- For many years prior to the Bush era
US foreign policy drifted toward a debacle in the Middle East. Under the
present administration the drift became a rush toward unparalleled catastrophe.
Can we avert an explosion that will shake the world? The coming days will
demand all of our strength, courage, and commitment to peace. Even so,
we will probably fail without a flowering of openness and self-criticism
unprecedented in American life.
-
- If there is a silver lining to the continuing
US military occupation of Iraq it is that the unfolding disaster has weakened
President Bush, who today is in no position to launch another Middle East
crusade. In a recent poll Bush's approval rating had dipped to 29%, a historic
low. On this basis it would seem logical to think that the likelihood of
a US attack on Iran's nuclear sites has receded. Unfortunately, while Bush
ought to feel constrained, the Democrats have proven so inept, so incapable
of mounting a principled opposition, that Bush remains, as Seymour Hersh
has observed, "strangely undiminished." The present reality defies
logic and shows how deceptive the US political landscape has become. Some
have even likened current America to the fools paradise of the Weimar republic.
We are certainly living a page out of Orwell. It's a surreal moment in
which almost anything can happen.
-
- George W. Bush's frequent assertions
that Iran poses a security threat to the United States are so absurd they
would be laughable under other circumstances. I agree with those who argue
that, so far, Iran has done nothing more than demand its right under Article
IV of the nonproliferation treaty (NPT) to develop nuclear power, a treaty
provision, bear in mind, that was originally drafted in Washington, not
by some foreign government. But then, our president has shown a perverse
delight in shredding America's treaties. Bush's unilateral abrogation of
the antiballistic missile (ABM) treaty in 2002 has had the consequence,
which many predicted, of making the world a more dangerous place, though,
ironically, as I will discuss later, not in the way expected.
-
- Witness also Bush's nuclear deal with
India signed last March, which gave the appearance of rewarding Delhi for
developing nukes outside the NPT. The deal not only erodes the nonproliferation
treaty, it will have the effect of weakening Pakistani leader Pervez Musharraf,
another US ally. Pakistan also developed nukes outside the NPT, following
the lead of rival India, and, recall, only a few years ago the two nations
came within a whisker of war over disputed Kashmir. Fortunately, a nuclear
disaster was narrowly averted during that crisis; but Kashmir remains a
chronic problem, one that could flare up at any time. By strengthening
India Bush's new deal could destabilize the still tense and fragile standoff
on the Indian subcontinent. Musharraf already faces enormous problems at
home, largely because his alliance with the US is unpopular in predominantly
Muslim Pakistan. If he falls the world could wake up one morning and discover
nuclear-armed Islamic radicals in control of Islamabad. What was George
W. thinking, last March? Obviously, he wasn't.
-
- Bush also gets credit for scuttling the
most recent NPT review conference, held in May 2005 at the UN. Bush accomplished
this by sending a budgetary request to Congress that same week for nuclear
bunker busters. Bush's timing signaled his contempt for the treaty and
surely was no coincidence. The funding request was in breach of Article
VI and so flagrant that days later the review conference collapsed in disarray.
Its failure was also assured by US attempts to manhandle the event by limiting
the agenda to dealing with "rogue" states, i.e., Iran and North
Korea. Previous NPT review conferences -- they are held every five years
-- had always managed to find at least some common ground. Compromise remained
possible so long as the non-nuclear states retained at least a modicum
of faith that the nuclear powers, especially the US, were serious about
nuclear disarmament. But those days are gone. The last hopes began to fade
in 1999 when the Republican-controlled US Senate refused to ratify the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTB). That was a poke in the eye and under
Bush whatever remained of US credibility has evaporated.
-
- A Flawed Treaty
-
- I agree that the NPT was fatally flawed
from the start, but this does not justify Bush's selective interpretation,
which amounts to a unilateral revision. The NPT's promise to make nuclear
power available to signatories was actually a promise to deliver electricity
for economic development. Since we now understand that for many reasons
nuclear is the wrong way to achieve this -- wrong for every nation, not
simply Iran -- the US should set an example by turning away from nuclear
and moving rapidly to develop abundant clean energy alternatives. These
are within reach. Economies of scale could be achieved, and costs reduced,
by making these technologies available to the world, including Iran. What
has been lacking is the leadership and political will to make it happen.
But this is another discussion. At the moment our top priority must be
to avert the next Mideast war.
-
- Today, with the US engaged in the most
sweeping modernization of the nation's nuclear force structure since the
Cold War -- by the way, another gross violation of the NPT -- Bush is
in no position to preach nonproliferation. Indeed, why would any world
leader of substance follow, trust, or even listen to this man, who brandishes
nuclear first-use as if it were a divine right? If Bush succeeds in imposing
on Iran his selective interpretation of the NPT ("Do what we say
-- or else"), an interpretation with no substantive basis in the treaty
language, it could mark the end of the nuclear nonproliferation regime.
Some think it has come to this, already.(Source: <http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la
- -na-nuke6apr06,0,5989419.story?coll=la-home-headlines>)
-
-
- For all of these reasons the central
issue today is not Iran but US hypocrisy. Most people on the planet already
understand this. It's only here in America that the problem remains largely
invisible, thanks to a slavish US press that mindlessly parrots whatever
self-serving rhetoric issues from the White House. As a result, the American
people remain mostly uninformed, hence, oblivious to their own peril, which
was never greater during the depths of the Cold War. When will our countrymen
awaken to the fact that we cannot lead the free world through hypocrisy
("Do as we say, not as we do"), but only by setting an example
worthy of the high principles we supposedly stand for? Nor are those who
would follow us through fear or to curry favor worthy allies in any event.
-
- The Case of the 500 Pound Gorilla
-
- Iran's nuclear ambitions are a serious
long-term concern for the Middle East. No one wants to see the Mullahs
armed with nukes. At present, however, there is only one state in the region
with nuclear weapons, namely, Israel, and therefore the status of Israel
ought to be a part of the ongoing discussion. In fact, one would have to
be blind not to see the connection, since a genuine solution will require
the participation of both Iran and Israel in the creation of a nuclear
weapons free zone (NWFZ) for the Middle East. Yet, Bush continues to single
out Iran as the sole problem, meanwhile, affording our ally Israel the
same exemptions from oversight and accountability the US normally reserves
for itself. Israel's bomb continues to be the 500 pound gorilla in the
oval office that no one can talk about.
-
- Denial may rule in Washington, but the
people of the Mideast view it very differently. They are under no illusions
because they live in the long shadow of Israel's arsenal of 200-400 nukes.
Israel's supporters, of course, make a practice of downplaying all of this.
They rationalize the shocking fact that Israel has targeted a large swathe
of humanity with annihilation by arguing that Israel's WMD are not a concern
since Israel has neither used its nukes nor threatened to use them; and
anyway the arsenal is necessary for Israel's survival in a tough neighborhood.
But no matter how often these phony arguments are repeated the facts cannot
be made to support them. If Israel possessed a few atomic weapons of last
resort the Samson option might be reasonable. But the vast size of Israel's
weapons arsenal, the strong likelihood it includes hydrogen bombs, tactical
nukes including neutron weapons, and a multiple array of advanced delivery
vehicles, including nuclear-armed cruise missiles, not to mention chemical
and biological weapons, indicates that Israel's policy cannot be primarily
defensive in nature. The large size is probably due, in part, to the technological
imperative. Israel's war economy developed a momentum of its own. But this
is a flimsy excuse, and no justification. Israel's WMD clearly are meant
to project power and to this extent they have already been used. One need
not pull the trigger of a revolver to use it, and the same is true of the
bomb.
-
- Last September Baruch Kimmerling, a professor
at Hebrew University, conceded in a thoughtful article in Ha'aretz what
scholars have long known: that the country's nuclear weapons are linked
to Israel's illegal military occupation of the Arab West Bank. As Kimmerling
phrased it, Israel's nukes "in the basement are a guarantee that no
pressure, foreign or domestic...can force Israel into genuine territorial
concessions." Clearly, for many years Israel's nuclear monopoly has
tempted the nation's leaders to forego negotiations and simply to impose
their will upon the neighborhood. This explains the expanding settlements,
the security wall, the cantonization of the West Bank, and the recent unilateral
withdrawal from Gaza. And why else would Israel dismiss a 2002 Saudi peace
initiative that offered not just recognition but full normalized relations,
including full trade, economic ties, cultural exchanges, in short, an end
to the conflict, if Israel would abide by UN Security Council resolutions
on Palestine? The Saudi peace offer may have been a trial balloon, but
it had broad support in the Arab world. It had been drafted at an Arab
League summit shortly before being announced. (For the text go to <http://www.al-bab.com/arab/docs/league/peace02.htm>)
All of this suggests that Israel's nukes are less about survival than serving
the colonial interests of Zionism.
-
- For many years the shared wisdom was
that nuclear weapons might be justified in Israel's case, due to the country's
unique security problems, having to do with Israel's small size. Nukes
might be acceptable, so the thinking went, because Israel would then feel
secure enough to negotiate a lasting peace settlement. But it hasn't worked
that way. It turned out that a strong Israel had no incentive to negotiate,
period. And it's clear -- to this writer, at least -- that there will be
no diplomatic solution on Iran, nor on the peace front, so long as Washington
views Israel's nukes as a non issue, the underlying assumption, of course,
being that Israel needs them to survive. Others pooh-pooh the matter but
in my opinion this is the crux of it. We therefore need a rude awakening
and let us pray it doesn't come in the form of a war. The truth is that
Israel's nukes are weapons of mass destruction, pure and simple, whose
very existence is a moral obscenity, just like all such weapons, an affront
to God and every living thing on this planet; and we need to start thinking
about them in these terms.
-
- Of course, this perspective hasn't yet
reached Washington. Bush, Cheney and most of the US Congress still think
some nukes (ours) are good or at least acceptable while other nukes (theirs)
are bad. Israel's fall into the former category, and evidently are viewed
as an extension of US power in the region. But if this is true it is a
dangerous policy, given Israel's past record of looking out for number
one. Although it seems almost inconceivable that Israel would launch a
unilateral attack on Iran, i.e., without the knowledge and/or approval
of the White House, not even this can be ruled out. Israel's leaders have
repeatedly warned that they will not allow Iran to develop nuclear power,
not even for peaceful use, and given Israel's past record the threat must
be taken seriously. In fact, the Israelis began to press Washington for
a "preventive" war against Iran as soon as the smoke cleared
after the first Gulf war, which greatly weakened Saddam Hussein. At that
time the Israelis switched and began to view Iran as their primary foe.
Their full court press for war has continued, ever since. (source: Israel
Shahak, Open Secrets, chapter 4, <http://www.radioislam.org/historia/shahak/opensec/02.htm>)
-
- In October 2004 the German magazine Der
Spiegel reported that Israel had completed plans for a raid on six Iranian
nuclear sites, all of which would be attacked simultaneously. The plan
was said to be "complex, yet manageable." The target sites probably
include the Bushehr reactor, a large nuclear facility at Esfahan, and the
uranium enrichment plant at Natanz. Last March the London Sunday Times
aired a similar report, which claimed that former Israeli PM Ariel Sharon
had approved plans for such an attack. <http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1522978,00.html>
-
- The Israeli Air Force has 25 F-15 fighter-bombers,
supplied by the US, with sufficient range to target Iran. Also, in 2004
Israel acknowledged purchase of 500 conventional BLU-109 bunker-buster
bombs, again, courtesy of the US. The bombs can penetrate seven feet of
reinforced concrete and probably are intended for use against hardened
Iranian nuclear sites. But to reach them the Israelis must fly over Iraqi
airspace, now controlled by the US Air Force.
- (source: <http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/israel/iran.htm>)
-
- Serious doubts remain, however, about
the effectiveness of conventional weapons against deeply buried sites.
Obviously, for this and many other reasons the Israelis would much prefer
that the US take the lead in mounting such an attack; and they may get
their wish. In a chilling report in The New Yorker this past April Seymour
Hersh described the debate then underway in the Bush administration about
the use of tactical nukes against Iran's hardened nuclear sites. Evidently,
US war planning has reached an advanced stage.
-
- The Iraqi government has made it clear
that it does not support an attack on its neighbor, nor will it allow such
an attack to be staged from bases inside Iraq. If the US attacks anyway,
in defiance of the Iraqi government, or allows Israel to fly over Iraq,
it will give the lie to every statement Bush has ever made about fostering
democracy. The whole world will instantly know the truth and the US will
once again find itself isolated, with no allies other than Israel and,
possibly, a bedraggled Tony Blair.
-
- The latest US position, much publicized,
came after an Iranian request for direct negotiations. Washington responded
by agreeing to talks, but cited a precondition: Iran must first permanently
cease uranium enrichment. As I write a package of goodies is being offered,
and we can hope it persuades the Iranians to halt uranium enrichment, at
least temporarily, allowing talks to occur. That would be an important
breakthrough. Nonetheless, there's a high chance that direct talks will
ultimately fail, because in my opinion the Bush administration will never
grant Tehran the security pledge it seeks; and without a security pledge
the Iranians have no incentive to surrender their nuclear options for the
future. Nor will the UN Security Council impose sanctions, as Russia and
China do not support them. The only remaining possibility is military force.
-
- What I find shocking about all of this
is the complacency in the US press. From the articles I've seen, and I
read all that my strained eyes can stand, there has been almost no serious
reporting or analysis about the possible consequences of US military action.
Indeed, there is a bizarre incuriosity. Between the lines one may also
discern the tacit assumption that an attack, if it comes, will be a replay
of Yugoslavia. Everyone agrees that the US military is stretched too thin
to put boots on the ground in Iran. But no matter, the US still has the
means to bring a stubborn foe to terms. We control the skies, after all.
Shock and awe will have their effect. This is the prevailing view.
-
- Last year, when I investigated this question
of what could happen I was appalled by what I learned. Nor have events
altered my opinion that a US air offensive probably will not unfold in
the expected manner. Even if the US relies on conventional weapons, such
an attack carries a high risk of bringing us to the nuclear brink, within
days or even hours. This is also why the peace movement must emphasize
prevention. Protesting the next war after it starts will probably come
too late to matter.
-
- The Iranians have stated repeatedly that
they will defend themselves. Yet, incredibly, here in the US many people
don't seem to believe it. The Iranians have warned also that if they come
under attack they will strike at Israel, and this too remains a possibility.
However, I believe the primary target will be US forces in the Gulf. In
recent years Russia and China stepped up arms sales to Tehran, obviously
part of a containment strategy meant to deter further US aggression in
the region. In the event of war, therefore, US forces will face an array
of Russian-made weapons more advanced than anything they encountered in
Iraq. The stakes have risen considerably.
-
- What US Forces Could Face in the Gulf
-
- Today the Russian army is a shadow of
its former glory and the Russian navy rusts in port. Nonetheless, Moscow
remains the leader in several key areas of military hardware, including
the important field of cruise anti-ship missile technology. Although Russian
anti-ship missiles have never been used in combat, they are so formidable
they have already altered the balance of naval power. The Russian Sunburn
missile, for example, has been called "the most lethal anti-ship weapon
in the world." It flies at mach-2, can hit a squirrel in the eye,
and has a range of 130+ miles. (see <http://www.softwar.net/ssn22.html>)
-
- The newer Yakhonts missile is even more
capable. It flies at mach-2.5, is just as accurate, and has a range of
185 miles. (see <http://kursk.strana.ru/english/archive/978617257.html>)
- Assuming the Iranians have acquired these
weapons, there will be no place of safety in the entire Persian Gulf in
the event of war. Every part of the Persian lake will be within range of
the Iranian coast. This means that every US naval vessel on patrol in the
Gulf, i.e., the entire 5th fleet, will be exposed to counterattack.
-
- The Sunburn is a sea-skimmer. It was
designed to defeat the US Navy's Aegis radar defense system by cruising
just above the water, i.e., below radar. In its final approach the Sunburn
also makes violent end-maneuvers to defeat close-in defenses. American
sailors who are unfortunate enough to be in harm's way will probably never
see these weapons coming. One Sunburn missile can sink or disable any ship
in the US Navy, and the Yakhonts reportedly has been optimized for use
against our large carriers. If the Iranians have these weapons in sufficient
numbers they can stage a massed attack and saturate US defenses. In which
case the Gulf will become a shooting gallery. Thousands of US sailors will
die gruesome deaths at sea.
-
- At the start of the 1982 Falklands war
Argentina had only five French-made Exocet anti-ship missiles, yet managed
to sink two British warships. With enough of them the Argentines might
have sunk the entire British fleet. Yet, the Exocet is primitive by comparison
to the latest Russian missiles. Has Iran acquired them? According to various
reports the Iranians were in Moscow as early as 2000 shopping for Sunburns
and Yakhonts, among other items. Although the details of the subsequent
arms deal were never disclosed, it's a safe bet the Russians did not say
"Nyet." Missile exports are a cash cow for Moscow, generating
much-needed hard currency; and oil-rich Iran certainly has the cash. (source
-- scroll down at <http://www.nti.org/db/nisprofs/russia/exports/rusiran/misdev.htm>)
-
- The above analysis is not just one man's
opinion. In recent years a number of papers and studies have all agreed
that the US Navy has only limited defenses against the latest Russian anti-ship
missiles; and, according to a 2000 GAO report, which was based on the US
Navy's own data, our most vulnerable vessel is the pride of the fleet,
i.e., the flagship, the behemoth carriers. This is why some have described
them as floating death traps and have called for their retirement. The
GAO report also stressed that there will be no silver bullet. The US Navy
will continue to be vulnerable for years to come. Yet, the average American
remains clueless.
-
- Last year when I posted my research about
this on the web I was surprised by the lack of interest. (see <http://informationclearinghouse.info/article7147.htm>)
Not even one person asked to see the documentation, some of which is available
on line. At the conclusion of this article the reader will find links to
two key papers. By all means, check out the documents and draw your own
conclusions. Don't take my word for it.
-
- Understand, I am not saying that the
US has been eclipsed as the world's lone superpower -- far from it. In
fact, the US edge in nuclear weaponry has widened since the end of the
Cold War. In a recent paper in Foreign Affairs two professors argued persuasively
that the former balance of nuclear forces has swung so decisively in favor
of the US that Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is no longer operative.
They think the US has come close to, and may already have achieved, a first-strike
nuclear capability against China and Russia. The prospect is frightening,
and, if true, probably accounts for Bush's shift to a policy of nuclear
first use. This would also explain Bush's abandonment of the ABM treaty,
and his decision to develop the star wars defensive shield. Critics have
observed that the inherently limited effectiveness of star wars makes it
a poor defensive weapon and, in fact, one that only makes sense as part
of an offensive first strike capability. The Cold War was bad enough, but
at least the parity of nuclear forces fostered stability.(source: <http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85204-p
- 0/keir-a-lieber-daryl-g-press/the-rise-of-u-s-nuclear-primacy.html>)
-
- This is my point, exactly. We are living
in an unstable historical moment, which is why the next war will be so
dangerous. Cruise anti-ship missiles are simple, effective, and relatively
inexpensive. A single missile costs no more than a fighter plane, yet can
sink a billion dollar warship. No wonder that cruise missile technology
is spreading rapidly. At last count more than 70 nations had acquired them,
and at least a dozen were producing them. If the Sandinistas had possessed
even a few of these weapons during the Contra war they might have deterred
the US from mining Nicaragua's harbors. So we see that far more dangerous
than any Iranian threat is the substantial risk that the Bush administration,
in its hubris and gross incompetence, will overreach. The pentagon surely
knows the score and the risks, but given the recent purging of dissent
within the US military what general today will stand up to Rumsfeld? Even
if one does, the White House will simply sack the brave soul and reach
down the chain of command to a servile individual who will do its bidding.
-
- Nothing More Dangerous...
-
- In all of this world there is nothing
more dangerous than a wounded superpower. Imagine the reaction here at
home should Iran manage to sink even one US warship in the Persian Gulf,
causing the death of a thousand American sailors. The pertinent fact that
the Iranians were defending themselves will matter not at all. Suddenly
every super patriot and demagogue in America will be hysterically screaming
in unison for revenge. Jingoism and war fever will grip the land, all fueled
by the US media. The phrase of the hour will be: "Victory at any cost!"
In such a mood the peace movement will have little chance to influence
events. The pressure to punish Iran will grow by the hour, pressure that
a president with a policy of nuclear first-use may find irresistible. How
ironic that a US air campaign launched for the said purpose of preventing
the spread of nuclear weapons will have brought the world to the brink
of their use.
-
- Should the US cross the nuclear threshold
in the Gulf all bets are off concerning our future. It would be like opening
Pandora's box. If other states come to Iran's defense we will suddenly
find ourselves in the tightest spot since the 1962 Cuban missile crisis.
Even if we are lucky and avoid this, within days or weeks the exodus of
governments from the NPT will likely become a stampede. A world wide scramble
will be on to acquire the means to deter US aggression. Industrial countries
like Japan and Germany could probably field nukes in a matter of months.
As the world rearms the ugly mood will make current anti American sentiment
seem mild, by comparison. Bush's use of nukes would also set the stage
for another 911, possibly involving nuclear terrorism, with a predictable
result: Overnight, America will become a police state. In such a world,
chaotic beyond anything we've known, the peace movement's only recourse
will be street action, huge demonstrations, and civil disobedience on a
massive scale. But will it come too late? (See the Ellsberg interview at
<http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13540.htm>)
-
-
- A Containment Strategy for Prevention
-
- For all of these reasons, it is imperative
that we prevent the next war. The US peace movement continues to grow,
but to stop Bush we need a containment strategy of our own. This means
reaching out beyond our shores. Due to Bush's profligate military spending,
today the White House can only wage war by borrowing money. Why not appeal
to the creditor governments of Japan, China, and even Saudi Arabia, among
others, in the interests of peace? We should urge them to inform Bush they
will not extend credit if the White House pursues another military adventure.
This strategy might not work, but we will never know unless we try. One
of our neighbors, Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, has already warned
Bush that the consequence of an attack on Iran will be an immediate spike
in the price of oil. We should urge Chavez to send an even stronger message.
If Bush and Cheney understand that they face a cut off of Venezuelan oil,
so crucial to the US economy, perhaps they will think twice.
-
- A final thought: After 911, though US
military spending soared, our security became more elusive than ever. How
can this be? The answer, if we were truly serious, would involve a candid
look at the US role in world affairs: an unprecedented national debate
about US foreign policy. Such a debate has never occurred in our nation's
history, not even after the disastrous experience in Viet Nam. In fact,
this is why we are in Iraq, today, and why even worse trouble looms ahead.
It is a hackneyed cliché, but no less true, that when the lessons
of history are not learned we are doomed to repeat them. Our problem in
2006 is that the world can no longer afford even a single miscalculation,
lest we become irradiated flakes of ash on the wasted winds.
-
- We must break the cycle of history, and
with God's help we will succeed.
-
-
- Mark Gaffney's book Dimona The Third
Temple? (1989) was the first to explore the case of Mordechai Vanunu, the
Israeli nuclear whistleblower. Mark's latest is Gnostic Secrets of the
Naassenes. Mark can be reached for comment at mhgaffney@gnosticsecrets.com
-
- For further lite reading:
-
- US General Accounting Office (GAO): Comprehensive
Strategy Needed to Improve Ship Cruise Missile Defense, GAO/NSIAD - 00
-149, July 2000. The entire report may be viewed at <http://www.fas.org/man/gao/nsiad-00-149.htm>
-
- Lt. Col. Phil Tissue et al, "Attacking
the Cruise Missile Threat," Joint Forces Staff College, Joint and
Combined Warfighting School, 8 September 2003. For download go to <http://www.jfsc.ndu.edu/current_students/documents_policies/documen
- ts/jca_cca_awsp/Cruise_Missile_Defense_Final.doc>
|
