- There's good news and bad, mostly the latter but don't
discount the good. On May 22, (non-binding) HR 362 was introduced in the
House - with charges and proposals so outlandish that if passed and implemented
will be a blockade and act of war. It accused Iran of:
-
- -- pursuing "nuclear weapons and regional hegemony"
that threatens international peace and America's national security interests;
-
- -- overtly sponsoring "several terrorist groups,
including Hamas and Hezbollah;"
-
- -- having close ties to Syria;
-
- -- possibly sharing "its nuclear materials and technology
with others;"
-
- -- developing "ballistic technology" and ICBMs
exclusively to deliver nuclear weapons;
-
- -- calling for the "destruction of Israel;"
-
- -- refusing to suspend its uranium enrichment program
despite its legality;
-
- -- using its banking system to support proliferation
and terrorist groups;
-
- -- supporting Hezbollah to dominate Lebanon and wage
war on its government (of which Hezbollah is part);
-
- -- helping Hamas "illegally seize control of Gaza"
(and) continuously bombard Israeli civilians with rockets and mortars;"
-
- -- financing Iraqi "Shia militant groups (and) Afghan
warlords (to) attack American and allied forces;"
-
- -- destabilizing the Middle East "by underwriting
a massive rearmament campaign by Syria;" and
-
- -- seeking regional hegemony to undermine "vital
American national security interests."
-
- While stopping short of overtly declaring war, it proposes
Congress:
-
- -- prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons "through
all appropriate economic, political and diplomatic means;"
-
- -- urges the President to impose sanctions on:
-
- (1) Iran's Central Bank and all others supporting proliferation
and terrorist groups;
-
- (2) international banks that do business with proscribed
Iranian banks;
-
- (3) energy companies with $20 million or more investments
in Iran's oil or natural gas sectors since the 1996 Iran Sanctions Act;
and
-
- (4) all companies doing business with Iran's Islamic
Revolutionary Guard.
-
- It further:
-
- -- demands that the President prohibit export of all
refined oil products to Iran; impose "stringent inspection requirements"
on everything entering and departing the country, including international
movement of its officials;
-
- -- aims to deny foreign investors greater access to Iran's
economy and give US companies preferential treatment if and when sanctions
are lifted; and
-
- -- enlists regional support against Iran and makes clear
that America will protect its "vital national security interests in
the Middle East," implying by war if necessary.
-
- Sanctions As A Form of War
-
- Under the UN Charter's Article 41, the Security Council
(SC) may impose economic sanctions to deter (as Article 39 states) "any
threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression." Specific
measures "may include complete or partial interruption of economic
relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other
means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations."
Prior to imposition, however, the SC should determine if they're warranted,
"call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures,"
make appropriate recommendations, and decide which specific ones, if any,
to use short of armed force.
-
- Under appropriate circumstances, and if imposed responsibly,
sanctions may be warranted and have greater impact than diplomatic protests
or posturing. They're also hugely less problematic and costly than conflict.
However, when irresponsibly used, for imperial gain, or as acts of vengeance
or political punishment, they become siege warfare and should be judged
accordingly. Most often, US pressure is for these purposes in violation
of the UN Charter's intent and spirit. As a result, grievous harm is caused
- nowhere more horrifically than in Iraq from 1990 - 2003 when around 1.5
million Iraqis died and millions more suffered tragically and needlessly.
-
- In far less extreme form, a similar strategy is being
used against Iran - with no justification whatever. Last March, after a
year of deliberations, the Security Council approved SC 1803 - a third
set of Iranian sanctions for refusing to suspend its legal right to enrich
uranium as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty allows. It followed two
earlier rounds in July 2006 (SC 1696) demanding that Iran suspend uranium
enrichment by August 31. When it refused, SC 1737 passed in December imposing
limited sanctions. SC 1747 then tightened them in March 2007. It imposed
a ban on arms sales and expanded a freeze on Iranian assets.
-
- New sanctions extend the earlier ones but not as harshly
as Washington wanted. Still they restrict dual-use technologies and authorize
cargo inspections to and from the country suspected of carrying prohibited
equipment and materials. They also tighten the monitoring of Iranian financial
institutions and extend travel bans and asset freezes against persons and
companies involved in Iran's nuclear program.
-
- On August 5, AP reported that Germany and the SC's five
permanent members (the so-called P5 + 1) "agreed yesterday to 'seek'
new sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program after the country failed
to meet a weekend deadline to respond to an offer" discussed below.
Its source is US State Department spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos saying "we
have no choice but to pursue further measures against Iran."
-
- Now the good news. By mid to late June, HR 362 had 169
co-sponsors. More were being added, and by August 1, 252 were on board.
For a time it looked sure to pass quickly. Then anti-war groups reacted
- with a tsunami of emails, phone calls, letters and visits to congressional
members and their staffs. In spite of heavy AIPAC pressure for the resolution
it wrote, they suspended action until the bill's language is softened,
so for now it's stalled in committee (but not halted), and Congress is
on recess until September 7 after both parties hold their conventions.
-
- Talking Peace, Planning War
-
- On July 16, the New York Times called Under Secretary
of State for Political Affairs William Burns' presence at the July 19 Geneva
talks "the most significant diplomatic contact with Iran since"
the 1979 revolution. It followed a June meeting (attended by no US representative)
at which Germany and the Security Council's five permanent members presented
a package of "economic and diplomatic incentives" that failed
to impress the Iranians. Predictably, neither did the July 19 meeting that
ended in "deadlock" because America doesn't "negotiate."
It demands.
-
- In this case, the proposal offered a so-called "freeze-for-freeze"
formula, with imprecise terms, under which Iran would stop enriching uranium
in return for no additional sanctions for six weeks. At that point, formal
negotiations would begin with no promises of concessions or compromise.
Iran was given two weeks to reply. The US delegation said that Burns' appearance
was a one-time event, and by so doing revealed its deceit. For its part,
Iran rejects deadlines, and its IAEA representative, Ali Asghar Soltanieh,
expressed "grave concern" over America's double standards on
nuclear policy.
-
- For the Bush administration, Iran's nuclear program isn't
the issue. It's mere subterfuge for what's really at stake, but first a
little background. Under Reza Shah Pahlevi, Iran undertook a nuclear program
in 1957 and got a US research reactor in 1967. After the 1974 oil shock,
and in spite of the country's vast oil reserves, he established the Atomic
Energy Organization of Iran to use nuclear power generation for a modern
energy infrastructure that would transform the entire Middle East's power
needs. He also wanted to reduce Iran's dependence on oil, lessen its pressure
to recycle petrodollars, and ally more closely with European companies
through investments.
-
- In the 1970s, W. Germany began Iran's Bushehr civilian
reactor complex. In 1978, Iran had the world's fourth largest nuclear program,
the largest in the developing world, and planned to build 20 new reactors
by 1995. That year, it contracted with Russia to complete the Bushehr project,
supply it with nuclear fuel, and transfer potentially dangerous technology,
including a centrifuge plant for fissile material. Washington became alarmed.
It got the Yeltsin government to back out, but Iran's efforts continued
with Russia supplying nuclear fuel, and it still does.
-
- Earlier in 2002, the National Council of Resistance of
Iran (NCRI - the opposition parliament in exile) claimed the country was
pursuing a secret nuclear weapons program - including a Natanz uranium
enrichment facility and an Arak heavy water one. US - Iranian confrontation
followed using Iran's nuclear program as pretext. Here's what's really
at issue:
-
- -- Iranian sovereignty;
-
- -- its independence from US control;
-
- -- its immense proved oil reserves - third or fourth
largest in the world by most estimates; also its vast proved natural gas
reserves - ranked second largest in the world after Russia;
-
- -- America's resolve to control and have veto power over
them;
-
- -- Big Oil's desire to profit from them;
-
- -- Iran's size and location in the strategically important
Middle East; its chokehold over the Strait of Hormuz through which millions
of barrels of oil flow daily - about 20% of world production of around
88 million barrels;
-
- -- its strategic ties to Russia and China on energy,
other commercial, and weapons deals; both countries are Iran's largest
foreign investors; Iran has vital security ties with them as well;
-
- -- these relationships' spillover for control of Eurasia
and the Caspian region's vast oil and gas reserves through two organizations
- the Asian Security Grid and more important Shanghai Cooperation Organization
(SCO) as a counterweight to an encroaching US-dominated NATO;
-
- -- its power and influence in a region the US and Israel
want to dominate; and
-
- -- the immense power of the Israeli Lobby to influence
US policy, including a possible war on Iran or minimally the harshest measures
just short of one.
-
- Congress On Board with the Israeli Lobby
-
- At AIPAC's June 2008 annual conference, most congressional
members (over 300 attended), the leadership, and both parties' presidential
candidates expressed uncompromising support for Israel. They also backed
harsh sanctions against Iran and even war if they prove ineffective.
-
- For its part, AIPAC's action agenda urged:
-
- -- stopping Iran's nuclear program; getting Congress
to pass HR 362 and the Senate's equivalent SR 580; "calling on the
administration to focus on the urgency of the Iranian threat and to impose
tougher sanctions on Tehran;"
-
- -- urging the Senate to pass the Iran Counter-Proliferation
Act of 2007 (S.970) - "to enhance United States diplomatic efforts
with respect to Iran by imposing additional economic sanctions against
Iran, and for other purposes;" on September 25, 2007, it passed the
House overwhelmingly; the Senate Finance and Banking Committees passed
key provisions of the Senate version in two Iran sanctions bills;
-
- -- supporting the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of 2007
(HR 2347) that "authorize(s) State and local governments to direct
divestiture from, and prevent investment in, companies with investments
of $20,000,000 or more in Iran's energy sector;" and
-
- -- urging additional aid for Israel as the president
requested, "support(ing) Israel's quest for peace, (and) press(ing)
the Arab states to do more to support Israeli-Palestinian talks."
-
- An earlier August 14, 2007 AIPAC "Issue Brief"
is titled "Iran's Support for Terrorism." It claims that:
-
- -- "the radical regime in Iran has sponsored terrorism
against the United States, Israel and the West for decades;"
-
- -- the State Department designates Iran "the world's
leading state sponsor of terror, noting its support for groups such as
Hamas, 'Hizballah' and Islamic Jihad;"
-
- -- Tehran also sponsors the "insurgency in Iraq,
supplied arms to the Taliban and hosted al-Qaeda terrorists;"
-
- -- it also "relentlessly pursu(es) nuclear weapons
(and thus is) a particularly implacable and lethal regime;" and
-
- -- "only a sustained, unified international effort
to isolate and sanction Iran is likely to convince it to give up these
dangerous activities."
-
- The Bush administration agrees. So do most members of
Congress, the leadership, and both parties' presumptive presidential candidates
in speeches at the June AIPAC conference. Obama oozed obeisance - "speaking
from the heart as a true friend of Israel....when I visit with AIPAC, I
am among friends. Good friends....who share my strong commitment (that)
the bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable today, tomorrow,
and forever." Though far less eloquent, McCain was equally supportive.
-
- Obama assured attendees that he stands "by Israel
in the face of all threats..speak(s) up when Israel's security is at risk
(and voices concern that) America's recent foreign policy (hasn't) made
Israel more secure. Hamas now controls Gaza. Hizbollah has tightened its
grip on southern Lebanon, and is flexing its muscles in Beirut. Because
of the war in Iraq, Iran - which always posed a greater threat to Israel
than Iraq - is emboldened and poses the greatest strategic challenge to
the US and Israel in the Middle East in a generation....We must isolate
Hamas....Syria continues its support for terror and meddling in Lebanon
(and) pursu(es) weapons of mass destruction....There is no greater threat
to Israel - or to the peace and stability of the region - than Iran. (It)
supports violent extremists....pursues a nuclear capability....and threatens
to wipe Israel off the map....my goal will be to eliminate this threat."
-
- AIPAC attendees loved it and his receptivity to attacking
Iran. McCain's comments no less plus his bad humor earlier in singing "bomb,
bomb Iran" to the tune of a popular song on a May campaign stop. At
AIPAC, he was just as supportive as Obama, wants increased military aid
for Israel in FY 2009, and "foremost in (his mind) is the threat posed
by the regime in Tehran....The Iranian President calls Israel a stinking
corpse....it uses violence to undermine Israel in the Middle East peace
process....(it supports) extremists in Iraq (killing) American soldiers....remains
the world's chief sponsor of terrorism....(and its) pursuit of nuclear
weapons poses an unacceptable risk, a danger we cannot allow" with
clear implications of what he means and what he may do as president.
-
- Christians United for Israel (CUFI) on the "Iranian
Threat"
-
- Along with the Israeli Lobby, Bush neocons, and most
Washington officials, Christian extremists from organizations like CUFI
cite the "Iranian threat" as a recurrent theme, the country's
hostility to Israel and desire to "eliminate" the Jewish state,
the danger it may do so if it acquires nuclear weapons, and the need to
confront Iran preemptively - through sanctions, isolation and war if other
measures fail.
-
- Controversial Pastor and John McCain supporter John Hagee
is its founder and national chairman, and his influence is considerable.
He has 18,000 supporters in his San Antonio Cornerstone Church and far
more through CUFI and his global television ministry. His ideology is chilling,
and as the most powerful and influential American Christian Zionist, he's
a man to be reckoned with. He calls Muslims "Islamic fascists,"
claims they're at war with western civilization, and believes preemptive
countermeasures, including belligerent ones against Iran, are a proper
defense.
-
- As keynote speaker at AIPAC's 2007 conference, he called
Iran "the most dangerous regime in the Middle East (characterized
by its) cruel despotism (and) fanatic militancy. If this regime (acquires)
nuclear weapons this would presage catastrophic consequences not only for
my country, not only for the Middle East, but for all of mankind....The
fact that Iran is building nuclear weapons is beyond question....and they
may be the world's first 'un-deterable' nuclear power....So the danger
is clear and the question is what do we do about it...My message to you
is....divest Iran," impose sanctions, isolate the country, and if
these measures fail choose a "second course," the other two being
"nothing" or "non-military action." From his rhetoric
at AIPAC and fundamentalist preaching to his followers, it's clear which
one Hagee prefers and may get if enough others in high places share his
views.
-
- Israeli Defense Minister and former Labor Prime Minister
Ehud Barak may one of them. On July 30, he told top US officials that Israel
won't rule out a military strike against Iraq, but there's still time to
pursue diplomacy. Like other Israeli officials (past and present), he stressed
Iran's global threat so that for Israel "no option would be removed
from the table."
-
- Israeli Deputy Defense Minister (and possible next Prime
Minister) Shaul Mofaz stated similar views. In an August 1 speech to the
Washington Institute for Near East Policy (a pro-Israeli think tank), he
called Iran an existential threat, recommended diplomacy first, then added
"all options are on the table" to prevent Iran from developing
nuclear weapons - "as soon as 2010" as some in Israel claim.
-
- Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni (and Mofaz rival
for Prime Minister) may be one of them. On CNN August 3, she called for
a fourth round of sanctions against Iran and urged the world community
to support them. "Iran doesn't pay attention to talks," she said,
and "time is of the essence." On the same day, US spokesperson
for the US's UN mission, Richard Grenell, (in a Reuters report) voiced
the same view in saying "Iran has not complied with the international
community's demand to stop enriching uranium (so) the Security Council
(has) no choice but to increase the sanctions...."
-
- High Level US Opposition to War on Iran
-
- Key Obama foreign policy advisor and former Carter administration
National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, is one of them. In a Washington
Post March 2008 op-ed, he called the Iraq war a "national tragedy,
(demagogically justified), an economic catastrophe, a regional disaster,
and a global boomerang for the United States." Earlier in February
2007, in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he said
it was "a historic, strategic, and moral calamity. Undertaken under
false assumptions, it is undermining America's global legitimacy....tarnishing
(our) moral credentials (and) intensifying regional instability."
-
- He then laid out a "plausible scenario for a military
collision with Iran (based on) Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks, followed
by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure, then by some
provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the US blamed on Iran, culminating
in a 'defensive' US military action" in response. This would plunge
"a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually
ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan." Brzezinski's
remarks were an unmistakable warning that the Bush administration may try
to stampede the country into a calamitous conflict it must avoid, and it's
up to Congress to stop it. He also practically called Bush neocons a cabal
and warned Congress to be alert.
-
- Later last September, Brzezinski repeated the same warning
on CNN - that the Bush administration (Bush and Cheney mainly) is "hyp(ing)
the atmosphere (and) "stampeding" the country to war with Iran.
"When the president flatly asserts (Iran is) seeking nuclear weapons,
he's overstating the facts....we have very scant (supportive) evidence
(and after the Iraq calamity he) should be very careful about the veracity
of his public assertions." Based on his own experience in Afghanistan
in the 1980s, he's also very leery about "running the (same) risk
of unintentionally" falling into Russia's trap - overreaching, paying
"little regard for civilian casualties," turning Afghans against
us, and being defeated and forced out of the country.
-
- Brzezinski supports a less confrontational occupation
and had this to say about a McCain administration: "if his Secretary
of State is Joe Lieberman and his Secretary of Defense is (Rudy) Giuliani,
we will be moving towards the WW IV (counting the Cold War as WW III) that
they have been both favoring and predicting....an appalling concept"
he says must be avoided.
-
- It will be if global intelligence company Stratfor founder
and head George Friedman is right. In an August 4 Barrons interview (reported
on Iran's Press TV), he called Israeli war games and tough US talk geopolitical
head-fake leading to an "amicable endgame in Iran." Why? Because
given today's global economy, the alternative risks far outweigh potential
benefits. Besides, Iran poses at most a "negligible nuclear threat"
and nowhere near reason enough to go to war over.
-
- Further, Iran has helped reduce sectarian violence in
Iraq by reigning in Shia militias, and that's a key reason for lower US
casualties. Barrons noted that Stratfor has a record of making accurate
assessments and gained a large client base as a result. Friedman believes
the US and Israel are using psychological warfare to intimidate Iran to
make it more accommodative to their policies. He also says a major attack
would have grave repercussions for the global economy at a time when it's
most vulnerable. Iran's potential retaliatory strength might cripple a
sizable amount of world oil trade, cause prices to skyrocket, and exacerbate
an already shaky situation at the worst time.
-
- He says the Pentagon has war-gamed an attack, and believes
it can make short work of Iran's shore-based missile batteries and attack
ships. De-mining operations would take much longer. In the meantime, oil
prices could hit $300 a barrel, shipping insurance and tanker lease rates
would soar, and economic stability would collapse. In the near-term, it
would be "cataclysmic to the global economy and stock market."
-
- Up to now, two years of talks on Iran's nuclear program
have been more "Kabuki theater" than a real effort at serious
negotiation. In addition, Friedman says Iran is "decades away"
from developing a credible nuclear weapons capacity even if it intends
to pursue one. At best, in his judgment, it may be able to come up with
a crude device like the North Koreans managed and apparently tested in
2006. No reason to go to war over if he's right and one among many more
vital issues that influential American figures cite to oppose one.
-
- Pentagon Crosscurrents on Iran
-
- In late June, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Michael
Mullen, visited Israel - his second trip there since his October 1 appointment,
but this time with a clear (official US) message according to defense analyst
and former Pentagon official Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic
and International Studies (CSIS). It was that "the US did not give
the green light for an Israeli attack on Iran....George Bush made it clear
to all parties that the first option is diplomacy," and no attack
should be undertaken without White House approval. Mullen further suggested
that US policy likely will remain unchanged under George Bush, and that
future plans will be up to the next incumbent - a strong hint that cooler
high-level Washington figures know the folly of a wider Middle East war
and want no part of one.
-
- Nonetheless, there's no assurance they'll win out, and
analyst Michael Oren of the Shalem Centre told CBS News that Bush administration
officials assured Israelis that Iran wouldn't be allowed to develop a nuclear
weapons capacity with strong hints of an attack if one continues. Then
on March 11, CENTCOM commander William Fallon was sacked following reports
that he sharply disagreed with Bush administration Middle East policy.
On April 24 Iraq commander, and noted super-hawk, David Petraeus was named
to replace him, and following an easy Senate confirmation will take over
in September.
-
- In June 2007, another change of command occurred when
George Bush replaced Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace because of his public
disagreement over policy. On February 17, 2006 at a National Press Club
luncheon, he responded to a question: "It is the absolute responsibility
of everybody in uniform to disobey an order that is either illegal or immoral."
He later added that commanders should "not obey illegal and immoral
orders to use weapons of mass destruction....They cannot commit crimes
against humanity." Nor should they go along with wrong-headed illegal
schemes of remaking the Middle East and other regions militarily, but until
Admiral Mullen's comments to Israelis it looked like a compliant Pentagon
team was in place to pursue it.
-
- Whatever's ahead, it appears high-level opposition figures
have surfaced with practical (past and present) trilateralists among them.
Figures like Brzezinski, Jim Baker, Henry Kissinger, George Tenet, Paul
Volker, Jimmy Carter, George Soros, David Rockefeller, many other top business
executives, and even GHW Bush. Their concern over present policy is having
an effect, but there's no certainty about which side will prevail. However,
with Congress out until September, things are on hold, and time is fast
running out on a lamer-than-lame duck administration, according to some.
-
- Even The New York Times is sending mixed messages it
will have to clarify in coming weeks. In a June 10 editorial, it said:
"If sanctions and incentives cannot be made to work, the voices for
military action will only get louder. No matter what aides may be telling
Mr. Bush and Mr. Olmert - or what they may be telling each other - an attack
on Iran would be a disaster," implying it's wrong, won't work and
will devastate the economy. Then on July 18, it then gave Israeli historian
and apologist Benny Morris op-ed space for a vicious and Orwellian headlined
diatribe: "Using Bombs to Stave Off War."
-
- In it, he states "Israel will almost surely attack
Iran's nuclear sites in the next four to seven months (conventionally)."
Should that "assault fail to significantly harm or stall the Iranian
program....a nuclear (attack) will most likely follow." The world
has "only one option if it wishes to halt Iran's march toward nuclear
weaponry: the military" one by "either the United States or Israel."
But America is bogged down in two wars, and "the American public has
little enthusiasm" for more.
-
- "Which leaves only Israel - the country threatened
almost daily with destruction by Iran's leaders....Iran's leaders would
do well to rethink their gamble and suspend their nuclear program."
Otherwise, an Israeli attack "will destroy their nuclear facilities
(even though) this would mean thousands of Iranian casualties and international
humiliation."
-
- It's high time The New York Times (and other major media
voices) took a stand. Is it opposed to further regional conflict, or in
James Petras' words: is it for "the nuclear incineration of 70 million
Iranians and the contamination of the better part of a billion people in
the Middle East, Asia and Europe" plus an unimaginable amount of retaliatory
fallout with the entire Muslim world against the West and Israel.
-
- Yet a June 2008 Presidential Task Force on the Future
of US-Israeli Relations statement calls for "Cooperation on the Iranian
Nuclear Challenge" and to consider "coercive options" against
it, including embargoing Iranian oil and "preventive military action."
It was at the time Haaretz reported that Israel conducted large-scale exercises
(focusing on long-range strikes) "that appeared to be a rehearsal
for a potential bombing attack" on Iran. Statfor's George Friedman
downplayed them, called them "psychological warfare" saber-rattling,
not preparations for war, and why would Israel telegraph plans if that's
what it has in mind. In 1981, it gave no hint it intended to bomb Iraq's
Osirak reactor, and when it came it was a surprise.
-
- Other Crosscurrents
-
- For brief moments earlier, positive developments surfaced,
only to be swept aside by a torrent of anti-Iranian hostility. The Baker
Commission December 2006 report recommended engaging Iran and Syria "constructively"
and called for a "New Diplomatic Offensive without preconditions,"
all for naught. Then last December the National Intelligence Assessment
(representing the consensus of all 16 US spy agencies) concluded that Iran
"halted" its nuclear weapons program in 2003, and it remains
frozen, again without effect.
-
- At the same time, battle plans are in place under code
name TIRRANT for Theater Iran Near Term. And under a top secret "Interim
Global Strike Alert Order" and CONPLAN (contingency/concept plan)
8022, Washington may preemptively strike targets anywhere in the world
using so-called low-yield extremely powerful nuclear bunker buster weapons.
Iran is the apparent first target of choice, and US Naval carrier strike
groups are strategically positioned in the Persian Gulf and Mediterranean
to proceed on command.
-
- A recent May World Tribune report cited a second carrier
group in the Gulf and secret (approved but not implemented) US naval and
air plans for an Iran "counterstrike" in response to "escalating
tensions that would peak with an Iranian-inspired insurgency strike against
US" forces - that might easily be another Gulf of Tonkin-type incident.
So the question remains, are we heading for war or is it just "head-fake"
as George Friedman believes?
-
- Sy Hersh On "Preparing the Battlefield"
-
- On June 29 in the New Yorker magazine, Hersh reported
more crosscurrents and added to what's covered above. On the one hand,
Congress will fund "a major escalation of covert operations against
Iran," according to his high-level sources. As much as $400 million
will go to minority Ahwazi Arab and Baluchi dissident groups, to "destabilize
the country's religious leadership," aim for regime change, and gain
intelligence on Iran's "suspected nuclear-weapons program."
-
- The plan apparently involves stepped up covert CIA and
Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) operations authorized by a highly
classified Presidential Finding about which some congressional leaders
have little knowledge and have voiced concern. By law, party leaders and
ranking intelligence committee members must be briefed, but apparently
it's been done selectively.
-
- On the other hand, Hersh says Pentagon military and civilian
leaders are concerned about "Iran's nuclear ambitions," but disagree
"whether a military strike is the right solution." Some oppose
one, want diplomacy instead, and apparently Robert Gates is one of them
- a former Iraq Study Group member until he became Secretary of Defense
in December 2006. In late 2007, he apparently warned the Democrat Senate
caucus of grave consequences if the Bush administration preemptively attacked
Iran - saying it would create "generations of jihadists, and our grandchildren
will be battling (them) in America."
-
- Admiral Mullen also is "pushing back very hard"
against an attack along with "at least ten senior flag and general
officers, including combatant commanders" in charge of military operations
around the world. One of them is Admiral Fallon who lost his CENTCOM job
for opposing an attack even though he agrees on Iran's possible threat.
-
- Looking Ahead
-
- More good news for what it's worth. On August 2, tens
of thousands across the US and Canada protested against a possible attack
on Iran. On the bad side, unprecedented numbers, in vain, did as well ahead
of the Iraq war, but this time influential Washington figures support them.
-
- With Congress on recess, it's too soon to know what's
ahead, but one thing's for sure. Neocons still run things. Dick Cheney
leads them, and he claims Iran intends to destroy Israel, is developing
nuclear weapons, and is a "darkening cloud....right at the top of
the list" of world trouble spots and needs to be addressed (along
with Syria) as the next phase of "the road map to war." With
five months to go and heavy firepower to call on, he and George Bush have
plenty of time left (as this writer said earlier) to incinerate Iran and
end the republic if that's what they have in mind. Better hope they don't
or that cooler heads win out for a different way.
-
- Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre
for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at
lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
-
- Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com
|
