WWIII or Bust: Implications of a US Attack on Iran

[MORTARDUDE]

WWIII or Bust: Implications of a US Attack on Iran

By Heather Wokusch

Common Dreams

Saturday 18 February 2006

This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous... Having said that, all options are on the table.
- George W. Bush, February 2005
Witnessing the Bush administration's drive for an attack on Iran is like being a passenger in a car with a raving drunk at the wheel. Reports of impending doom surfaced a year ago, but now it's official: under orders from Vice President Cheney's office, the Pentagon has developed "last resort" aerial-assault plans using long-distance B2 bombers and submarine-launched ballistic missiles with both conventional and nuclear weapons.

How ironic that the Pentagon proposes using nuclear weapons on the pretext of protecting the world from nuclear weapons. Ironic also that Iran has complied with its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, allowing inspectors to "go anywhere and see anything," yet those pushing for an attack, the USA and Israel, have not.

The nuclear threat from Iran is hardly urgent. As the Washington Post reported in August 2005, the latest consensus among U.S. intelligence agencies is that "Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years." The Institute for Science and International Security estimated that while Iran could have a bomb by 2009 at the earliest, the US intelligence community assumed technical difficulties would cause "significantly delay." The director of Middle East Studies at Brown University and a specialist in Middle Eastern energy economics both called the State Department's claims of a proliferation threat from Iran's Bushehr reactor "demonstrably false," concluding that "the physical evidence for a nuclear weapons program in Iran simply does not exist."

So there's no urgency - just a bad case of deju vu all over again. The Bush administration is recycling its hype over Hussein's supposed WMD threat into rhetoric about Iran, but look where the charade got us last time: tens of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians, a country teetering on civil war and increased global terrorism.

Yet the stakes in Iran are arguably much higher.

Consider that many in the US and Iran seek religious salvation through a Middle Eastern blowout. "End times" Christian fundamentalists believe a cataclysmic Armageddon will enable the Messiah to reappear and transport them to heaven, leaving behind Muslims and other non-believers to face plagues and violent death. Iran's new Shia Islam president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, subscribes to a competing version of the messianic comeback, whereby the skies turn to flames and blood flows in a final showdown of good and evil. The Hidden Imam returns, bringing world peace by establishing Islam as the global religion.

Both the US and Iran have presidents who arguably see themselves as divinely chosen and who covet their own country's apocalypse-seeking fundamentalist voters. And into this tinderbox Bush proposes bringing nuclear weapons.

As expected, the usual suspects press for a US attack on Iran. Neo-cons who brought us the "cakewalk" of Iraq want to bomb the country. There's also Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, busy coordinating the action plan against Iran, who just released the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review calling for US forces to "operate around the globe" in an infinite "long war." One can assume Rumsfeld wants to bomb a lot of countries.

There's also Israel, keen that no other country in the region gains access to nuclear weapons. In late 2002, former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Iran should be targeted "the day after" Iraq was subdued, and Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the Likud Party, recently warned that if he wins the presidential race in March 2006, Israel will "do what we did in the past against Saddam's reactor," an obvious reference to the 1981 bombing of the Osirak nuclear facility in Iraq. It doesn't help that Iran's Ahmadinejad has called the Holocaust a myth and said that Israel should be "wiped off the map."

In the eyes of the Bush administration, however, Iran's worst transgression has less to do with nuclear ambitions or anti-Semitism than with the petro-euro oil bourse Tehran is slated to open in March 2006. Iran's plan to allow oil trading in euros threatens to break the dollar's monopoly as the global reserve currency, and since the greenback is severely overvalued due to huge trade deficits, the move could be devastating for the US economy.

So we remain pedal to the metal with Bush for an attack on Iran.

But what if the US does go ahead and launch an assault in the coming months? The Pentagon has already identified 450 strategic targets, some of which are underground and would require the use of nuclear weapons to destroy. What happens then?

You can bet that Iran would retaliate. Tehran promised a "crushing response" to any US or Israeli attack, and while the country - ironically - doesn't possess nuclear weapons to scare off attackers, it does have other options. Iran boasts ground forces estimated at 800,000 personnel, as well as long-range missiles that could hit Israel and possibly even Europe. In addition, much of the world's oil supply is transported through the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow stretch of ocean which Iran borders to the north. In 1997, Iran's deputy foreign minister warned that the country might close off that shipping route if ever threatened, and it wouldn't be difficult. Just a few missiles or gunboats could bring down vessels and block the Strait, thereby threatening the global oil supply and shooting energy prices into the stratosphere.

An attack on Iran would also inflame tensions in the Middle East, especially provoking the Shiite Muslim populations. Considering that Shiites largely run the governments of Iran and Iraq and are a potent force in Saudi Arabia, that doesn't bode well for calm in the region. It would incite the Lebanese Hezbollah, an ally of Iran's, potentially sparking increased global terrorism. A Shiite rebellion in Iraq would further endanger US troops and push the country deeper into civil war.

Attacking Iran could also tip the scales towards a new geopolitical balance, one in which the US finds itself shut out by Russia, China, Iran, Muslim countries and the many others Bush has managed to piss off during his period in office. Just last month, Russia snubbed Washington by announcing it would go ahead and honor a $700 million contract to arm Iran with surface-to-air missiles, slated to guard Iran's nuclear facilities. And after being burned when the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority invalidated Hussein-era oil deals, China has snapped up strategic energy contracts across the world, including in Latin America, Canada and Iran. It can be assumed that China will not sit idly by and watch Tehran fall to the Americans.

Russia and China have developed strong ties recently, both with each other and with Iran. Each possesses nuclear weapons, and arguably more threatening to the US, each holds large reserves of US dollars which can be dumped in favor of euros. Bush crosses them at his nation's peril.

Yet another danger is that an attack on Iran could set off a global arms race - if the US flaunts the non-proliferation treaty and goes nuclear, there would be little incentive for other countries to abide by global disarmament agreements either. Besides, the Bush administration's message to its enemies has been very clear: if you possess WMD you're safe, and if you don't, you're fair game. Iraq had no nuclear weapons and was invaded, Iran doesn't as well and risks attack, yet that other "Axis of Evil" country, North Korea, reportedly does have nuclear weapons and is left alone. It's also hard to justify striking Iran over its allegedly developing a secret nuclear weapons program, when India and Pakistan (and presumably Israel) did the same thing and remain on good terms with Washington.

The most horrific impact of a US assault on Iran, of course, would be the potentially catastrophic number of casualties. The Oxford Research Group predicted that up to 10,000 people would die if the US bombed Iran's nuclear sites, and that an attack on the Bushehr nuclear reactor could send a radioactive cloud over the Gulf. If the US uses nuclear weapons, such as earth-penetrating "bunker buster" bombs, radioactive fallout would become even more disastrous.

Given what's at stake, few allies, apart from Israel, can be expected to support a US attack on Iran. While Jacques Chirac has blustered about using his nukes defensively, it's doubtful that France would join an unprovoked assault, and even loyal allies, such as the UK, prefer going through the UN Security Council.

Which means the wildcard is Turkey. The nation shares a border with Iran, and according to Noam Chomsky, is heavily supported by the domestic Israeli lobby in Washington, permitting 12% of the Israeli air and tank force to be stationed in its territory. Turkey's crucial role in an attack on Iran explains why there's been a spurt of high-level US visitors to Ankara lately, including Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, FBI Director Robert Mueller and CIA Director Porter Goss. In fact, the German newspaper Der Spiegel reported in December 2005 that Goss had told the Turkish government it would be "informed of any possible air strikes against Iran a few hours before they happened" and that Turkey had been given a "green light" to attack camps of the separatist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) in Iran "on the day in question."

It's intriguing that both Valerie Plame (the CIA agent whose identity was leaked to the media after her husband criticized the Bush administration's pre-invasion intelligence on Iraq) and Sibel Edmonds (the former FBI translator who turned whistleblower) have been linked to exposing intelligence breaches relating to Turkey, including potential nuclear trafficking. And now both women are effectively silenced.

While the US public sees the issue of Iran as backburner, it has little eagerness for an attack on Iran at this time. A USA Today/CNN Gallup Poll from early February 2006 found that a full 86% of respondents favored either taking no action or using economic/diplomatic efforts towards Iran for now. Significantly, 69% said they were concerned "that the U.S. will be too quick to use military force in an attempt to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons." And that begs the question: how can the US public be convinced to enter a potentially ugly and protracted war in Iran?

A domestic terrorist attack would do the trick. Just consider how long Congress went back and forth over reauthorizing Bush's Patriot Act, but how quickly opposing senators capitulated following last week's nerve-agent scare in a Senate building. The scare turned out to be a false alarm, but the Patriot Act got the support it needed.

Now consider the fact that former CIA Officer Philip Giraldi has said the Pentagon's plans to attack Iran were drawn up "to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States." Writing in The American Conservative in August 2005, Giraldi added, "As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States."

Chew on that one a minute. The Pentagon's plan should be used in response to a terrorist attack on the US, yet is not contingent upon Iran actually having been responsible. How outlandish is this scenario: another 9/11 hits the US, the administration says it has secret information implicating Iran, the US population demands retribution and bombs start dropping on Tehran.

That's the worst-case scenario, but even the best case doesn't look good. Let's say the Bush administration chooses the UN Security Council over military power in dealing with Iran. That still leaves the proposed oil bourse, along with the economic fallout that will occur if OPEC countries snub the greenback in favor of petro-euros. At the very least, the dollar will drop and inflation could soar, so you'd think the administration would be busy tightening the nation's collective belt. But no. The US trade deficit reached a record high of $725.8 billion in 2005, and Bush & Co.'s FY 2007 budget proposes increasing deficits by $192 billion over the next five years. The nation is hemorhaging roughly $7 billion a month on military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and is expected to hit its debt ceiling of $8.184 trillion next month.

So the white-knuckle ride to war continues, with the administration's goals in Iran very clear. Recklessly naive and impetuous perhaps, but clear: stop the petro-euro oil bourse, take over Khuzestan Province (which borders Iraq and has 90% of Iran's oil) and secure the Straits of Hormuz in the process. As US politician Newt Gingrich recently put it, Iranians cannot be trusted with nuclear technology, and they also "cannot be trusted with their oil."

But the Bush administration cannot be trusted with foreign policy. Its military adventurism has already proven disastrous across the globe. It's incumbent upon each of us to do whatever we can to stop this race towards war.

--------

Heather Wokusch is a free-lance writer working on a book for progressives. She can be contacted via her web site at: http://www.heatherwokusch.com/.

[rotorwash]

I sometimes wish I didn't have a life so I could spend all of my time punching holes in inane word-dumps like this. Instead I am left with a life that only allows me to pull stuff in that I have tripped accross elsewhere.

First, my own comment simply because I know about it, the part about "Religious salvation" - what a load of crap.

In Christian theology there is the group that believes in end of the world destruction, but you can't find a group large enough for a decent pot luck that believe that anything they do will hasten it. On the other hand, in the mosque at Samarra that was attacked, are buried the 10th and 11th Imams. The 12th Imam mysteriously disappeared. He will return to usher in the Muslim world empire, but first chaos must be created. The group currently in charge in Iran are Shia's who subscribe to this doctrine.

Can't believe anyone would actually quote WaPo for anything but the cartoons.

If this writer is writing for "progressives" I'm sure they can't wait until the Wright brothers get airborne.

Having said that, I offer this:

In Defense of Iran: Eyes Wide Shut
Dangerous Folly from the Willfully Blind
By Steve Schippert
Let me ask you a question: Is terrorism a major threat?

Let me ask you another question: Is the world?s foremost state sponsor of terrorism then, logically, also a threat?

Why is it then that, with regards to Iran?s largely clandestine nuclear program, some insist on justifying the Iranian program as a matter of fair and just self-defense? Why is it that the decades of global carnage generated by the regime behind the sprint toward nuclear weapons is forgotten - nay seemingly forgiven ? in misguided and persistent nihilistic attempts at laying the horrors and misgivings of Iran?s reign of terror squarely upon America?s doorstep?

In Why Iran Wants a Bomb, Richard Reeves does precisely that. He opens with a simple question, offers a simple answer, and then attempts to justify it with clouded and illogically nuanced moral equivalence.

Let me ask you a question: If you were running Iran, would you try to develop nuclear weapons? I would. Apparently the editors of the Los Angeles Times would also answer ?Yes.?

The lead editorial in Friday?s Times was comment on the release of the U.S. government?s latest ?National Security Strategy.? That?s the one in which President Bush?s introduction begins, ?America is at war,? and then goes on to specifically name Iran as an enemy of the United States. The document also reiterates the U.S. commitment to pre-emptive or preventive war.

Mr. Reeves is referring to an editorial titled Strategic Error in The Los Angeles Times, which was highly critical of the Bush Administration?s National Security Strategy - 2006.

Of course Mr. Reeves and those who think like him would build a bomb. He views the Iranian regime as benign?or at least they would be if it weren?t for such aggressive and provocative words from the American President.

One wonders where Mr. Reeves has been spending his time for the past 27 years since the 1979 Iranian revolution that swept a brutal theocratic dictatorship into rule. Perhaps he missed the torture, imprisonment and slaughter of thousands of Iranians who dared (and dare) to merely speak in opposition to their leadership, just as he does comfortably and without fear.

Perhaps he missed the Iranian creation of Hezbollah. Quite possibly, then, he also missed the bombing of the American embassy and the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, with a combined 341 killed, not all bodies fully recoverable. Escaping him also must have been the kidnap and often torture and murder of 18 Americans between 1982 and 1991, the hijacking of a TWA Flight 847 and the murder of an American Navy diver on that flight for the crime of being an American Navy diver.

He must have also missed the bombing of the American embassy annex in Kuwait City in 1983. Four more bodies to avert his eyes from.

Buenos Aries? Surely he caught those bombings. An Israeli embassy and a Jewish-Muslim Mutual Association building. Both blown to bits through the long arm of Iran?s Hezbollah.

The 1997 Khobar Towers bombing had Iranian fingerprints all over it, and its investigation revealed Iranian fingerprints back to the 1995 Riyadh bombing of an American military complex. All told, 26 more shattered corpses to overlook.

Curiously missed must have been the September 1997 Tehran conference of ?Liberation Movements?. The purpose: Cooperation and coordination of the various disparate Islamic terror groups for a concerted jihad effort worldwide. Iran brought around one big table the leadership of Iran?s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, their child Hezbollah, as well as Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command, and a certain Egyptian by the name of Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Just five months later, in February of 1998, that same Egyptian and Osama bin Laden created the International Islamic Front for Jihad Against Crusaders and Jews, with al-Qaeda serving as its backbone - following the cooperative vision inspired at least in part by the Tehran conference.

Perhaps he missed that and all that followed.

The world?s 4th leading oil exporter is undeniably the world?s 1st leading exporter of international terrorism. This point cannot be argued, it can only be missed. Somehow.

It is, after all, America?s fault. If we would simply not fly in planes, not work in embassies, house our military in barracks, go to work in skyscrapers or write National Security Policies that dare to stand tall and resolute in defense of such daring ventures as these.

So, Mr. Reeves would build a nuclear bomb if he were running Iran. The aggressive words of President Bush would compel him to do so and, of course, clearly notwithstanding are the murderous actions of the state he would be running.

[reconeil]

ALL VERY GOOD QUESTIONS!!!

You do yourself and North Carolina (America also) quite proud.

Neil

P.S. Still, isn't it just too bad that most leaders/rulers/politicians of whatever fanatical BENT in America,...don't also put such questions forward? Usually quite the opposite and/or non-stop political bull is the norm.

[Seascamp]

Let?s see, Iran has medium range rocket airframes, engines, warhead enclosure, all courtesy North Korea. Then they have a cascade centrifuge set up, lots of yellow cake, their head Ayatollah speaks openly of an Iranian initiated nuke attack and so does their Pres. There is no R & D happining, they have Pakastani engineers who have done it all before so they are set up to fast track the rest of the way.

So by what logic does Heather Wokusch claim all this is false and Iran is not to be believed? Iran has a long history of large scale internal butchery and in my opinion, has no compunction about spreading this large scale killing around. I?d agree there is a drunk loose behind the wheel, but not the one being accused.




Scamp

[colmurph]

Gee, I hope they telivise it! Bet it will be better than any 4th of July Fireworks Display ever put on. I'd love to watch the Iranians fry! Then it will be the Saudi's turn to crisp.