Mike Whitney: The Inevitable War with Iran


Richard Moore

From: "Westaway" <•••@••.•••>
Subject: The Inevitable War with Iran
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 20:53:04 -0700


The Inevitable War with Iran
Mike Whitney

 September 21, 2005

If Washington wants a war with Iran, there'll be a war with
Iran. That's the great lesson of the Iraq war; once the
decision is made, there's no turning back.

So, why are the main-players; England, France and Germany
stumbling over themselves trying to placate Bush as though the
conflict can be avoided? Threatening to bring Iran before the
Security Council won't alter the administrations plans one
bit. Like the Downing Street memo stated, "The facts and
intelligence were fit to meet the policy". It's the same here.
No amount of groveling from the EU-3 will appease Washington
once Tehran is in its crosshairs. The EU-3 would be better off
sending arms and ammunition to Iran so the people can defend
themselves once bombs start to fly.

We should consider the implications of preemptive war against
Iran before the situation begins to escalate. The Islamic
state has no nuclear weapons, no nuclear weapons-program, and
no verifiable evidence that it will be building nuclear
weapons in the future. In other words, the US is planning an
attack against a nation that does not even meet its minimal
requirements for aggression. There is no moral or legal
justification for such a war, just as there was no moral or
legal justification for the invasion of Iraq. Nevertheless, I
believe that the decision to attack Iran was made long ago,
perhaps even before the Iraq war; and that that will be
carried out in the very near future. The last obstacle was the
German election. The administration believed that Ms. Angela
Merkel would win a hands-down victory; putting a fellow neocon
in the drivers-seat of Europe's largest economy. It would be
like having Maggie Thatcher in Bonn. Merkel could be counted
on to support the expansion of NATO (which is, to say, the
extension of American power), to dismantle the social-welfare
system, energize the privatization processes, quash the
movement for an independent EU military, strengthen ties with
the US and Israel, and disrupt European solidarity. All this
fits within the Washington neocon vision of a balkanized,
free-market Europe operating as a subordinate to the US

If the US or Israel had attacked Iran before the German
elections, Ms. Merkel, who has promised to rebuilt the
trans-Atlantic relationship, would have taken a decisive
nosedive in the polls. As it turns out, the election results
were inconclusive and will probably not affect the storm
clouds that are gathering over Tehran.

The die is cast. There will be a war.

The media has already begun the steady drum-beat of specious
charges directed at the Islamic government. All of the major
news-providers (New York Times, AP, Washington Post, Night
Ridder etc) are now describing Iran as "defiant" or "thumbing
their nose" at the world community, or, worse, "out of
compliance" with prior agreements. Their new Iranian president
is described as a "hardliner" who is "fiercely anti-American"
These claims are normally accompanied by quotes from
unidentified sources who refer to a fictional nuclear-weapons
program that is just months away from developing the bomb.

It's all 100% bunkum. In fact, the world community is not
troubled by Iran's nuclear program at all. It is only the US
who would like to use the allegations that rattle-through the
propaganda system to justify another preemptive war.

Unlike the US, Iran does not have a history of territorial
aggression, is not involved in massively-destabilizing
colonial wars, does not abduct civilians from other sovereign
nations and torture them in foreign prisons, does not erect
monuments to human cruelty (Guantanamo) and fill them with
members of a target-religion.

Iran has no nuclear weapons program. That is not simply my
contention, but the judgment of the foremost nuclear
inspections team in the world; the IAEA. (International Atomic
Energy Agency) It was the IAEA that consistently disputed the
erroneous claims by the Bush administration that Saddam was
developing a nuclear weapons capacity. No such program existed
and there is considerable proof that the US knew the charges
were false.

For the last two years, Iran has willingly undergone the
strictest regime of "go-anywhere see anything" inspections of
any nation in the history of the IAEA. Even now they are eager
to admit the IAEA inspectors to all suspect locations and
allow them to set up their permanent video-cameras, so they
can assure the global community that they can be trusted to
comply with the terms of the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty)

What Iran refuses to do, and what every sovereign nation
should refuse to do, is accept rules mandated by the United
States especially designed for Iran. That, of course, is
precisely what is happening at present. Iran is IN COMPLETE
What the Bush team is demanding is that they forgo the
conversion of nuclear fuel to be used for peaceful purposes in
the production of nuclear energy for power plants. (This
conversion process does not create Weapons-grade plutonium)
This is their right under the terms of the treaty. For Iran to
accept less than what they agreed upon destroys the meaning of
the treaty, creates an apartheid-system of compliance, and is
a national humiliation. Why would Iran accept such an obvious
double-standard while the US is busy building a new regime of
bunker-busting nuclear weapons and threatening to use them
preemptively on Washington's myriad enemies?

Mission Objectives

The administration's goals in attacking Iran are simple and
straightforward. They hope to control Iran's vast petroleum
and natural gas reserves, disarm a regional rival to Israel,
prevent Iran from opening its own market for trading oil in
petro-euros, and manage the global energy market to maintain
US dominance over rising powers like India and China. This can
be successfully achieved by putting the regions' resources
under US control.

Whatever strategy the Pentagon has in mind, it certainly will
not duplicate the disaster that persists in Iraq. Israel will
probably lead the assault taking out the potential nuclear
sites with the US in a mop-up role; bombing the 45 chemical,
biological and conventional weapons facilities.

It won't be pretty and the margin for error is significant.

At the end of the day, the US will need to storm the oil-rich
Ahwaz region (perhaps, 90% of Iran's oil) and create the
rationale for a long-term occupation. There's no plan to
subjugate the 70 million Iranians who live beyond that region,
although the air-strikes will probably attempt to "decapitate"
the regime, so they may need to find new leaders. Time is
Running out

There are many signs that the US is drawing closer to a war
with Iran. It's clear from numerous reports that the
administration is conducting routine fly-overs of Iran, as
well as providing support to the disparate terrorist
organizations (MEK) that are fomenting rebellion on the

Just this week, Secretary Rumsfeld suggested that Iran was
behind the street violence that erupted in Basra when two
undercover commandos were arrested by Iraqi police. Rumsfeld
snappishly opined that Iran's involvement was "not helpful".

Is the Secretary really insinuating that the riot that broke
out after 10 British tanks and armored vehicles crushed the
walls surrounding the Basra jail, killing 7 Iraqis and
releasing 150 prisoners; was Iran's doing? Weeks earlier,
Rumsfeld made similarly feeble allegations about arms that had
been captured in house-to-house searches. "It is true," he
said, "that weapons clearly, unambiguously, from Iran have
been found in Iraq."

Clear to whom? We don't need to reiterate the litany of
Rumsfeld's fabrications to acknowledge that his claims are
suspect and probably designed to expand the regional war.

Why would Iran want to increase the ongoing chaos in Iraq?
Does it help Iran to have an unstable neighbor where, at any
moment, the war could spill over their borders? Or do the
Mullahs simply have a death-wish to be nuked by the United
States? Rumsfeld's claims are absurd. Iran does not want a

Cheney's Nuclear Review

A leaked document from the CIA attracted considerable
attention two months ago. Under orders from Vice president
Dick Cheney STRATCOM (Strategic Command) drew up contingency
plans for a "large scale air assault on Iran employing both
conventional an nuclear weapons." Understandably, the document
caused quite a flap leaving many to conclude that the
administration was considering a preemptive nuclear strike on
Iran. Surprisingly, however, the "leak" never produced any
reaction or recriminations from the White House, who simply
ignored its appearance in public.

Was it a planned leak?

Similarly, just last week all the major news outlets ran
stories about the Pentagon's draft of a US nuclear doctrine
that spells out conditions under which US commanders might
seek approval to "preemptively" use nuclear weapons. The
document entitled Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations" was
prepared for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and sent shock-waves
through the country.

Would the Pentagon really execute a first-strike initiative
against a non-nuclear country? What country would be the
likely target of such an attack? The answer is almost too
obvious to mention. Iran. (The document by the way, has been
mysteriously "disappeared" from the Pentagon site)

Both of these examples suggest that Washington is trying to
send a strong message to Tehran that the US will respond with
overwhelming (nuclear) force if Iran retaliates after the
upcoming "surgical-strikes". It is a clever strategy that
offers nearby Israel (who will presumably lead the attack)
some insurance that Iran will not strike back.

But, Iran will strike back; that much is certain. And, of
course, Iran has every right to retaliate if it is bombed in
an unprovoked act of aggression. The principles involved in an
Iranian response are clear enough but they are worth reviewing
none the less.

Whatever one may think of the repressive Islamic regime, its
right to defend itself against unprovoked hostilities cannot
be challenged. Thus, Iran will be defending the principles of
sovereignty, self-determination, borders, and the right to
live in peace with their neighbors without the threat of
attack. These principles are the foundation-blocks upon which
the current world order rests. They are worth fighting and
dying for, as we shall soon discover.

I believe that the Mullahs will honor their obligation to
defend their people if they are attacked and will act

The history of warfare is a dismal chronicle of fatal
blunders. The administration can avoid this catastrophe, but I
don't think they will.

Courtesy & Copyright © Mike Whitney

If you find this material useful, you might want to check out our website
(http://cyberjournal.org) or try out our low-traffic, moderated email 
list by sending a message to:

You are encouraged to forward any material from the lists or the website,
provided it is for non-commercial use and you include the source.

Richard Moore (rkm)
Wexford, Ireland
blog: http://harmonization.blogspot.com/

Apocalypse Now and the Brave New World:

"Escaping The Matrix - 

Global Transformation: 
    "...the Patriot Act followed 9-11 as smoothly as the
      suspension of the Weimar constitution followed the
      Reichstag fire."  
      - Srdja Trifkovic

    There is not a problem with the system.
    The system is the problem.

    Faith in ourselves - not gods, ideologies, leaders, or programs.
cj list archives:

newslog list archives:
Informative links: