|
|
Why Iran will lead to World War
3
"As President Bush scans the world's horizon
there is no greater potential flashpoint than Iran, the President and his
Foreign Policy team believe the Islamic regime in Tehran is actively pursuing
nuclear weapons." Chris Wallace, FOX News
by Mike
Whitney
08/08/05 "ICH"
-- -- The facts about
Iran's "alleged" nuclear weapons program have never been in dispute. There is no
such program and no one has ever produced a shred of credible evidence to the
contrary. That hasn't stopped the Bush administration from making spurious
accusations and threats; nor has it deterred America's "imbedded" media from
implying that Iran is hiding a nuclear weapons program from the IAEA
(International Atomic Energy Agency). In fact, the media routinely features the
unconfirmed claims of members of terrorist organizations, like the Mujahedin
Klaq, (which is on the State Depts. list of terrorist organizations) to make it
appear that Iran is secretively developing nuclear arms. These claims have
proved to be entirely baseless and should be dismissed as just another part of
Washington's propaganda war.
Sound familiar?
Iran has
no nuclear weapons program. This is the conclusion of Mohammed el-Baradei the
respected chief of the IAEA. The agency has conducted a thorough and
nearly-continuous investigation on all suspected sites for the last two years
and has come up with the very same result every time; nothing. If we can't trust
the findings of these comprehensive investigations by nuclear experts than the
agency should be shut down and the NPT (Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty) should
be abandoned. It is just that simple.
That, of course, is exactly
what the US and Israel would prefer since they have no intention of complying
with international standards or treaties and are entirely committed to a
military confrontation with Iran. It now looks as though they may have the
pretext for carrying out such an attack.
Two days ago, Iran's
Foreign Ministry spokesman formally rejected a plan submitted by the EU members
that would have barred Iran from "enrichment-related activities". Foreign
Minister Hamid Reza Asefi said, "The Europeans' submitted proposals regarding
the nuclear case are not acceptable for Iran."
Asefi did the right
thing; the offer was conspicuously hypocritical. The United States doesn't allow
any intrusive inspections on its nuclear weapons sites even though it is the
only nation that has ever used nukes in battle and even though it is developing
a whole new regime of tactical "bunker-buster" bombs for destroying
heavily-fortified weapons sites buried beneath the ground.
The US
is also the only nation that claims the right to use nukes in a "first-strike"
capacity if it feels that its national security interests are at
stake.
The NPT is entirely designed to harass the countries that
have not yet developed nuclear weapons and force them to observe rules designed
by the more powerful states. It was intended to maintain the existing
power-structure not to keep the peace.
Even so, Iran is not
"violating" the treaty by moving ahead with a program for "enriching uranium".
They don't even have the centrifuges for conducting such a process. The
re-opening of their facility at Isfahan signals that they will continue the
"conversion" process to produce the nuclear fuel that is required in nuclear
power plants. This is all permitted under the terms of the NPT. They temporarily
suspended that right, and accepted other confidence-building measures, to show
the EU their willingness to find a reasonable solution to mutual concerns. But,
now, under pressure from the Bush administration, the EU is trying to renege on
its part of the deal and change the terms of the treaty itself.
No
way.
So far, Iran has played entirely by the rules and deserves the
same considerations as the other signatories of the treaty. The EU
members
(England, Germany, and France) are simply back-pedaling in a
futile effort to mollify Washington and Tel Aviv. Besides, when Iran re-opens
its plant and begins work, the UN "watchdog" agency (IAEA) will be present to
set up the necessary surveillance cameras and will resume monitoring everything
that goes on during the sensitive fuel-cycle process.
Iran has
shown an unwillingness to be bullied by Washington. The Bush administration has
co-opted the EU to enforce its double-standards by threatening military action,
but that doesn't' conceal the duplicity of their demands. Why should Iran forgo
the processing of nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes if it is written right into
the treaty? Would Israel or Pakistan accept a similar proposal?
Of
course, not. Both countries ignored the treaty altogether and built their own
nuclear weapons behind the back of the international community. Only Iran has
been singled out and punished for COMPLYING with the treaty. This demonstrates
the power of Washington to dictate the international agenda.
Iran's
refusal puts the EU in a position to refer the case to the IAEA, where the board
members will make their determination and decide whether the case should be sent
to the UN Security Council. Whether the IAEA passes the case along or not makes
little difference. Bush, Sharon and the western media will exploit the details
in a way that condemns Iran and paves the way for a preemptive attack. The drive
to war will not be derailed by mere facts.
Iran has weathered the
media criticism and the specious claims of the Bush administration admirably.
They have responded with caution and discipline seeking reasonable solutions to
thorny issues. Never the less, they have been unwavering in defending their
rights under the NPT. This consistency in behavior suggests that they will be
equally unswerving if they are the targets of an unprovoked attack. We should
expect that they will respond with full force; ignoring the threats of nuclear
retaliation. And, so they should. One only has to look at Iraq to see what
happens if one does not defend oneself. Nothing is worth that.
The
Iranian people should be confident that their government will do whatever is
their power to defend their borders, their national sovereignty and their right
to live in peace without the threat of foreign intervention. That, of course,
will entail attacking both Israel and US forces in Iraq. Whether or not the US
actually takes part in the initial air raids is immaterial; by Mr. Bush's own
standards, the allies of "those who would do us harm" are just as culpable as
those who conduct the attacks. In this case, the US has provided the long-range
aircraft as well as the "bunker-busting" munitions for the planned assault. The
administration's responsibility is not in doubt.
We should
anticipate that the Iranian government has a long-range strategy for
"asymmetrical" warfare that will disrupt the flow of oil and challenge American
interests around the world. Certainly, if one is facing an implacable enemy that
is committed to "regime change" there is no reason to hold back on doing what is
necessary to defeat that adversary. So far, none of the terrorist bombings in
London, Spain, Turkey, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia or the US have implicated even
one Iranian national. That will certainly change. Iranian Intelligence has
probably already planned covert operations that will be carried out in the event
of an unprovoked attack on their facilities. Iran is also likely to become an
active supporter of international terrorist groups; enlisting more recruits in
the war against American interests. After all, any attack on Iran can only be
construed as a declaration of all-out war.
Isn't that
so?
If Iran retaliates against Israel or the US in Iraq, then both
nations will proceed with a plan that is already in place to destroy all of
Iran's biological, chemical and conventional weapons sites. In fact, this is the
ultimate US strategy anyway; not the elimination of the "imaginary" nuclear
weapons facilities. Both the US and Israel want to "de-fang" the Mullah-regime
so that they can control critical resources and eliminate the possibility of a
regional rival in the future.
In the short term, however, the plan
is fraught with difficulties. At present, there is no wiggle room in the world's
oil supply for massive disruptions and most experts are predicting shortages in
the 4th quarter of this year. If the administration's war on Iran goes forward
we will see a shock to the world's oil supplies and economies that could be
catastrophic. That being the case, a report that was leaked last week that Dick
Cheney had STRATCOM (Strategic Command) draw up "contingency plans for a
tactical nuclear war against Iran", is probably a bit of brinksmanship intended
to dissuade Iran from striking back and escalating the conflict.
It
makes no difference. If Iran is attacked they will retaliate; that much is
certain.
It is always the mistake of extremists to misjudge the
behavior of reasonable men; just as it is always the mistake of reasonable men
to mistake the behavior of extremists.
We should not expect the
Bush administration to make a rational choice; that would be a dramatic
departure from every preceding decision of consequence.
The
President of the United States always has the option of unleashing Armageddon if
he so chooses. Normally, however, sanity prevails.
When the bombs
hit the bunkers in Iran; World War 3 will be underway.
Mike Whitney
lives in Washington state. He can be reached at: fergiewhitney@msn.com