On 21 April 2008, the American Defence Secretary Robert Gates, told the West Point Military Academy’s cadets that they could expect “years of persistent, engaged combat all around the world” for — note well — “there are no exit strategies”.
At the Academy, much is made of their claim that “the history we teach was [and -- by extension -- is] made by people we taught”. Indeed, two days later one such alumnus who argues that the US “cannot win in Iraq, solely in Iraq” –- General David Petraeus, was appointed by Gates as the new head of Central Command.
In a previous post I outlined a whole series of developments that happened in March, which suggested the spectre of an attack on Iran.
Events in April, and now early May, amplify that threat.
Testifying last month in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Petraeus responded to Senator Joe Lieberman’s question as to whether Iran was “responsible for the murder of hundreds of American soldiers” by insisting, “It certainly is”. The following day, the general told a similar House Committee that the “special groups” that Iran funds are “the greatest long term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq.”
Subsequently, a whole range of dramatis personae have repeated what the rightwing pundit Pat Buchanan termed Petraeus’s “predicate for US air strikes”.
The Director of the CIA, the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and even the seemingly unrelated assistant secretary of state for the Western hemisphere, whose concern is Iran’s entente with South America, have all — despite the odd disclaimer about using force as a last resort — spoken menacingly.
So have sections of the press:
The Jerusalem Post states that according to intelligence reports, “Iran could have a nuclear weapon by the middle of next year”; The Washington Post says that “the proxy war in Iraq is just one front in a much larger Iranian offensive”; and Melanie Phillips – without any evidence whatsoever – sucks her thumb in The Spectator about Iranian trained sleeper cells “waiting for a signal” in, what she has previously called, “Londonistan”.
Then there have been the comments of a variety of former office—bearers.
Those forewarning us, like the erstwhile UN chief weapons inspector, Scott Ritter, who says that an attack on Iran is a “virtual guarantee”; and those frothing at the mouth, like the former US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, who recently told Fox News that bombing Iran would be “entirely responsible on our part”.
April also witnessed Israel undertaking its largest–ever drills, simulating missile attacks, while the US carried out something similar from 1 – 8 May.
(I note here, incidentally, the opinion of Newsweek’s Michael Hersh who considers that Jerusalem might want to take advantage of “the friendliest -– certainly the most compliant –- US government the Israelis have seen” and, before George Bush leaves office, fire the opening salvo).
And now we face, of course, yet another geopolitical crisis in Lebanon.
Such then are the harbingers of widening conflict. But can we see the wood for the trees? For as the blogger David Bromwich suggests, everyone’s talking about Iran but no one is talking about Iran.
Yes, Iran is involved in Iraq. But in ways that are more attenuated than presented in the dominant discourse.
Let’s not forget that Iraq is a Shia majority country and hence — as Saddam Hussein feared — Iran has a considerable, indeed organic, demographic influence.
A point seldom made is that both the US backed government and the militias have links to Teheran. Given these relationships it doesn’t make any sense, unless one’s motives are, of course, propagandistic, to speak of a “proxy–war”.
(The American journalist Nir Rosen, who decries this lack of objectivity in the media’s reporting, argues that the Iranians are more closely aligned with the government than –- the subjects of American concern — Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mehdi Army. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, for instance, trained the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Councils’ Badr militia that now constitute elements of the Iraqi army and police; and Prime Minister Nouri al–Maliki himself, and so many of the Islamic Dawa Party, were exiled in Iran and Syria).
Yes, Iran supports Hamas and Hizbollah. But these are locally rooted organisations and, whether we like it or not, they’re popular.
Even if Hillary Clinton was able to “totally obliterate” Iran, Zionist Israel would still exist and, consequently, so would its anti–Zionist opponents. (And by the by does Clinton’s comment not exceed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s statement that “the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the pages of time”?)
Yes, Iran is internally repressive. But then again so are the other dictatorships that America sees as its “moderate” allies in the region.
We should also note that it has not attacked another country since the 18th century, and that it was Saddam Hussein that launched the longest conventional war of the 20th century, the Iran–Iraq war.
(For an alternative and critical history seen through the eyes of an Iranian woman, try and see Marjane Satrapi’s 2007 Cannes-winning, animated film, Persepolis).
I have dealt previously with Iran’s cooperative and proactive stance in relation to the International Atomic Energy Agency’s and the Fissban Treaty’s suggestions that any high enrichment process or production of fissile materials, wherever in the world, be carried out under international control. I also noted then the United States opposition to the latter (Britain and Israel abstaining), and its undermining of its own National Intelligence Estimate that with “confidence” states that Iran has desisted from developing weapons.
Gates had the audacity to tell those West Point cadets, in words used verbatim in the build up against the Saddam regime, that Iran is a “destabilising force throughout the Middle East” and a “rogue nation … hell–bent on acquiring nuclear weapons”.
I say audacity, not just because of America’s illegal occupation of Iraq, its financing of Sunni militias, or its own violation of the Non–Proliferation Treaty, but because as a former CIA analyst, Melvin Goodman, points out, Gates is alleged during his often–controversial career in the CIA to have been directly involved in the selling of chemical weapons and cluster bombs to Saddam.
(Robert Fisk in his The Great War For Civilisation describes how when the Iraqis dropped gas on Halajaba, killing more than 5 000 civilians, the CIA “still supporting Saddam” sent a briefing note to US embassies in the Middle East, stating that “the gas might have been dropped by the Iranians”).
Goodman said of Gates at the time of his nomination to replace Donald Rumsfeld: “Here is a nation that went to war with politicized intelligence, and now it’s naming…. someone who was the most important practitioner of politicised intelligence in the history of the CIA. So, as Yogi Berra [a Major League Baseball player known for his malapropisms] would have said, “This is déjà vu–vu all over again”.
And it’s not just the defence secretary who’s engaging in this redux:
Joe Lieberman and John McCain have both conjured up –- as did Bush about Saddam — the metaphysically nonsensical: Al Qaeda’s existence in Iran.
Yes, McCain retracted one of those statements in Jordan, as a result, ironically enough of the intervention of Lieberman, who then repeated the gaffe in a later interview last month. But the point is: Iran is now being represented as if it were the new Al Qaeda.
Never mind that the Iranians helped broker the recent ceasefire in Basra –- that’s now used against them as indicative of their primarily evil influence!
With all this deceit and hyperbole — war, indeed, seems inevitable.
It is funny how often propaganda comes to the fore since it was so effectively used by Hitler. Again in this case, as many times before, we are reminded of the fact that a lie repeated often enough, becomes a big lie, believed by so many, and used as the excuse to do something, in this case war.
Iran recently announced they would no longer accept US$ as payment for oil (due to $ devaluation), so no surprise the rhetoric is being ramped up to justify a war …
Chris in your own words you say “not just because of America’s illegal occupation of Iraq” ; but is this not a moot point? After all is any country “legally” occupying any teritory? Who owns the land? Control or occupation of any teritory is the root of 99% of all conflicts on this planet. “Outsiders” will always want to claim back what they think they have been denied and it could be argued that this is the root of so called terrorism. If animals were indeed the superior species what would they claim as territory (or would they even bother seeing as how we as a planet can’t even agree?). By way of example who owns Marion Island, and who would own it if it was discovered to be rich in some scarce resource? Who has right of ownership of the American continent (yes the Americans, but what singular ethnic trait can be described as truly American?) By their own admission, they are a nation that encourages you to bring them your “waifs and strays”, but obviously does not think people South/ West or East of it’s border are worthy of this description. Is it not time for us as a planet to disband the absurdities of border and regional control? What legitimacy would any country have if the whole planet refused to recognise the legitimacy of nationhood? We are stuck in the 21st century equivalent of Feudalism, but yet most of us are blind to it. As with Feudalism we are denied true freedom of movement, and are locked into serving a localised elected leader (who more often than not is making him/herself rich on the fat of the land).
On a lighter note, do you think that Cheney etal will start a pre-emptive strike on this boy?
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/mar/radioactive-boy-scout
The ‘they have weapons of mass destruction’ excuse (lie) for invasion seems to be rearing its ugly head again.
People need a face for most of their fears. The americans already are spooked by their own shadows. Now bush is supplying them the candy they need so he can continue with his war games.
just history repeating itself, nothing new. and the rest of the world rolls over and is happy to have Bush and his lackeys scratching their bellies…”Good Dog”
it makes me sick to the core
The Iranian Oil bourse opened in Feb this year (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Oil_Bourse) this is the real reason why Iran needs to be attacked. They a threat to the american dollar!
Iran is supposed to be a threat because they COULD produce WMD and fund terror organisations; the irony being that that America does the same in countries around the world, funding and arming goverments, militias, etc to do their dirty work.
wrt to WMD, America stands by Israel when she says she has a right to defend herself… does Iran not have this right as well? Clearly Iran is currently under more threat of being attacked and can justify needing mechanisms of protecting herself.
Here’s a twist
Armagedon – the armies came from the east.
Now most US troops in the middle east arrive from the Pacific, not the Atlantic.
Owen I see you’re referencing authorotive and undisputed factual texts (a.k.a. the bible) in your quest for truth in a greater global conspiracy theory
owen on May 13th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
If you think that is interesting then you should take a Bible and read Daniel 8. It is a vision about the the destruction of the kings of Media and Persia.
Why is that important? Well ancient Media is Iraq and ancient Persia is Iran.
It describes a king coming from the west so feriously that he didn’t touch the ground and destroyed the kings.
And this is a sign of end times that are approaching.
Media of Iraq has been destroyed by a force from the west now it is just Persia aka Iran that is left and America is allready hinting that Iran is on their hit list. As they are supporting the uprising. Oh by the way Afganistan is part of the Persian Empire. So in part the vision of Daniel is not far from complete.
Funny how a vision 2500 years ago is coming true. And that the document was preserved for us today.
Make you think that there is something bigger than us at work in the world doesn’t it?
Do any of you like think this means anything:
“I had a dream, I had a vision” …Koos Kombuis -elke boemelaar se droom
So Wilhelm, somebody smoking a spliff 2500 years ago and coming up with a vision now becomes significant? Sounds more like co-incidence to me, but then again Some Rasta told me the Haile Selassie was going to rise again -It’s just a question of when!
There are a number of points in this article by Chris Rodrigues that I would like to address.
1. Iran does indeed support Hamas and Hezbollah. Both of them are terrorist organisations.
2. Iran attacked Iraq on July 13 1982 after Iraq had completely withdrawn all its forces from Iran, thus prolonging the Iran-Iraq conflict.
3. Iran did not broker a ceasefire in Basra. Instead it issued orders to the Sadrists to withdraw.
4. If Iran develops nuclear weapons, it will supply its proxies with them who will deploy them against Israel and whoever else stands in their way.
5. What the US does in respect of Iran, largely depends on who wins the presidential election. McCain is most likeliest to prosecute a war against Iran. Clinton will bluster but refuse to commit to an actual invasion. Obama will talk with them and get the Iranians to agree to a whole lot of things, all of which they will renege on. The most Obama will do is call for sanctions.
If Iran is allowed to continue unchecked, they will wage war on Israel which will lead to WWIII.
Accordingly, I prefer a US president who will invade and occupy Iran.
Richard Catto, I am always the first person glad to hear that we have moved on from deluded visionary prophecies, but to the certainty of WWIII? -WOW! I always knew that the best way to stimulate an economy is through war, especially in light of the curremt global economic downturn, but isn’t WWIII stretching it a bit far even for those sucking in the whole Bible prophesy thing as proof?
I agree in most part with Ricard Catto but I have to point something out about point 4 and 5.
In point 4 he states that “If Iran develops nuclear” It is not a matter of “if” but “when”. Iran is allready building nuclear “powerplants”. Well then a is just a hop away from nuclear weapons. As these powerplants produce weapons grade uranium. The best part is that they don’t even hide it… The hate between the Muslims (Not all, but the radical) and Israel is a clear fact. They will go to any lenghts to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Even if it means killing themselfs in the process.
And at point 5 I would like to say. If Iran is a nuclear power or near to be one, do you think they will allow the world to dictate oil prices? If there is a war in Iran it will be due to the Nuclear threat and the danger to the American economy if Iran starts to dictate oil prices. Our current oil price hikes is a proof of the delicate balance there is in the oil industry. The oil of the east keeps the oil driven economies of the west running.
No president can afford to have the economics of his country ruined, therefore to protect themselfs eventually they will have to act.
Wilhelm, why is it that most people don’t want to dwell on the fact that Israel is occupying Palestine illegally? This is in contravention of international law and UN convention.
Palestinian civilians are killed on a daily basis. Israel is allowed to ‘defend’ itself but Palestine isn’t?
This is the one point about this mideast conflict which annoys me.
And america is feeding the Israeli war machine with millions of green, oil-dripping USD.
WW3 when it comes is about controlling the oil fields of the middle-east, nothing more nothing less.
Reminds me of an old Iranian Joke:
Iranian Diplomat: “What’s the difference between Iran and Iraq?”
American Diplomat: “Dunno”
Iranian Diplomat: “We’re the ones with the WMD’s”
@Trekboer: Obviously my ideas of what will or may happen in the future are imperfect. No-one has mastered the 100% correct forecast yet.
I think the idea of WWIII remains on our minds because it hasn’t happened (yet) and we have traditionally associated WWIII with the end of the world because WWIII has always implied nuclear exchanges which devastate most of the Earth. A very extreme type of global warming.
Right now I can’t see exactly the sequence of events that would lead to WWIII. It could take people by surprise like WWI did. An arch-duke was assassinated and within hours the world was at war. WWII was easier to predict. Traditionally, people have felt that the flash point to ignite WWIII will be events surrounding Israel.
Common to both WWI and WWII was that the declarations of war stemmed from alliances that dictated that if one country declared war on another, then her allies were bound to follow with their own declarations of war. For example, in 1941 after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, Germany declared war on the United States even before President Roosevelt had given his Infamy speech.
I think before Iran makes a nuclear device, Israel will launch a pre-emptive strike. That has been their unwavering position.
That attack by Israel could be the spark that ignites WWIII.
Richard Catto
This is not the first time that Israel has attacked a “Muslim”/ Arab nation, and certainly not the first time it has done so during a financial/ energy crisis. Think of the 6 days war, and the various other attacks on sovereign states (i.e. Lebanon).
Apart from the US/ UK aliance there is no other firm alliance of nations on the Western side. On the Arab side, the only alliance seems to exist outside of formal nation states. The Saudis and other Arab oil states value American buisness too much to Jepordise the aliance with war. The other Arab nations do not have the technology for resources to sustain a war against the US, so the only option left open is a large group of fragmented terrorist cells.
This is hardly the sort of situation that would prolong a war beyond a month, let alone dragging in large groups of nations for a so called World War.
I still don’t see any trigger factors. And if you’re thinking nuclear, the most likely scenario there would be a return to the MAD doctrine as no nation is willing to chance the case of loosing a nuclear war.
I would agree with you, Professor Emeritus, that nationalism is barbarism, but that does not mean we should – relativistically – draw no distinctions between aggression and defence. (You might in this regard be interested in what I have written about Israel and the “founding violence” of states per se.)
I would argue that it is self-evident that the Bush doctrine that you advocate, Richard, has made the situation in the Middle East only more precarious. Far from inaugurating a Pax Americana, it has given rise to an endless terror inflicted largely upon civilians. Let’s take Iraq: 600 000 dead in the first three years, 2 000000 internally displaced and as many abroad as refugees. (This it must be noted stands in contradistinction to the war profiteering of Halliburton, which – alone – has received an estimated $19.3 billion in single-source contracts for work in Iraq).
As it was counter-intuitive that Iraqis, despite their dislike of their previous regime, would not resist foreign occupation – only a fool would have recommended this course of action then, and only someone hard-hearted would do so now.
There is no evidence that Iran seeks a nuclear weapon. None.
Sixteen U.S. Intelligence Agencies produced a report at the end of last year that stated: “We continue to assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Iran does not currently have a nuclear weapon”. Furthermore, the NIE went on to say: “Tehran’s decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005”.
It should also be remembered that Iran’s supreme religious ruler has condemned, unambiguously, the existence of nuclear weapons in and of themselves.
You take issue with my description of Teheran brokering a ceasefire. Here’s how the McClatchy News reported it then:
“A major escalation of conflict between Iraqi government forces and Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army militia was halted when Iraqi parliamentarians from the government coalition negotiated an agreement with Sadr. This agreement was negotiated…in the Iranian city of Qom. The head of Iran’s Quds force – which the Bush Administration, at the urging of Senator Clinton, has designated as a terrorist organization – helped broker the agreement”.
Furthermore, as regards your second point: While Iran did launch an offensive into the Iraqi Majnoon oil fields, almost all the fighting in the Iran-Iraq War occurred on Iranian soil. In 2005 the Iraqi government, in fact, acknowledged that Saddam Hussein was the aggressor.
Lastly, in order to use the designation “terrorist” in a coherent – and not propagandistic – manner, one has to proceed from a definition and apply it objectively.
If we accept, say, the British government’s definition that: “Terrorism is the use, or threat, of action which is violent, damaging or disrupting, and is intended to influence the government or intimidate the public and is for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, or ideological cause” then as many have pointed out – the US, amongst other states, would be a primary culprit.
Be that as it may, Hamas and Hizzbollah are not products of some shady Shia Comintern but of Israeli aggression and occupation. They have indeed used terror in their campaign’s – and should be judged accordingly, but they are not the only one’s to do so – and herein lies the rub.
I believe that while war polarises, negotiation moderates:
Accordingly Israel should show a Solomon-like wisdom and reciprocate Hamas’s recent overtures towards recognition of the Israeli state, while Hizzbollah should also be constructively engaged.
You are quite correct that of all the presidential candidates Barack Obama currently rejects, in favour of direct talks, what he has termed George Bush’s “cowboy diplomacy”. There can be no doubt that, if he can withstand the pressures of the Israeli lobby, we would all be better for this paradigm shift in international relations – one that echoes, incidentally, previous calls for “dialogue” by the Iranian government.
Chris you’re repeating yourself
@Chris: The Western world also has an ulterior motive – the desire to put Islam, especially Islamic Fundamentalism, in its place.
I think most citizens of the Free World, myself included, would prefer never to ever fall under the power of an Islamic government.
Iran has threatened the lives and safety of citizens of the Free World and exerted its influence to reduce their enjoyment of their freedom of speech.
Those actions by Iran have generated significant negative sentiment towards them.
So the bottom line is that many citizens of the Free World would like to see Iran invaded and occupied and it’s tyranny overthrown regardless of whether or not they possess or intend to possess nuclear weapons.
I believe, however, that Iran is a rogue nation and that she threatens the Free World. I believe that Mossad’s intelligence report which states that Iran’s nuclear program may be more advanced than previously thought is probably accurate.
I choose not to place any faith or stock in Iran to negotiate in good faith. Countries who act in good faith do not threaten the life of a British author (Salman Rushdie) just because he wrote something about their religion that they don’t like.
That fatwa, which still stands, is alone justification enough for me to attack, invade and occupy and install a new government that will take its orders from me.
I would not tolerate such a country to be allowed to threaten my citizens. Not if I have the power to conquer them.
So Richard you’ve decided this on what proof exactly. I mean, what differs here from America’s acts of aggression. When has Iran invaded another nation and since when has a desire for nuclear energy been a deliberate proof of a rogue nation (and if so, how does R.S.A. then differ). Are you sure you’re not working part time as a hawk?
You don’t have to invade the country. Just cut off aid. They can’t do without it. The country is broke. That standing army costs a fortune.
Iran continues to defy UN demands that it cease enriching uranium. Israel’s rhetoric towards Iran is becoming increasingly threatening.
We are on the brink of war.
Reference:
Israeli minister threatens Iran
Richard
merely defying the Un is no proof of being a rogue nation. Even the US has made actions in deliberate contravention of Un mandates. If this were the logic, The old Russian republic would be classed as a rogue nation. They didn’t because they were quite literally too s*$% scared to even try. Rogue nations are only those that are weaker than the presumed power of the UN’s gaurdians (ie the security council).
Lyndall,
“Just cut off aid. They can’t do without it.”
According to the CIA, Iran received $105 million in foreign aid in 2005.
This figure is miniscule compared to Iran’s exports $83.99 billion f.o.b. (2007 est.) and imports $53.73 billion f.o.b. (2007 est.)
http://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html
Oldfox
Sorry – your figures are wrong. Their standing army is costing a fortune, and although they have crude oil – they don’t have enough, if any, refineries. Big protests long ago already about fuel cost increases. Sorry – I just can’t be bothered to spend hours looking this up. Not that important to me.
Lyndall
Wow. Now you’re claiming the US Central Intelligence Agency figures are wrong!
People will think you’re a nutcase.
Ancient Persia produced one of the greatest leaders of all time – Cyrus II.
During medieval times, Persia and the Muslims led
the world in several fields.
Iran’s university population swelled from 100,000 in 1979 to 2 million in 2006. Seventy percent of its science and engineering students are women.
Famous Iranian/Persian scientists of pre modern times
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Iranian_scientists
contemporary Iranian scientists, scholars, and engineers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_contemporary_Iranian_scientists%2C_scholars%2C_and_engineers
According to a study carried out by the – Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Iranian scientists and engineers in the United States own or control around $880 billion
Iran is greater than the mullahs. Unless the USA bombs Iran into the stone age, Iran may very well end up being a major world power. Persia was the world’s first superpower 2500 years ago.
Oldfox
The CIA’s figures show Iran got $ 105 million in aid in 1905. Why do you think they need aid? America does not need aid. Britain does not need aid. Sweden does not need aid. China does not need aid. So why does Iran need it?
No-one disputes there was culture in Ancient Persia(Iran), or in Ancient Italy (Roman Empire), or in Ancient Greece, or in Ancient Egypt (Pharoahs), or in Ancient China. So what? Where are they now?
They have scientists in Iran. Wow! Where do they not have them?
Surprise, surprise – they probably even have Coca Cola!
Lyndall,
If you understand some basic arithmetic and percentages, you would know that your statement was meaningless: “Just cut off aid. They can’t do without it.”
$105 million compared to $83.99 billion is NEGLIGIBLE – its just over 1%.
Why does SA receive aid? Why did China recieve aid of over $1 billion per year (until as recently as 2004?
Lyndall,
The point about the scientists and engineers in Iran, is that there are large numbers of them, and many of them are at the forefront of their fields. (as evidenced by the $880 billion that those based in the USA own or control).
By comparison, SA graduates very few scientists and engineers, and many of those who graduate, emigrate soon afterwards. So although the Iranian economy is not doing well, in terms of job creation and economic growth, Iran with a better government could enjoy high economic growth for many years, something that seems most unlikely for the SA economy these days.
SA has an appalling Human Development Index (121), and without taking any other factors into account (like emigration of skilled & educated people), this alone indicates that we are going to battle to uplift this country.
Iran’s HDI is not good, but at 94, its a lot better than South Africa’s. And with a HIV infection rate of a low 0.4% (almost half of Argentina’s rate, and same as France’s rate), Iran is not faced the HIV/AIDS time bomb that SA faces.
Iran’s future looked promising enough for MTN to spend about $5 billion just for a mobile license there.
One of the largest Jewish communities in the Middle East outside of Israel, is in Iran. Estimates of their numbers vary from 10 000 to 25 000. They are not persecuted, have freedom of religion, and have many synagogues in Iran.