by Geov Parrish
Geov Parrish [PHOTO LEFT] is a weekly columnist for the Seattle Weekly and for the national site, WorkingForChange. He posts regularly at Eat the State! blog. Geov is now a regular contributor to BoomanTribune.com, and looks forward to your comments so he can respond to you. His full, fascinating bio is below.
________________________
In the four and a half years since 9-11, critics of the Bush administrations aggressive foreign policy have been playing defense. The invasion of Afghanistan, overthrow of the Taliban, and subsequent near-abandonment of that country to its vicious warlords and drug barons (generally the same people) have been all but ignored. Were approaching the third anniversary of the illegal invasion of Iraq, an invasion that we now incontrovertibly know was sold with egregious lies and planned and executed with stunning incompetence. Even after three years of ever-escalating anti-American and inter-religious violence in Iraq, the White House is as divorced from reality in its public pronouncements as ever, and the domestic so-called opposition is as ineffectual as ever. Meanwhile, a host of other War on Terror failures — from the appalling escape of Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora to the U.S.-fueled rise of Islamist parties in elections across the Middle East to 9-11 itself — mark the Bush administration as perhaps the most incompetent managers of American (let alone global) security interests in modern history. What more could go wrong?
Plenty. Brace yourself for a big new war. And start working now to prevent it. It can be done.
As incomprehensible as it might seem to most Americans in the wake of its Iraq failures, the Bush cabal is pushing full speed ahead for a military attack on Iran, perhaps as soon as next month. … continued below …
For the last year, it has been diligently laying the groundwork, trying (mostly unsuccessfully) to use the International Atomic Energy Agency as a bully pulpit to portray Iran as a country intent on illegally developing nuclear weapons. The IAEA hasnt bought it thus far, due mostly to a notable lack of evidence, but the campaign has done two things: it has enraged and emboldened Irans hardliner cleric leadership, and it has planted the idea of Iran as an axis of evil rogue state firmly in the mind of the American public, the only audience in the world the Bushies really care about.
Even so, the IAEA/nuclear Iran rumblings have been background noise to most Americans, noise lost in a year of White House scandals and disasters. There has been no real groundswell of support for an attack on Iran — but there has also been no serious opposition so far. The topic simply isnt on most Americans radar. But it is very clearly on Bushs.
Domestically, we already know — because Karl Rove told us — that Republicans plan to make fear, terror, and national security the lynchpin of their midterm electoral strategy this year. Its hard to imagine their doing so with the thin, familiar gruel of Iraqs failures and a year-old NSA spying scandal. To make such a strategy work, Republicans will need a good, fresh example of their supposed stalwartness in the face of criticism. Like an attack on Iran.
Internationally, the Bush White House would like nothing better than to behead the rising Islamist tide that has swept through recent elections in Iran, Iraq, Egypt, and, most explosively, now Palestine. The radical clerics in Tehran are not only the spiritual fathers to this revolution, but are directly tied to the new Shiite-dominated Iraqi government and to the Palestinian resistance; Washington wants regime change in Iran. It preferably wants regime change before Tehran follows through on its threat to convert the currency in which it sells its oil from dollars to euros a precedent-setting move that could have dire global consequences for the dollar as the international currency of choice, and, hence, ugly long-term consequences for the debt- and trade-deficit-riddled American economy. Fortunately for Bush, the case for military action need not involve such inconvenient truths. Even after the embarrassment of Iraqs nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, to the Bush White House Irans alleged nuclear weapons program provides an ideal excuse for intervention.
At least initially, few expect the U.S. to launch an actual invasion of Iran. Much more likely is a strike by some combination of U.S. and Israeli forces, using U.S. intelligence, on some 40 sites identified as key to Irans developing nuclear energy (and possibly weapons) program. Such a strike wouldnt be easy; the sites are widely scattered, often deeply buried, well-defended, and most are located in densely populated areas. Iranians learned from the Israeli strike on Iraqs developing nuclear program in 1981. There is thus talk of the use of American bunker-busting bombs, hundreds of which were provided recently to Israel.
Any attack on Iranian facilities would surely be answered, and probably escalated. And if war escalates, there is another prize: Irans massive oil reserves, 90 percent of which are massed in one province along an Iraqi border crawling with U.S. troops.
The problem, of course, is that Iran is no Iraq, with a hated regime, crippled by decades of war, bombings, no-fly zones, and economic sanctions. The Tehran regime, for all its religious oppressiveness and rhetorical belligerence, has popular support, especially in the face of American (or Israeli) aggression. The savage American-installed Shah dictatorship (which was overthrown by the revolution in 1978) is still remembered and despised. Iran is a much larger, more populous, and more prosperous country. Its military is well-equipped; invaders cannot roam the skies unchallenged. Any attack on Iran would have even less international coalition of the willing support than the invasion of Iraq did. And Iran has links with terror groups around the world happy to target U.S. facilities.
Most importantly, Iran shares borders with both Iraq and Afghanistan. Just as it would be easy for American troops to cross from neighboring countries into Iran during any hostilities, Iranian and pro-Iranian forces could easily make U.S. forces lives hell in the already-tenuous situations of the two countries.
In other words, what Bush is playing with — practically unnoticed by the American public — is a conflagration that could involve Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, and the entire Middle East, and perhaps beyond. It has the potential to dwarf (on all sides) the body count thus far in Afghanistan and Iraq; inspire further generations of terrorism and anti-Ameican jihadism; severely damage the American economy; and decimate an American military already stretched thin and reeling from a badly mismanaged, relatively low-intensity insurgency in Iraq.
Why risk it? Stopping Islamism, oil, short-term domestic politics, and Iranian regime change, in that order. With their PNAC dreams of remaking the Middle East, it just might be too much of a honey pot for Bushs hawkish neo-cons to resist. The only minor complication is that such an imbroglio is not only by definition unwinnable, but is likely to be disastrous — to the point where it could end Americas status as a global superpower. (Which might well be a good thing, but for the horrific loss of mostly civilian life it would entail.)
How can such an outcome be prevented? The most likely scenario has nothing to do with political opposition at all — it has to do with the willingness of Asian countries that covet Iranian oil, especially China, to countenance another U.S. military adventure. The U.S. is now so badly in debt to countries like China, Japan, and South Korea that while a limited raid is simple enough, any massive new military expenditure would literally require the Asian countries to be writing the checks, and theyre not about to do so for a war that threatens their own strategic interests. Bush may well be finding out the limits of a global empire erected on other peoples money.
But that scenario relies on stopping hostilities from expanding. To prevent them entirely requires domestic popular opposition. For a country already palpably tired of the Iraq war and wanting troop reductions (if not total withdrawal) there, a military incursion leading to a broader regional conflict will be pure madness. The only way it can play out politically for Bush is if it unfolds in stages. If a justifiable U.S. attack on nuclear weapon facilities leads to Iranian retaliation (which we, in turn, just have to respond to), such a war might float. If the probability of a broader and disastrous war becomes an issue ahead of time, the question then becomes the advisability — or foolishness — of the original raid. And especially in an election year, such public perceptions just might derail the whole thing.
Iran needs to become a political issue. It seems like a tall order, given the lack of Democratic leadership on anti-war issues and the unending swamp of Bush administration scandals and cock-ups revealed on what is essentially a daily basis. But consider the consequences of not acting.
The Bush administrations hostility to negotiation and the possibility of its attack on Iran, and the likely result, must be widely publicized. Now. Before its too late, and were stuck with another deadly disaster America will regret for generations.
_________________________
Geov Parrish has been a local and national political activist and grass roots organizer since the mid-’70s, in Oregon, Houston, Washington D.C., and, since 1990, in Seattle. He is a former broadcaster, punk rock singer, convenience store clerk, strawberry picker, and successful small business owner whose first regular political writing (other than songs and poetry) came with co-editing the national pro-feminist Activist Men’s Journal (1991-96) and co-founding the Native American community newspaper On Indian Land in 1991. In 1996, he founded, and has since continued to co-edit, the community newspaper Eat the State!.
ETS! led to an unexpected career as a political commentator, beginning with offers to write regular weekly columns in The Stranger (1997-98) and both column and feature writing in Seattle Weekly (since 1998). Since 2001 he has written from two to five columns weekly for Working Assets’ national web site, Workingforchange.com. His work has also regularly appeared in AlterNet, ZNet, Common Dreams, In These Times, Mother Jones, and on web sites and in newspapers, magazines, and anthologies across the country. Since 1996 he has also appeared each Saturday morning on Seattle’s KEXP-90.3 public affairs program Mind Over Matters, and also records short political commentaries each week which air on KBCS-91.3 and on other community radio stations around the country. He contributes regularly to the Eat the State! blog.
A lengthy, terminal illness led to an experimental (and successful) double-organ transplant in 1994. Assorted serious health complications, including a stroke, have continued. Geov lives in Seattle with his long-time partner, Gavin Greene, and the dog Kit, who actually runs the house.
= = =
Of course there will be a war. Only the timing may be different, because I believe that the attack will occur at the time Karl Rove deems most beneficial to the Republican Party re: the fall election.
Actually, the pattern of behaviour that we have seen to date suggests that this will not be the case at all. The big push towards the “military” solution in Iraq didn’t occur until after the 2002 mid-terms – although there’s no doubt that the “martial”, national security atmosphere engendered prior to November played well for the Republicans. The second Fallujah assault didn’t take place until after the presidential elections in 2004 – again, risk aversion in case things pan out badly.
I’m 98-99% certain that the US will not initiate any military moves on Iran this year – and certainly not in the run-up to an election which will be fiercely contested. There is no percentage in starting anything when you know that (1) the outcome and consequences are highly unpredictable and (2) that petrol prices will rise very rapidly the moment that any military action takes place.
I wouldn’t be surprised by an October war. I also think they will spend a great deal of time this summer generating propaganda for this “imminent crisis.” We’ll get to see Bolton pounding the table at the UN with his shoe, no doubt, when China and Russia refuse to authorize sanctions. Lots of damaging stories will be planted in US media alleging Iran has a bomb nearly made and fitted to an ICBM, quoting former Iranian scientists and/or dissident expat types.
Lieberman will probabaly contribute to the hysteria.
As for how long this has been in the works, I think if you look at PNAC publications you’ll realize the neocons have been contemplating Iran for some time.
And there appears to be agreement. The oil market, Condi, the accounting department. I will be surprised if there is a postponement. So much effort has gone into this already.
I don’t doubt the “sincerity” of neocon intentions with regards to Iran – although I suspect that manufacturing the wider consents for military action within the US will be an order of magnitude more difficult than it was for Iraq. There are, however, substantial problems with capacity, opportunity and the potential for the Iranians to make the problem bigger. I doubt that there could be any run-up to a military strike in which the Iranians didn’t pre-emptively up the ante in innovative and damaging ways. The cartoon wars should put everyone on notice that there’s an awful lot of people who are as mad as hell and ain’t gonna take it any more – and this is going to have a fairly serious effect on European, Arab and other governments who don’t want to see the simmering resentment crystallise around something substantive – such as yet another US attack on an independent Islamic country.
Another problem with regards to any military approach is that, Israel apart, there is no-one who is actually prepared to go down this route. The farce at the UN over the Iraq war came in a specific context of prior wars, sanctions and a variety of UN resolutions that had built up over the course of 13 years; there is no comparable history with regards to Iran, and there is no chance of an enabling resolution as far as military action is concerned. Bolton can shout all he wants over this – bu the best that he can get will be “notional”, limited sanctions that will be largely ignored; and he will be a lame duck at the UN by the end of this summer as he must either be confirmed by the Senate, or replaced in early 2007.
Now this may well be great for Republican pollsters in the run-up to an election – but that’s not the same as pulling a trigger and not knowing what the outcome will be – the US can’t tell whether it will hit the quayle or the lawyer, so to speak. I doubt that Karl Rove wants to see petrol prices at $10 a gallon in the run up to an election – it’s politically disastrous; and the US is one bad GoM hurricane away from an energy crisis this summer as it is.
You keep acting like we are dealing with reasonable people. In Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld clearly we are not.
It all depends on how serious a threat they view the new Iranian oil bourse as, doesn’t it? If they think some of the more dire predictions are true then they may regard even the horrible risks of an Iran adventure this spring as worth it since the alternative is that the dollar becomes the new peso and the American empire basically comes to a fairly swift end.
I’m not enthusiastic about our chances of stopping this war. Apparently 3/4 of the American Public supports military action against Iran.
Getting into a war is the easiest thing to do. Easier than passing legislation.
This is what they tried to do in Iraq, but Saddam didn’t take the bait. I’m not sure Iran will be so cautious.
Do you have something a little more substantial we could use to stop this war? Maybe I could write the Chinese embassy and ask them to stop funding us?
Do you have something a little more substantial we could use to stop this war? Maybe I could write the Chinese embassy and ask them to stop funding us?
Naw, that won’t work. I couldn’t make out all of the words but what I could get from Babblefish convinced me they said no.
😀
Before all this begins, we’ll obviously have to start going through the threat level warnings again. I expect to see a code orange coming down the road soon. Plus with elections coming up…..Well there’s another reason to up the threat level.
> Do you have something a little more substantial we could use to stop this war? Maybe I could write the Chinese embassy and ask them to stop funding us?
I really think public opinion is our best shot. It now favors military action against Iraq, but that’s very shallow support; most people haven’t thought about it much. The key, as I mentioned and another poster also broke down, is not to let them unfold it in stages: we bomb, they retaliate, the nation rallies to war. We have to start talking up, in an election year, what the nearly unavoidable consequences of that original bombing are: the regional war, the casualties, the legitimation of Islamist parties and terror groups across the Muslim world, $10 a gallon gas, all of it. If the public knows all that ahead of time, polls do make a difference.
We know the Security Council won’t go for anything; China and Russia would both veto. So we’re talking the U.S., Israel, and perhaps Britain against the world. Are they crazy enough to do it? Yeah, I’m afraid so. Unless we make the political cost simply too high. That’s our best hope.